Is the universe God?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The universe is just the universe it isn't God. It can contain and is contained by God but that doesn't mean it is God in itself that would pantheism. If God and the universe are the same thing that's the same thing as God not existing.

So you don't believe in the Christian Omnipresent God?

[Alex K]

I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion here, but I thought about the question in the title again, and it turns out that yes, the universe is actually God!

Hows so?

I see Sword of Christ got where I was going

[Jacob(smooth)]

If you understand that Jesus is God in some way, fully God and fully man, that resolves the issue. Everyone like Jesus even the atheists have some respect for him as a moral teacher.

No actually, it doesn't:

It really, really doesn't

[pocaracas]

Just wanted to chime in on this little quote by our friend...

The abolitionists were Christians inspired by the teachings of Christ and genuine empathy for their fellow man, it was Christianity that helped to pave the away toward the abolition and other great social progress and human rights. These are all religiously inspired values and you share in them yourself as much as you like to deny their source.

Took them some bloody time to get there!!
Makes you wonder how accurate those teaching must have been...

[Simon Moon]

The abolitionists were Christians inspired by the teachings of Christ and genuine empathy for their fellow man, it was Christianity that helped to pave the away toward the abolition and other great social progress and human rights. These are all religiously inspired values and you share in them yourself as much as you like to deny their source.

Which teachings were those?

Was it Ephesians 6:5, where Jesus says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

Or was it in 1 Timothy 6:1-2, "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful."


The abolitionists were motivated by their natural empathy, not because of any Bible teachings.

The slave holders used the Bible to justify slavery.

[Sword of Christ]

So, slavery in the bible is excusable because some slavery might be comparable to having a low paying job, are you kidding me?

I'm not saying it was right but it was a a fact of life and it was something Christians at the time had to live with. There were Christian abolitionists going right back to the early middle ages there was an undercurrent against it inspired from the humanistic teachings of the gospels. In view of history the claim that Christianity supports slavery doesn't particular stand, we may have still had a legal slave trade today for all we know. The world has undeniably changed in some way, if you want evidence you have evidence there. You don't argue with the results.

No I don't, I'm Australian.

The US can do all the world domination through force and sell the slaves to you seeing as you're a Western nation. It will be like old times. Of course there will be nothing wrong with this if we decide so, in your world view anyway seeing as that's all morality a social contract. Contracts can be changed easily enough and we're the only beings here who get to say if there is no God. You can't really argue with this it would just be the fact. I think you know that it isn't the fact though.

... Yes, I suppose so. I have no wish to do that, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

You have empathy for others who are of no benefit to yourself because? You can't explain that because you have no reason for it. You can't use an evolutionary reason either as that operates on the survival of the individual and the related group not the species as a whole. If the Germans had managed to eradicate all the Jews in the world it would be of no evolutionary disadvantage to them their genes would continue just fine.

Looking at the rest of your writing, I see that you've entirely ignored what I actually said in favor of the moral relativism narrative that you'd prefer I believe in. That's quite a pity; I hate having to repeat myself.

Morality would be relative to human opinion if there is no other basis for it. That would be fact if God doesn't exist not what I prefer to believe. What else is it meant to be based on? It's just your opinion, its as good as any other.

But I never said that we get to decide what's right or wrong. Things I don't subscribe to aren't problems for my position.

If God doesn't exist we are the only beings who exist can decide what right and wrong is as it's entirely limited and contained within our own brains. There would be no basis for morality beyond that.

Again, this isn't a decision we get to make

That's what I'm saying to you, you would have to say differently if you don't believe in God.

it's a decision reality gets to make.

Replace the word reality with God. There would be no other form reality besides the human brain that can define what morality is if God doesn't exist.

Harm, a thing that is objectively harmful, is immoral because there is no sense in which it is preferable, and therefore anything that causes harm can generally be said to be immoral.

If harming someone else brings benefit to yourself and/or the people you care about then whats the problem with it? We get to say what is moral after all.

It's a general rule- the harm you sustain from getting a flu shot is easily balanced out by the benefits you get from it- but it's easily applied to slavery.

