(January 22, 2019 at 3:06 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Apathy and convenience masquerading as thoughtful restraint, lol.  

No apathy and convenience, the economic benefit etc.. seem too encapsulate it, not any thoughtful restraint. Judaism particularly in its early formation was quite tribal in its moral perspectives, and wasn't all that concerned with the welfare or treatment of others outside their tribe. Even jewish slaves were treated better than non-jewish slaves, etc....

(January 22, 2019 at 3:23 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 3:06 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Apathy and convenience masquerading as thoughtful restraint, lol.  

No apathy and convenience, the economic benefit etc.. seem too encapsulate it, not any thoughtful restraint. Judaism particularly in its early formation was quite tribal in its moral perspectives, and wasn't all that concerned with the welfare or treatment of others outside their tribe. Even jewish slaves were treated better than non-jewish slaves, etc....

HELLO MCFLY, every religion is tribal, Jews did not invent tribalism, nor do they own a patent on it. 

And again, SLAVERY was the norm unfortunately, in the age of kings, in antiquity, in both monotheism and polytheism.

Slavery existed in Rome, during it's polytheism, and even after it fell to Christianity, even the early Roman Christians owned slaves. 

Humans are tribal, if you leave it at that, I can agree with you. But as soon as you stupidly claim one label is better than another, that is where I will fight you tooth and nail.

The Jews of WW2 Europe WERE victims. Bibi is not, he is a bully. Just like Kurdish and Coptic Christians are victims in the east, but Trump supporters ARE NOT.

(January 22, 2019 at 3:23 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 3:06 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Apathy and convenience masquerading as thoughtful restraint, lol.  

No apathy and convenience, the economic benefit etc.. seem too encapsulate it, not any thoughtful restraint. Judaism particularly in its early formation was quite tribal in its moral perspectives, and wasn't all that concerned with the welfare or treatment of others outside their tribe. Even jewish slaves were treated better than non-jewish slaves, etc....

What economic benefit?  Slaves are famously labor inefficient.  What could a pool of slaves produce or do that a pool of free men cannot could not or has not?  Splitting the baby won't work here..there's just the one baby...and somebody wants to buy it.  



Yes, old magic book describes the chattel ethos of the people who wrote it - it does this by purporting to speak on the issue of a good and proper life as described by the law of god in relation to human ownership.  They were terrible assholes, lol.  Their god was..like them..a  terrible asshole. He could have simply said "hey, you terrible assholes, stop it with the slave trade". He did not. The apathy of the divine becomes the apathy of the adherent. They certainly believed that their asshole god endorsed slavery and left provisions to them regaring it;s practice.

You, today, apparently do not..but I'd like to see you establish how you came to that conclusion..it is their god, their magic book, after all. Additionally, we've yet to see an explanation of why this change from a biblical morality to your own has occurred, and how you square that circle with the continuity of those same god beliefs and any potentially objective morality that can be derived from a text or to which that text conforms. How this change defends itself against charges of subjectivity and relativism. These things are not challenging to those who are not hobbled by a compulsion to rehabilitate magic books.

The non natural realists response would be immensely useful to you here, in that you can suggest that we discovered some disparity of empirical fact that lead us to reassess the status of our interactions with regards to non natural facts of goodness. What could that have been though? Well..we discovered that this was some slaver scribbling shit in, that slavery is not necessary or good but the opposite of them both, and that "god" never wrote or said or intoned or suggested or inspired any such bullshit. In short, that magic book was talking out of it's ass.

Once we reach that point..I suppose we'll just have to trust that your decoder ring works..and you can tell us when it's talking out of it's ass and when it isn't, lol. Personally..I think you'd have an easier time rattling off those few instances in which it isn't. Sheer force of a shorter list.

(January 22, 2019 at 4:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What economic benefit?  Slaves are famously labor inefficient.  What could a pool of slaves produce or do that a pool of free men cannot could not or has not?  Splitting the baby won't work here..there's just the one baby...and somebody wants to buy it.  

Uhm the economic benefits of having to pay your employees nothing, while reaping all the benefits of their labor. It might become inefficient in the long run, but if it was as inefficient as you suggested it wouldn’t have been so wide spread as it was, through out history.

Quote:Yes, old magic book describes the chattel ethos of the people who wrote it - it does this by purporting to speak on the issue of a good and proper life as described by the law of god in relation to human ownership.  They were terrible assholes, lol.  Their god was..like them..a  terrible asshole. He could have simply said "hey, you terrible assholes, stop it with the slave trade". He did not. The apathy of the divine becomes the apathy of the adherent. They certainly believed that their asshole god endorsed slavery and left provisions to them regaring it;s practice.

I don’t believe God literally told them anything, and the moral views of the OT writings are the views of their respective communities, that they had no special access to what’s right and wrong, anymore so then their pagan neighbors, or you and I. So if you want to continue taking about the moral failing of the biblical writers, ancient communities, etc.. by all means go ahead, but don’t expect me to be some apologist for them. The bible contains contains an evolving conception of god over the course of history, earlier portraits not consistent with later portraits etc, even if they have some shared roots.

