Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[John V]

Also deplorable. Less murderous, but heinous just as well.

Considering that arranged marriage has been common across time and cultures, you're making a good argument that humanity is evil and deserves judgment.

---

Do you not like your personal freedoms? Do you think that other people happen to enjoy theirs? This is the reason that it isn't circular. The things that people want are important to people; I know you think that everything issues from god, but you haven't demonstrated that. In the meantime, I can easily demonstrate that people have positive and negative responses to stimuli and can construct societies based upon those.

Yes, I like personal freedoms most of the time. Of course, drug addicts like drugs, rapists like raping, serial killers like murdering... It's ad hoc to justify freedom as a right because people like it.

No, I'm asking you to support that it is with something other than circles or, in this case, an argument from ignorance.

And again, the fact that you don't understand simple concepts like "people enjoy certain things," in no way makes my argument invalid or circular. Try, just for a little while, considering the atheist viewpoint, where we're required to construct out concepts of good and bad sans divine intervention: what would we build these ideas around, in that case?[/quote]
There's a number of ways, and you can't objectively prove that on is better than another.

It's why I added that whole qualifier about constraints, because it's not just about individual happiness. We aren't children, we understand that sometimes longterm happiness and safety means that we must give up certain immediate, maximal pleasures. Yes, slavery is a distinct advantage for the slave owner, but it isn't for the slaves, and we as human beings have a little thing called "empathy" which means that we can imagine the pain of others. Yes, there's an evolutionary basis for that.

The slave owners were apparently able to own slaves despite their human empathy.

Speaking of which, in purely practical terms, the reason we abolished slavery is because certain things need to be, for the health of the society; allowing slavery puts a target on the backs of everyone, in terms of who can be enslaved in the future. It's best if the whole practice is just forbidden, so that nobody gets hurt. The same with murder, and rape, etc etc: a functioning society benefits all of its members, hence that little "mutual agreement" clause you skipped over.

Societies with slaves functioned for centuries. This argument is imaginary.

So, to be clear: the women are taken from their homes in the middle of a war, while their families are being killed in that same war, and they're married off to the men who kidnapped them, against their will since it's an arranged marriage, and you're saying that they'd consent to sex with the enemy that's pillaging their home?

No, I'm saying that in such societies consent of a bride in an arranged marriage was not required. Call it rape if you like - in so doing you're painting humanity as so evil that it deserves judgment.

Or are you just being obtuse again because it's easier than admitting your holy book is slowly turning you into a fucking monster, one immoral scriptural defense at a time?

Personally I prefer to try to understand peoples of other times and cultures rather than sitting in judgment of them. Go figure.

---

JohnV, there's such a thing called Existential Rights. Look it up.

OK. The site I found said that self-aware beings have rights, and others don't. Seeing as we're self-aware, that's suspiciously convenient.

If beings with superior mental capacity have rights which lesser beings don't, then god has rights that humans don't.

Pocaracas makes a good point. God was apparently able to communicate his wills and wishes to the masses via the Biblical writings (albeit in a time when his presence could not be confirmed in the tangible world), and instead of setting the golden standard for how people should treat other people---he provides Supporting Decrees on How to Enslave and Rape one another?

As noted, it was a compromise. The Bible says that god is longsuffering - i.e. he doesn't like what we do, but he has his own reasons for temporarily allowing it.

How can you believe your own assertions based on the 'nature' of the god you supposedly know?

The god of the Bible has superior mental ability to ours, so he has rights over us.

[CapnAwesome]

The god of the Bible has superior mental ability to ours, so he has rights over us.

That's good to know because I have superior mental abilities to you, so I guess I have rights there.

[Mystical]

JohnV, everything on this earth has self awareness to an extent.
Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right, god exists, and god created the system now in place.
How the fuck can you say he has superior intellect in any way?

For example. The food chain. Coulda just done with algae and not had to have animals ripping each other to pieces. They're self aware too, after all. As a self aware being I have the capacity to identify that very fact and allocate those rights accordingly, apparently making me more moral than your god.
For example. The human body. Flawed beyond repair. Don't go telling me it was perfect once and we've devolved. You have absolutely no proof, whatsoever. And the body has plenty of proof to show it's still in the brink stages of becoming a fully functional high efficiency biological entity in its' environment. If this is how god designed bodies to be purposefully, I'd laugh.
For example. God sent his son down to earth to die for sins against god that god could just simply forgive, considering god didn't give Eve or Adam the ability to know right from wrong then punished them for doing wrong. Unless he's bound to rules over-ruling his own. Which case is it, in your opinion? Does god have a god?

[Esquilax]

Yes, I like personal freedoms most of the time. Of course, drug addicts like drugs, rapists like raping, serial killers like murdering... It's ad hoc to justify freedom as a right because people like it.

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to consider my entire position when you comment on it, not just the bit in the quote you've taken from me. In this case, the bit about societal health and the good of everyone, not just individuals.

There's a number of ways, and you can't objectively prove that on is better than another.

And?

The slave owners were apparently able to own slaves despite their human empathy.

Ah, I should have known you wouldn't be familiar with this concept: it's called "learning," and it's something that most functioning humans- and groups of humans- are capable of doing to correct past mistakes. In this case, you've got a bunch of slave owners being less empathetic (and using your bible to justify themselves in that. Just think about that: their position was correct because god said it was okay, apparently.) and a larger group of people being more empathetic in the form of those who are against slavery. Society is a self-correcting thing, there will be mistakes, but that's what you'd expect from a bunch of imperfect humans.