We had slavery for thousands of years why can't we just bring it back? There is nothing stopping us and it wouldn't do us any harm.

Please, try to address what I've actually said next time, in place of your religious talking points.

These aren't religious talking points just the facts of the world as you view it. You still haven't explained why slavery is wrong. Slavery is as old as civilization itself so why can't we have it?

Because they're human beings, and I happen to care about the well being of humans. Because the social contract I enter into equally saves me from being enslaved by them should the situation change. Because it's far, far more easy to conduct a civil system of society when we aren't encouraging enmity like that.

Easy. No god required.

True but it's just our own opinion if there is no God. An opinion without any basis in any reason or practical purpose if the opinion continues to adhere to that of Christian and/or religious moral values.

... The ones that say slavery is okay?

You still haven't said why it isn't ok. If you have no reason then whats your objection to these passages? I know why I'd object to them. I'm happy to admit that the Bible is flawed and imperfect much like it's human authors.

Demonstrably untrue, and no amount of scrambling to take ownership of positive concepts that existed long before your religion will change that.

God existed eternally moral values existed eternally, through a relationship with God and revelation from God we have learned of his and our own nature. So yes these values existed before Christianity and organised religion but we had such things as slavery, human sacrifice and so on, as we were much less advanced in our knowledge. It's knowledge we still have however much you want to deny it's source.

Facts do need to be based on something: reality.

God is reality that's what I'm saying here. The arguments from morality are particularly strong imo, you know you're on shaky ground here.

Meanwhile, god's word still says that slavery is okay, so we're clearly not getting that foundation from him.

The Bible was written by people who had a covenant with God but they weren't perfect they had their own cultural and their own values and the Bible reflects all of this. They got some things wrong fair enough. The fact you know this is a good enough demonstration of the power of the Force, you're learning much Padawan.

I know, I've been saying that all along. Why do you think that human empathy is insufficient for this?

Why is there such a thing as human empathy? Don't say it's evolution either as evolution doesn't work like that. Even Dawkins wouldn't advise evolutionary morality, Adolf Hitler would.

I really think that says more about you than it does about me.

Says what? I'm not saying I'd be evil if there was no God it's more that you still hold the same morality as any Christian or believer in God. That's because God is real and is still in relationship with you.

Even a small amount of research shows that the golden rule you're quoting predates christianity, and in fact has a secular origin in Babylon.

Wrong again.

God predates Christianity so that's to be expected. What do you think this is all based upon?

I already know why I feel that way; the human capacity for empathy is an evolved trait that helped us survive to become the dominant species on the planet.

We get empathy from the struggle to survive and competition to pass on our DNA the strong surviving and weak perishing? You can say we're a social species but Alequeda terrorists, the Mafia and the Nazi's are sociable enough with their own people. Evolution doesn't operate on a whole species but individuals within the species. So if we want African slaves that's fine. It wouldn't detract from our own survival it would enhance it if anything.

We're social animals that require cooperation to survive, hence the social groups that have tracked with us through out entire evolutionary development.

Again evolution does not operate on that scale, there is a good reason why you would look after children, family and be co-operative with your social group of people who benefit you. What benefit to us our Africans and why can't we have some for slaves? You can't say "evolution says we can't" evolution doesn't care.

Africans, being humans, fall easily within that group of "humans,"

They're a different group of humans living in Africa and we have out-competed them, so we can have dibs on some African slaves. Good hardy physical specimens I'm sure they will be of some use to us. Ah no wait there's something still wrong with doing that isn't there? What could that something be I wonder?

Are you even reading my post? The harm is that the Africans would be trapped in a potentially abusive situation that they can't escape from and receive no remuneration!

It's good you care about the Africans but you care because?...Do you see what saying here?

You know, they'd be enslaved?

I know but in your worldview why can't they be if it won't do us any harm?

Why are you not getting that this is a downside?!

There is a downside for me but what is the downside from your perspective? There isn't one.

Given that I've never said anything other than that morality is based upon reality and not cultural opinion

What reality would this be exactly if it isn't God? The reality of our opinion?