Quote:we've yet to see an explanation of why this change from a biblical morality to your own has occurred, and how you square that circle with the continuity of those same god beliefs and any potentially objective morality that can be derived from a text or to which that text conforms. It is, in plain point of fact, the believers morality that must defend itself against charges of subjectivity and relativism. These things are not challenging to those who are not hobbled by a compulsion to rehabilitate magic books.

Again, where did I ever suggest that morality comes from the Bible? That one needs texts like the Bible to know what’s right and wrong? Paul himself acknowledges that the gentiles even practice the moral law, without ever having a book.

I’m not sure how many more times people are going ascribe beliefs to me that I do hold, than expect me to defend it.

As I indicated my view of morality is platonic, not requiring a bible for it.

(January 22, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 4:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What economic benefit?  Slaves are famously labor inefficient.  What could a pool of slaves produce or do that a pool of free men cannot could not or has not?  Splitting the baby won't work here..there's just the one baby...and somebody wants to buy it.  

Uhm the economic benefits of having to pay your employees nothing, while reaping all the benefits of their labor. It might become inefficient in the long run, but if it was as inefficient as you suggested it wouldn’t have been so wide spread as it was, through out history.

You mean the convenience of being the person-owner..not some economic benefit to society or humanity, necessitated i by a dire situation.

God deferred to simple human greed?  He's all about keeping his mammon situated?....lol. Or is that the writer of old magioc book...or...is that you? The answer, in this case, is all of the above.

Quote:I don’t believe God literally told them anything, and the moral views of the OT writings are the views of their respective communities, that they had  no special access to what’s right and wrong, anymore so then their pagan neighbors, or you and I. So if you want to continue taking about the moral failing of the biblical writers, ancient communities, etc.. by all means go ahead, but don’t expect me to be some apologist for them. The bible contains contains an evolving conception of god over the course of history, earlier portraits not consistent with later portraits etc, even if they have some shared roots.

I get that, I get that you don't believe what they believed (that;s kindoff a given..isn't it?).

I'm wondering why..and how you maintain the credibility of magic book after laying out your objections.  

Quote:Again, where did I ever suggest that morality comes from the Bible? That one needs texts like the Bible to know what’s right and wrong? Paul himself acknowledges that the gentiles even practice the moral law, without ever having a book.

Then you can answer the other potentiality I included.  That some portion of magic book conforms to a meaningfully objective morality..rather than a subjective or relative morality...how to distinguish between cases...and from above...how we maintain the credibility of magic book after having laid out those objections.

Quote:I’m not sure how many more times people are going ascribe beliefs to me that I do hold, than expect me to defend it.

As I indicated my view of morality is platonic, not requiring a bible for it.

Platonism is a form of non natural realism.  Part of it's genesis, no less. All of these questions posed to you by myself and others should present no specific difficulty.

(January 22, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 4:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What economic benefit?  Slaves are famously labor inefficient.  What could a pool of slaves produce or do that a pool of free men cannot could not or has not?  Splitting the baby won't work here..there's just the one baby...and somebody wants to buy it.  

Uhm the economic benefits of having to pay your employees nothing, while reaping all the benefits of their labor. It might become inefficient in the long run, but if it was as inefficient as you suggested it wouldn’t have been so wide spread as it was, through out history.

Quote:Yes, old magic book describes the chattel ethos of the people who wrote it - it does this by purporting to speak on the issue of a good and proper life as described by the law of god in relation to human ownership.  They were terrible assholes, lol.  Their god was..like them..a  terrible asshole.  He could have simply said "hey, you terrible assholes, stop it with the slave trade".  He did not.  The apathy of the divine becomes the apathy of the adherent.  They certainly believed that their asshole god endorsed slavery and left provisions to them regaring it;s practice.  

I don’t believe God literally told them anything, and the moral views of the OT writings are the views of their respective communities, that they had  no special access to what’s right and wrong, anymore so then their pagan neighbors, or you and I. So if you want to continue taking about the moral failing of the biblical writers, ancient communities, etc.. by all means go ahead, but don’t expect me to be some apologist for them. The bible contains contains an evolving conception of god over the course of history, earlier portraits not consistent with later portraits etc, even if they have some shared roots.

Quote:we've yet to see an explanation of why this change from a biblical morality to your own has occurred, and how you square that circle with the continuity of those same god beliefs and any potentially objective morality that can be derived from a text or to which that text conforms.  It is, in plain point of fact, the believers morality that must defend itself against charges of subjectivity and relativism.  These things are not challenging to those who are not hobbled by a compulsion to rehabilitate magic books.

Again, where did I ever suggest that morality comes from the Bible? That one needs texts like the Bible to know what’s right and wrong? Paul himself acknowledges that the gentiles even practice the moral law, without ever having a book.

I’m not sure how many more times people are going ascribe beliefs to me that I do hold, than expect me to defend it.

