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]

[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.]

[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.