, you're preaching to the choir here. However, your claim that this specific moral teaching is based upon a biblical source is simply wrong, since no such teaching exists in the bible.

I think Jesus, even the Torah kind of did teach against exploiting and oppressing the destitute the poor and the weak which slavery does fall under. We don't have slavery today because of these kinds of moral ideals and this is from God.

The slave owners similarly were inspired by the teachings of Christ to keep their slaves. I already [i]know you can spin the bible to say whatever you happen to want it to, this isn't news. That doesn't mean that the specific interpretations you've endorsed happen to be divinely inspired.

We can say the true teachings of Christ/God got through over the man made errors then.

It means you worship a book of multiple choice teachings.

If there are mistakes they are mistakes flawed humans put in there but the overall message shines through, particularly in the person of Jesus Christ and impact he has had upon the world. The results can be seen and they speak for themselves.

That's not an apt comparison to the story we're talking about, however. How very dishonest of you.

So you like the idea of a religion scamming the poor for profit? That's unusual for an atheist.

Lacking immediate physical danger, there were far more peaceful and rational efforts Jesus could have made, other than acting like a thug.

Like what exactly? What is a heretic Jewish carpenter supposed to do about the corruption and degeneracy of the Jewish faith? For this he was of course put to death by the religious authorities he was putting neck out here when he made his point.

However, given that the people who wrote the bible were a band of bronze age thugs, it makes sense that their characters would behave that way too.

God took a band of bronze age thugs and made a civilized people from them and this was later expanded to cover the world. God had to work with something and a great deal of work had to be done and still has to be done even today, given the amount of injustice, inequality and suffering still present in the world. This is what it's all about, with Christianity there is a mission involved and good works to do.

That doesn't answer the question; you say that god is the foundation for morality, but then you continue to say that there are parts of god's moral teachings that are wrong

We got some things wrong as humans not God. The Bible isn't a pure reflection of God if humans wrote it.

... how do you know what you've chosen to ignore conforms to god's real moral law?

Same way you know.

More importantly, how do you intend to demonstrate god's moral foundation at all?

You can demonstrate it by looking within your own heart (not the organ that pumps blood) and finding the presence of God/Christ there that's how you demonstrate it.

So, your reason is "god says so," even though he actually doesn't, and mine is "slavery harms my fellow man," but somehow your reason is superior to mine, and I'm copying yours?

God is purely good and purely Holy, good is in alignment with God and evil in opposition to God. That is the objective reality of morality the yardstick to measure it by. It's not that you just have instructions in a book and you blindly obey them it's a little more interactive an experience. *Yodas voice* When you are calm and at peace you will know.

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

They may have got a little carried away with those passages but the zeal for God was certainly there. This only applied to apostate Jews not the Gentiles, there was no campaign of genocide against non-Jews. A lot of that was to just to look hardcore and fucking badass anyway and to deter anyone should they even think about following some other god like Baal. A lot of them still did anyway. It's a bit like the Babylonian legal codes that declared death as a punishment for just about everything, they didn't actually put it to practice all that often it just looked impressive on the clay tablets.

How can our moral advancement be through god when the only record you have of what god actually wants says literally the opposite of what your moral sense is telling you?

The Bible is a rough guide and an explanation for morality you don't really want to follow it word for word. God likes you you to think for yourself but he has given you some guidance particularly through Christ who also happens to be God. Early Christians had some serious issues with the Old Testament as well btw these passages were always a problem. Some put it down to an evil impostor God while the God of the gospels was the good one though I think that's taking it a little too far. The Old Testament/Torah has it's moments but it's not as bad as some would like to claim it is, the Jews still revere it as sacred without the NT of course and they aren't bloodthirsty barbarians.

Jesus said that not a word of the law would be changed... just saying.

Gods Law is the same today as it was an eternity ago and will be in an eternity from now it doesn't change. The God as embodied by Jesus Christ is the same God as the Torah of humanity and the universe as a whole.

