Is the universe God?

[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.