As I indicated my view of morality is platonic, not requiring a bible for it.

This dodge is a bullshit argument I have seen from every religion.

"My religion recognizes people outside my club can be moral too".

No kidding, and I agree. And again, it does not take Allah or Mo, or Buddha or Jesus or Paul or Yoda to accept that.

I have gotten the same argument that "My religion accepts others as being moral" from every label.

Again, to me that says, that a label isn't the patent holder or cause, but our species is.

Your view of morality isn't neutral if your argument is your particular pet label/deity is the source.  What you are really arguing like any other religion is that you are willing to accept others, up and until they question your position as being the head of the social pecking order.

(January 22, 2019 at 5:32 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Uhm the economic benefits of having to pay your employees nothing, while reaping all the benefits of their labor. It might become inefficient in the long run, but if it was as inefficient as you suggested it wouldn’t have been so wide spread as it was, through out history.

You mean the convenience of being the person-owner..not some economic benefit to society or humanity, necessitated i by a dire situation.

The person-owner, and his tribe that he’s contributing to, with no real concern for the greater society or humanity as a whole.

Quote:God deferred to simple human greed?  

God didn’t defer to anything.

Quote:I'm wondering why..and how you maintain the credibility of magic book after laying out your objection.  

I never appealed to the Bible in this argument about morality, so I never appealed to its credibility in this area either.

Quote:Then you can answer the other potentiality I included.  That some portion of magic book conforms to a meaningfully objective morality..rather than a subjective or relative morality...how to distinguish between cases...and from above...how we maintain the credibility of magic book after having laid out those objections.

What is meaningful objective morality?

Is there an external reality called the Good, that places moral obligations on us, tells us how we ought to behave and live? That I ought serve it, over my own self interest?

In order for morality to be objective, it’s requires a reality independent of ourselves, that contains moral values, and moral aims and purposes. Not some cold disinterested reality, but one that’s concerned about our moral lives.

Is that what you believe? Like I do. If not than your moral realism is in doubt.

(January 22, 2019 at 5:55 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 5:32 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You mean the convenience of being the person-owner..not some economic benefit to society or humanity, necessitated i by a dire situation.

The person-owner, and his tribe that he’s contributing to, with no real concern for the greater society or humanity as a whole.

Quote:God deferred to simple human greed?  

God didn’t defer to anything.

Quote:I'm wondering why..and how you maintain the credibility of magic book after laying out your objection.  

I never appealed to the Bible in this argument about morality, so I never appealed to its credibility in this area either.  

Quote:Then you can answer the other potentiality I included.  That some portion of magic book conforms to a meaningfully objective morality..rather than a subjective or relative morality...how to distinguish between cases...and from above...how we maintain the credibility of magic book after having laid out those objections.

What is meaningful objective morality?

Is there an external reality called the Good, that places moral obligations on us, tells us how we ought to behave and live? That I ought serve it, over my own self interest?

In order for morality to be objective, it’s requires a reality independent of ourselves, that contains moral values, and moral aims and purposes. Not some cold disinterested reality, but one that’s concerned about our moral lives.

Is that what you believe? Like I do. If not than your moral realism is in doubt.

Um no, my morality is not in doubt, nor is that of any sane empathetic human.

It simply bothers theists that an atheist doesn't need a sky hero in order to figure out right from wrong.

Hurting others is bad, helping others is good. No magic, no super cognition needed to come to that conclusion.

(January 22, 2019 at 6:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 5:55 pm)Acrobat Wrote: The person-owner, and his tribe that he’s contributing to, with no real concern for the greater society or humanity as a whole.


God didn’t defer to anything.



I never appealed to the Bible in this argument about morality, so I never appealed to its credibility in this area either.  


What is meaningful objective morality?

Is there an external reality called the Good, that places moral obligations on us, tells us how we ought to behave and live? That I ought serve it, over my own self interest?

In order for morality to be objective, it’s requires a reality independent of ourselves, that contains moral values, and moral aims and purposes. Not some cold disinterested reality, but one that’s concerned about our moral lives.

Is that what you believe? Like I do. If not than your moral realism is in doubt.

Um no, my morality is not in doubt, nor is that of any sane empathetic human.

It simply bothers theists that an atheist doesn't need a sky hero in order to figure out right from wrong.

Hurting others is bad, helping others is good. No magic, no super cognition needed to come to that conclusion.

Do you subscribe to moral realism?

(January 22, 2019 at 6:24 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 6:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um no, my morality is not in doubt, nor is that of any sane empathetic human.

It simply bothers theists that an atheist doesn't need a sky hero in order to figure out right from wrong.

Hurting others is bad, helping others is good. No magic, no super cognition needed to come to that conclusion.

Do you subscribe to moral realism?

I ascribe to evolution. Not old mythology.

Evolution produces BOTH cruelty and compassion. I chose non violence and empathy beyond that.

You subscribe to old mythology, but that is your baggage, not mine.