[EvolutionKills]

Why do I believe slavery is wrong? Easy: I can observe reality. I don't want to be enslaved myself

Of course you don't want to be enslaved yourself but you live in the advanced developed world with all the military power. So we could go back to Africa kick some ass establish some new colonies there and reinstate a thriving slave trade. If you have enough money you could afford to have a slave in your house, they could do all your house work and choirs and generally be rather handy. You can keep them locked in your basement at night and whatever. If we get to decide whats right and wrong all we have to do is decide that doing this right and it will be right there won't be any problem at all. The Africans in question may not like to be enslaved but we care about what they like because? You have no reason why you should care other than the Christian/spiritual values you have had handed down to you which are derived from God. God is your moral foundation not peoples opinions. You damn well know as a fact that slavery is wrong, it's not your in opinion it just is. Facts need to be based in something.

Imma let you finish but...


It's called empathy you ignorant fuck, and it's something you apparently lack.

[Simon Moon]

If God doesn't exist we are the only beings who exist can decide what right and wrong is as it's entirely limited and contained within our own brains. There would be no basis for morality beyond that.

The fact that we all inhabit the same physical world, subject to the same physical laws.

I can easily extrapolate that what I would not like to happen to me (death, pain, disease, slavery), most likely the vast majority of humanity would not like to happen to them, is plenty of motivation to treat others to maximize their well being.

If harming someone else brings benefit to yourself and/or the people you care about then whats the problem with it? We get to say what is moral after all.

It's easy to find out what the problem is. Just ask the people that are being harmed if they're alright with it.

If it harems the well being of others, it is not moral.

We had slavery for thousands of years why can't we just bring it back? There is nothing stopping us and it wouldn't do us any harm.

It would harm the well being of those being enslaved. That is the only reason necessary not to do it.

These aren't religious talking points just the facts of the world as you view it. You still haven't explained why slavery is wrong. Slavery is as old as civilization itself so why can't we have it?

Slavery is wrong because it harms the well being of those being enslaved.

You still haven't said why it isn't ok. If you have no reason then whats your objection to these passages? I know why I'd object to them.

It's wrong because it harms the well being of others.

I'm happy to admit that the Bible is flawed and imperfect much like it's human authors.

Which brings up a different question. If the Bible is flawed, how do you know which parts are the flawed parts and which ones aren't? What is your method of determining this?

God is reality that's what I'm saying here. The arguments from morality are particularly strong imo, you know you're on shaky ground here.

Nothing but unsupported assertions is all you have.

The Bible was written by people who had a covenant with God but they weren't perfect they had their own cultural and their own values and the Bible reflects all of this. They got some things wrong fair enough.

Again, what algorithm do you apply to the Bible in order to discern the wrong parts from the right ones? There are over 30,000 Christian sects that differ quite a bit on this. How do you know you are the one that got it right?

How did you figure out that Exodus 21 is one of the flawed parts?

Why is there such a thing as human empathy? Don't say it's evolution either as evolution doesn't work like that. Even Dawkins wouldn't advise evolutionary morality, Adolf Hitler would.

Actually, evolution explains it just fine. All social species have some level of empathy for members of their group.

What does Hitler have to do with this? He was a creationist.

We get empathy from the struggle to survive and competition to pass on our DNA the strong surviving and weak perishing? You can say we're a social species but Alequeda terrorists, the Mafia and the Nazi's are sociable enough with their own people. Evolution doesn't operate on a whole species but individuals within the species. So if we want African slaves that's fine. It wouldn't detract from our own survival it would enhance it if anything.

You really don't get this. Evolution works on populations, not individuals.

Again evolution does not operate on that scale, there is a good reason why you would look after children, family and be co-operative with your social group of people who benefit you. What benefit to us our Africans and why can't we have some for slaves? You can't say "evolution says we can't" evolution doesn't care.

The fact is, empathy is part of our evolutionary past. It was a survival mechanism. The same empathy that causes those of us that are mentally healthy not to want to own another human being.

They're a different group of humans living in Africa and we have out-competed them, so we can have dibs on some African slaves. Good hardy physical specimens I'm sure they will be of some use to us. Ah no wait there's something still wrong with doing that isn't there? What could that something be I wonder?