It's not, however, what one would expect from a group of humans being guided by a benevolent and perfect, all knowing god...

Societies with slaves functioned for centuries. This argument is imaginary.

I didn't say they didn't function. I did say they function better, more morally, now, without slavery. Don't you agree?

No, I'm saying that in such societies consent of a bride in an arranged marriage was not required. Call it rape if you like - in so doing you're painting humanity as so evil that it deserves judgment.

I rather think I'm also painting the god that would allow that as evil and deserving of judgment, you fucking rape apologist.

Personally I prefer to try to understand peoples of other times and cultures rather than sitting in judgment of them. Go figure.

Aren't you one of those fucking "objective morality" dudes, though? Objective- god given- means it doesn't change, regardless of context. Sure sounds like you're willing to leap to context driven, subjective morality when it's convenient!

Too bad you think rape and murder and slavery are all things that can be twisted that way.

If beings with superior mental capacity have rights which lesser beings don't, then god has rights that humans don't.

Assuming you can demonstrate he exists, genius.

[pocaracas]

Pocaracas makes a good point. God was apparently able to communicate his wills and wishes to the masses via the Biblical writings (albeit in a time when his presence could not be confirmed in the tangible world), and instead of setting the golden standard for how people should treat other people---he provides Supporting Decrees on How to Enslave and Rape one another?

As noted, it was a compromise. The Bible says that god is longsuffering - i.e. he doesn't like what we do, but he has his own reasons for temporarily allowing it.

How does the bible know all that?

I've probably asked this a hundred times already in this forum... it seems I've yet to get a satisfying answer...

[John V]

How does the bible know all that?

God told people and they wrote it down.

---

JohnV, everything on this earth has self awareness to an extent.
Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right, god exists, and god created the system now in place.
How the fuck can you say he has superior intellect in any way?

Uh, he can create a universe. We can't.

For example. The food chain. Coulda just done with algae and not had to have animals ripping each other to pieces. They're self aware too, after all. As a self aware being I have the capacity to identify that very fact and allocate those rights accordingly, apparently making me more moral than your god.

OK, when you create a food chain, show it to us and we'll compare the two.

---

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to consider my entire position when you comment on it, not just the bit in the quote you've taken from me. In this case, the bit about societal health and the good of everyone, not just individuals.

What about it?

And?

And so it's just your opinion. Your opinion is noted.

Ah, I should have known you wouldn't be familiar with this concept: it's called "learning," and it's something that most functioning humans- and groups of humans- are capable of doing to correct past mistakes. In this case, you've got a bunch of slave owners being less empathetic (and using your bible to justify themselves in that. Just think about that: their position was correct because god said it was okay, apparently.) and a larger group of people being more empathetic in the form of those who are against slavery.

Ad populum fallacy.

I didn't say they didn't function.

You said that "a functioning society benefits all of its members." You don't seem to think that slave-owning society benefits all of its members. Logical conclusion: your position is that slave-owning societies weren't functioning.

I rather think I'm also painting the god that would allow that as evil and deserving of judgment,

So judge him.

you fucking rape apologist.

Again, I'm attempting to understand other times and cultures without your holier-than-them attitude.

Aren't you one of those fucking "objective morality" dudes, though?

No, I'm on record multiple times as believing that all morality is ultimately subjective. You're the one setting yourself up as judge of other cultures.

[pocaracas]

How does the bible know all that?

God told people and they wrote it down.

How did this god tell these things to such people?

[KichigaiNeko]

And how (being illiterate) did they "write it down"?

[Esquilax]

What about it?

Well, I'd suggest that, objectively speaking, harmful behaviours like drug consumption, rape and serial murder, should be stopped by mutual agreement for the good of the group.

And so it's just your opinion. Your opinion is noted.

An opinion based upon certain objective, evidently demonstrable facts. That's important to most people, though I'd understand why demonstrating things might be unimportant to a theist.

Ad populum fallacy.

Which is why there was an extra sentence that you happened to delete from the quote, I'm sure by accident, the part about society being self correcting. See, it's not just about majority vote, and I'm amused at your continued need to make my arguments as simplistic as you possibly can; it's about the moral arguments one makes in support of positions that eventually leads to a majority. You can see it time and again through history; slavery was abolished, segregation was abolished, gay marriage bans are quickly going the same way... we learn. Again, this is what you'd expect from a bunch of imperfect humans stumbling through moral issues and gradually growing more complex.

You said that "a functioning society benefits all of its members." You don't seem to think that slave-owning society benefits all of its members. Logical conclusion: your position is that slave-owning societies weren't functioning.

An optimally functioning society, then. Are you happy? Do you feel like you've won a battle? Because from out here, this just looks like petty point scoring.

So judge him.

Oh, I am.

Again, I'm attempting to understand other times and cultures without your holier-than-them attitude.

Right, so you're saying that there's a context in which kidnapping, slavery and rape are morally permissible. That makes you an apologist for evil acts. I'm terribly sorry you think that thinking kidnapping, slavery and rape are bad is "holier-than-thou" but I don't; I'm quite happy judging violent monsters. There's no context that makes these crimes okay.

No, I'm on record multiple times as believing that all morality is ultimately subjective. You're the one setting yourself up as judge of other cultures.

No, I'm setting myself up as a human being capable of having an opinion of the actions of others. There's nothing egotistical about that; I disapprove. Deal with it.

[Mystical]

JohnV, where's your proof that an intelligent being created the universe? I have lots of evidence to claim otherwise.