They are still human beings.

Bonobo chimp females will adopt orphaned babies, even from competing groups. The same evolved trait in action.


Bla, bla, bla...

You just continue to repeat the same misunderstandings, same unsupported assertions...I'm done for a while.

[Rampant.A.I.]

---

So, slavery in the bible is excusable because some slavery might be comparable to having a low paying job, are you kidding me?

I'm not saying it was right but it was a a fact of life and it was something Christians at the time had to live with. There were Christian abolitionists going right back to the early middle ages there was an undercurrent against it inspired from the humanistic teachings of the gospels. In view of history the claim that Christianity supports slavery doesn't particular stand, we may have still had a legal slave trade today for all we know. The world has undeniably changed in some way, if you want evidence you have evidence there. You don't argue with the results.

No I don't, I'm Australian.

The US can do all the world domination through force and sell the slaves to you seeing as you're a Western nation. It will be like old times. Of course there will be nothing wrong with this if we decide so, in your world view anyway seeing as that's all morality a social contract. Contracts can be changed easily enough and we're the only beings here who get to say if there is no God. You can't really argue with this it would just be the fact. I think you know that it isn't the fact though.

... Yes, I suppose so. I have no wish to do that, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

You have empathy for others who are of no benefit to yourself because? You can't explain that because you have no reason for it. You can't use an evolutionary reason either as that operates on the survival of the individual and the related group not the species as a whole. If the Germans had managed to eradicate all the Jews in the world it would be of no evolutionary disadvantage to them their genes would continue just fine.

Looking at the rest of your writing, I see that you've entirely ignored what I actually said in favor of the moral relativism narrative that you'd prefer I believe in. That's quite a pity; I hate having to repeat myself.

Morality would be relative to human opinion if there is no other basis for it. That would be fact if God doesn't exist not what I prefer to believe. What else is it meant to be based on? It's just your opinion, its as good as any other.

But I never said that we get to decide what's right or wrong. Things I don't subscribe to aren't problems for my position.

If God doesn't exist we are the only beings who exist can decide what right and wrong is as it's entirely limited and contained within our own brains. There would be no basis for morality beyond that.

Again, this isn't a decision we get to make

That's what I'm saying to you, you would have to say differently if you don't believe in God.

it's a decision reality gets to make.

Replace the word reality with God. There would be no other form reality besides the human brain that can define what morality is if God doesn't exist.

Harm, a thing that is objectively harmful, is immoral because there is no sense in which it is preferable, and therefore anything that causes harm can generally be said to be immoral.

If harming someone else brings benefit to yourself and/or the people you care about then whats the problem with it? We get to say what is moral after all.

It's a general rule- the harm you sustain from getting a flu shot is easily balanced out by the benefits you get from it- but it's easily applied to slavery.

We had slavery for thousands of years why can't we just bring it back? There is nothing stopping us and it wouldn't do us any harm.

Please, try to address what I've actually said next time, in place of your religious talking points.

These aren't religious talking points just the facts of the world as you view it. You still haven't explained why slavery is wrong. Slavery is as old as civilization itself so why can't we have it?

Because they're human beings, and I happen to care about the well being of humans. Because the social contract I enter into equally saves me from being enslaved by them should the situation change. Because it's far, far more easy to conduct a civil system of society when we aren't encouraging enmity like that.

Easy. No god required.

True but it's just our own opinion if there is no God. An opinion without any basis in any reason or practical purpose if the opinion continues to adhere to that of Christian and/or religious moral values.

... The ones that say slavery is okay?

You still haven't said why it isn't ok. If you have no reason then whats your objection to these passages? I know why I'd object to them. I'm happy to admit that the Bible is flawed and imperfect much like it's human authors.

Demonstrably untrue, and no amount of scrambling to take ownership of positive concepts that existed long before your religion will change that.

God existed eternally moral values existed eternally, through a relationship with God and revelation from God we have learned of his and our own nature. So yes these values existed before Christianity and organised religion but we had such things as slavery, human sacrifice and so on, as we were much less advanced in our knowledge. It's knowledge we still have however much you want to deny it's source.

Facts do need to be based on something: reality.

God is reality that's what I'm saying here. The arguments from morality are particularly strong imo, you know you're on shaky ground here.

Meanwhile, god's word still says that slavery is okay, so we're clearly not getting that foundation from him.

The Bible was written by people who had a covenant with God but they weren't perfect they had their own cultural and their own values and the Bible reflects all of this. They got some things wrong fair enough. The fact you know this is a good enough demonstration of the power of the Force, you're learning much Padawan.

I know, I've been saying that all along. Why do you think that human empathy is insufficient for this?

Why is there such a thing as human empathy? Don't say it's evolution either as evolution doesn't work like that. Even Dawkins wouldn't advise evolutionary morality, Adolf Hitler would.

I really think that says more about you than it does about me.

Says what? I'm not saying I'd be evil if there was no God it's more that you still hold the same morality as any Christian or believer in God. That's because God is real and is still in relationship with you.

Even a small amount of research shows that the golden rule you're quoting predates christianity, and in fact has a secular origin in Babylon.

Wrong again.

God predates Christianity so that's to be expected. What do you think this is all based upon?

I already know why I feel that way; the human capacity for empathy is an evolved trait that helped us survive to become the dominant species on the planet.

We get empathy from the struggle to survive and competition to pass on our DNA the strong surviving and weak perishing? You can say we're a social species but Alequeda terrorists, the Mafia and the Nazi's are sociable enough with their own people. Evolution doesn't operate on a whole species but individuals within the species. So if we want African slaves that's fine. It wouldn't detract from our own survival it would enhance it if anything.

We're social animals that require cooperation to survive, hence the social groups that have tracked with us through out entire evolutionary development.

Again evolution does not operate on that scale, there is a good reason why you would look after children, family and be co-operative with your social group of people who benefit you. What benefit to us our Africans and why can't we have some for slaves? You can't say "evolution says we can't" evolution doesn't care.

Africans, being humans, fall easily within that group of "humans,"

They're a different group of humans living in Africa and we have out-competed them, so we can have dibs on some African slaves. Good hardy physical specimens I'm sure they will be of some use to us. Ah no wait there's something still wrong with doing that isn't there? What could that something be I wonder?

Are you even reading my post? The harm is that the Africans would be trapped in a potentially abusive situation that they can't escape from and receive no remuneration!

It's good you care about the Africans but you care because?...Do you see what saying here?

You know, they'd be enslaved?

I know but in your worldview why can't they be if it won't do us any harm?

Why are you not getting that this is a downside?!

There is a downside for me but what is the downside from your perspective? There isn't one.

Given that I've never said anything other than that morality is based upon reality and not cultural opinion

What reality would this be exactly if it isn't God? The reality of our opinion?

, you're preaching to the choir here. However, your claim that this specific moral teaching is based upon a biblical source is simply wrong, since no such teaching exists in the bible.

I think Jesus, even the Torah kind of did teach against exploiting and oppressing the destitute the poor and the weak which slavery does fall under. We don't have slavery today because of these kinds of moral ideals and this is from God.

The slave owners similarly were inspired by the teachings of Christ to keep their slaves. I already [i]know you can spin the bible to say whatever you happen to want it to, this isn't news. That doesn't mean that the specific interpretations you've endorsed happen to be divinely inspired.

We can say the true teachings of Christ/God got through over the man made errors then.

It means you worship a book of multiple choice teachings.

If there are mistakes they are mistakes flawed humans put in there but the overall message shines through, particularly in the person of Jesus Christ and impact he has had upon the world. The results can be seen and they speak for themselves.

That's not an apt comparison to the story we're talking about, however. How very dishonest of you.

So you like the idea of a religion scamming the poor for profit? That's unusual for an atheist.

Lacking immediate physical danger, there were far more peaceful and rational efforts Jesus could have made, other than acting like a thug.

Like what exactly? What is a heretic Jewish carpenter supposed to do about the corruption and degeneracy of the Jewish faith? For this he was of course put to death by the religious authorities he was putting neck out here when he made his point.

However, given that the people who wrote the bible were a band of bronze age thugs, it makes sense that their characters would behave that way too.

God took a band of bronze age thugs and made a civilized people from them and this was later expanded to cover the world. God had to work with something and a great deal of work had to be done and still has to be done even today, given the amount of injustice, inequality and suffering still present in the world. This is what it's all about, with Christianity there is a mission involved and good works to do.

That doesn't answer the question; you say that god is the foundation for morality, but then you continue to say that there are parts of god's moral teachings that are wrong

We got some things wrong as humans not God. The Bible isn't a pure reflection of God if humans wrote it.

... how do you know what you've chosen to ignore conforms to god's real moral law?

Same way you know.

More importantly, how do you intend to demonstrate god's moral foundation at all?

You can demonstrate it by looking within your own heart (not the organ that pumps blood) and finding the presence of God/Christ there that's how you demonstrate it.

So, your reason is "god says so," even though he actually doesn't, and mine is "slavery harms my fellow man," but somehow your reason is superior to mine, and I'm copying yours?

God is purely good and purely Holy, good is in alignment with God and evil in opposition to God. That is the objective reality of morality the yardstick to measure it by. It's not that you just have instructions in a book and you blindly obey them it's a little more interactive an experience. *Yodas voice* When you are calm and at peace you will know.

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

They may have got a little carried away with those passages but the zeal for God was certainly there. This only applied to apostate Jews not the Gentiles, there was no campaign of genocide against non-Jews. A lot of that was to just to look hardcore and fucking badass anyway and to deter anyone should they even think about following some other god like Baal. A lot of them still did anyway. It's a bit like the Babylonian legal codes that declared death as a punishment for just about everything, they didn't actually put it to practice all that often it just looked impressive on the clay tablets.

How can our moral advancement be through god when the only record you have of what god actually wants says literally the opposite of what your moral sense is telling you?

The Bible is a rough guide and an explanation for morality you don't really want to follow it word for word. God likes you you to think for yourself but he has given you some guidance particularly through Christ who also happens to be God. Early Christians had some serious issues with the Old Testament as well btw these passages were always a problem. Some put it down to an evil impostor God while the God of the gospels was the good one though I think that's taking it a little too far. The Old Testament/Torah has it's moments but it's not as bad as some would like to claim it is, the Jews still revere it as sacred without the NT of course and they aren't bloodthirsty barbarians.

Jesus said that not a word of the law would be changed... just saying.

Gods Law is the same today as it was an eternity ago and will be in an eternity from now it doesn't change. The God as embodied by Jesus Christ is the same God as the Torah of humanity and the universe as a whole.

---

That's a rather long-winded way of admitting without a mystical sky-daddy you personally cannot tell right from wrong, unlik folks who were born with a conscience.

It also conveniently ignores that a conscience IS of an evolutionary advantage for tribal animal, just as nurturing one's young, protecting the group from predators, or attack from within.

You also conveniently ignore Christian-driven atrocities committed in God's name, by God's law, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the fact that (since you've already involved Goodwin's Law) that The Nazis we're PREDOMINATELY CHRISTIAN:

"1933, prior to the annexation of Austria into Germany, the Christian population of Germany was around 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic.[1] A German census in May 1939, completed more than six years into the Nazi era[2] and incorporating the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% of Germans considered themselves Protestant, (including non-denominational Christians) and 40% considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5% atheists. Most of this latter 5% were committed Nazis, who left the churches in response and encouragement of the Nazi Party desiring to reduce the influence of Christianity in Germany. Most members of the Nazi Party, however, were Christians, composed of some Lutheran Evangelical, the apostate members of Nazi inspired Positive Christianity and some of the Catholic faith traditions respectively."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

[Esquilax]

I'm not saying it was right but it was a a fact of life and it was something Christians at the time had to live with. There were Christian abolitionists going right back to the early middle ages there was an undercurrent against it inspired from the humanistic teachings of the gospels. In view of history the claim that Christianity supports slavery doesn't particular stand, we may have still had a legal slave trade today for all we know. The world has undeniably changed in some way, if you want evidence you have evidence there. You don't argue with the results.

A lot of this is bare assertions with no actual evidence backing it up, but I will say that the claim that christianity supports slavery is entirely supported by the fact that christianity's only holy book is filled with approval for slavery. Any christian abolitionists there are are, technically, going against the blunt, simple sentence teachings of their own religion.

The US can do all the world domination through force and sell the slaves to you seeing as you're a Western nation. It will be like old times. Of course there will be nothing wrong with this if we decide so, in your world view anyway seeing as that's all morality a social contract. Contracts can be changed easily enough and we're the only beings here who get to say if there is no God. You can't really argue with this it would just be the fact. I think you know that it isn't the fact though.

You really are just ignoring every argument I make, aren't you?

You have empathy for others who are of no benefit to yourself because? You can't explain that because you have no reason for it. You can't use an evolutionary reason either as that operates on the survival of the individual and the related group not the species as a whole.

Actually, I can use evolution, because that process isn't as discerning as you seem to think it is. There's no mind in evolution to pick out, "oh, there's someone of another tribe..." no, it just trains us to recognize human beings over other animals. That's all.

If the Germans had managed to eradicate all the Jews in the world it would be of no evolutionary disadvantage to them their genes would continue just fine.

And?

Morality would be relative to human opinion if there is no other basis for it. That would be fact if God doesn't exist not what I prefer to believe. What else is it meant to be based on? It's just your opinion, its as good as any other.

So, despite the fact that I called you on ignoring what I've actually said in favor of a more convenient story that I haven't used, and despite the fact that I go on to exhaustively describe my position again, you not only continue to ignore me, you ask me what I base my position on again, as if I haven't already told you.

Just admit it: you aren't reading, you're just seeing the word "atheist" in my religious views, and the fact that I'm talking about morality, and then writing a bunch of shit about relativism, aren't you?

What should morality be based on? Reality. There, I've said it a third time for you. Let's see if you'll take it on board now.

If God doesn't exist we are the only beings who exist can decide what right and wrong is as it's entirely limited and contained within our own brains. There would be no basis for morality beyond that.

The real world that we all share, and the stimuli within it, that cause reliable, objective reactions within us that aren't merely contained within our own brains. There's a basis right there.

That's what I'm saying to you, you would have to say differently if you don't believe in God.

No, because I live in a world that doesn't change depending on what I think.

Replace the word reality with God. There would be no other form reality besides the human brain that can define what morality is if God doesn't exist.

Why would I replace anything? Reality clearly exists, god does not. Besides, I'm not a solipsist; reality exists, I can't change it just by thinking about it, hence there's more to morality than just what's in my head.

If harming someone else brings benefit to yourself and/or the people you care about then whats the problem with it? We get to say what is moral after all.

Okay, that's it. Fuck this.

You know, Sword, I'd be happy to have an actual conversation with you about this stuff, I really would. And frankly, I'm sure I've got responses to the rest of your post, too. But I just looked at how much text I've still got to go through, and it's way, way too much, especially since so far you've aptly demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even accept that I've made an argument that doesn't fit into your talking points.

You're ignoring what I've actually said in favor of your standard apologetics, referring to things I've never said, responding to arguments I haven't made, and then acting like your bare assertions carry any weight.

In short, you're talking past me, and constructing strawmen. You're being very, very disrespectful, and if you're not going to take the discussion seriously and have any regard for me as a debating partner, then I have no interest in continuing this. I'd like to have a proper discussion on morality, not half of one where I state my position, and then you state a list of things I've never said and try to bind them to me by sheer definitional fiat.

If you're willing to start treating this conversation, not to mention me, with a little respect, sufficient to start addressing what I've actually said and not what you'd prefer that I'd said, then great; I think I've made my position clear enough over the past two posts that you can respond to that. If you want to start actually responding to me, then go right ahead.

The one thing I'm not going to do, Sword, is sit here and enable the conversation you've got going on with the strawman in your head by giving you a convenient face to plaster onto it.

Respond to me, not your collection of christian canards, please.