• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Weak point?

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
34,999
Reaction score
15,047
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?


SO according to this, murder can be considered moral. Not saying currently is, but that a change in society could render murder, or what is currently considered murder, as a moral act.
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?

Nothing in fact DID stop them.
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?
If god determines morality and they say that their god told them to sacrifice virgins, then I fail to see how religion is helping us determine morality.

The evidence for the idea that religion helps people be good is scant and wobbly at best. The idea that it's the responsibility of atheism to fix any problem that arises because religion or "god" wasn't able to fix them is silly. Atheism doesn't claim to have the answers to morality. But if you shift over to something like secular humanism, then I think the argument that secular humanism makes a more coherent and logical argument for human morality is easy to make and is on a strong foundation.
 
My postulate is that religious ethics are derived from intrinsic biological ethics which are largely genetic. It's fairly consistent with the distribution of race and their respective religions across the world. I'm never going into anthropology though so it remains a psotulate.
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?
Well Yes! They were the ethical view point at the time and place. Just as vikings found it ethical to kill or die in battle for spoils such as rape , slaves and goods.

The only reason we as humans have anything resembling ethics is because humans have the ability to reason given their brain. The only reason humans do think along the lines of ethics is because we are social creatures who must learn to live with each other. In order to do so we along with all social animals have developed the instinct of altruism and empathy. It is from these two abilities and our ability to think that we have moved from simple behaviour in animals that helps others in the group/ family to creating ethical rules that are either religious or non religious.
 
If god determines morality and they say that their god told them to sacrifice virgins, then I fail to see how religion is helping us determine morality.

The evidence for the idea that religion helps people be good is scant and wobbly at best. The idea that it's the responsibility of atheism to fix any problem that arises because religion or "god" wasn't able to fix them is silly. Atheism doesn't claim to have the answers to morality. But if you shift over to something like secular humanism, then I think the argument that secular humanism makes a more coherent and logical argument for human morality is easy to make and is on a strong foundation.


It depends on which god you're talking about! Aztecs killed people for their god!

In the end - as in the case of Christianity - if people deviate from the doctrine, sure there will be atrocities committed in the name of Christ that goes against His teachings. Like, the Inquisition as an example.

Would we have pedophiles in churches if priests/clergy are really following the teachings of Christ?


Society is made up of people. The ideology of the majority will rule -either by their system, or by force. That's just natural.
It's not the religion (Christianity). It's the people.

Secular humanism is the same. No matter how noble a secular doctrine is, it'll be the people who'd make the choice whether to adhere to it, or not.
In fact, a Godless society is bound to be worse. There's nothing.....there's no one to fear!
What's stopping those in authority to abuse their power to the full extent? Just look at communist and socialist societies.
 
Last edited:
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?

God doesn’t keep a society from doing anything. Laws instituted by humans designed to allow society to function. We say we outlaw, say, murder because it’s wrong, and it is, but in reality we couldn’t progress as a society if we allow people to murder each other willy nilly.

Just a normal human progress thing ya’ll project GOD on to.
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?
Yeah, it's tough question without a definitive answer...but adding "God" to the mix doesn't necessarily help.

Is "God" the author of morality, then? If so, then such a being could state anything and that would be the highest form of morality. God could proclaim, "It is morally obligatory to rape red-haired women on Thursdays"...and therefore it would be, right? There is nothing wrong with the arbitrary morals of a being, right?

Or, do you believe that "God" wouldn't or couldn't say such a thing?

If "God" wouldn't or couldn't say such a thing, it suggests that there is a morality that is higher than "God" that "God" follows. Then you have to ask, why not cut out the middle man and worship that rather than "God"?

In any event, there are some other problems with this argument.
1. It is an argument of convenience rather than existence. It doesn't actually prove anything...it just points out that it would be easier and more convenient if a "God" exists...and that it defining morality is difficult. That's fine and well, but hardly proves that atheists are wrong.
2. It doesn't favor any one God over any other Gods or sets of gods. This argument could be used equally well to justify the existence of Allah, Odin, Zeus or the Great Marshmallow as your particular "God", whatever it is that you believe in.
 
In the end - as in the case of Christianity - if people deviate from the doctrine, sure there will be atrocities committed in the name of Christ that goes against His teachings. Like, the Inquisition as an example.
There were plenty of slave owners in the past that explicitly used Jesus's words that slaves should obey their masters in order to defend the practice. Not to mention the portions of the old testament that layout the exact rules and guidelines for slavery. You can't declare Christianity as anything other than another religion in a very long list that can't even get all of the really easy moral questions right.
 
There were plenty of slave owners in the past that explicitly used Jesus's words that slaves should obey their masters in order to defend the practice. Not to mention the portions of the old testament that layout the exact rules and guidelines for slavery. You can't declare Christianity as anything other than another religion in a very long list that can't even get all of the really easy moral questions right.


What was Jesus supposed to say in a region and at a time in which slavery was the way of life?
What do you think happened to disobedient slaves? Didn't they get punished?
Therefore, His advise to slaves was only practical. He made it easier for them to practice obedience to their masters by likening it to obedience to God.
What about masters? Didn't He protect slaves by instructing masters to be fair?





Ephesians 6
9 Masters, do the same to them, band stop your threatening, knowing that che who is both their Master4 and yours is in heaven, and that dthere is no partiality with him.




And it's not for lack of trying to change. As an example, Paul had written to a slave owner regarding a runaway slave.


Slavery during the time of Jesus wasn't the same kind of slavery we know in modern times.
The Bible forbids human trafficking (kidnapping or abduction in order to sell people).



Anyway, I don't want to get into a long discussion about it. Here's a little explanation about that. It's a long article:


What does the Bible say about slavery in the New Testament?

The Bible does not categorically condemn debt bondage. In fact, in the Old Testament it was regulated as a type of welfare. The New Testament speaks more about exhibiting Christian character within the context of slavery.


In later years Christians went to great lengths to free slaves—sometimes even selling themselves into slavery to raise the money to free others. Christians have been at the forefront of modern abolition movements, from William Wilberforce's efforts to the International Justice Mission. The expectations God has of His followers regarding slavery have never changed: support the poor to keep them out of slavery, ensure fair and generous treatment of slaves, and proclaim liberty for the captives and freedom to prisoners.
 
Last edited:
What was Jesus supposed to say in a region and at a time in which slavery was the way of life?
What do you think happened to disobedient slaves?
Didn't He protect slaves by instructing masters to be fair?

And it's not for lack of trying to change. Paul had written to a slave owner regarding a runaway slave.


Slavery during the time of Jesus wasn't the same kind of slavery we know in modern times.
The Bible forbids human trafficking (kidnapping or abduction in order to sell people).
The bible forbids nothing except that which men choose it to forbid.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...passages-might-encourage-uprisings-180970989/
When 19th-century British missionaries arrived in the Caribbean to convert enslaved Africans, they came armed with a heavily edited version of the Bible. Any passage that might incite rebellion was removed; gone, for instance, were references to the exodus of enslaved Israelites from Egypt.


The abridged work was first printed in London in 1807, on behalf of the Society for the Conversion of Negro Slaves. The missionaries associated with this movement sought to teach enslaved Africans to read, with the ultimate goal of introducing them to Christianity. But they had to be careful not to run afoul of farmers who were wary about the revolutionary implications of educating their enslaved workforce. The British West-India Islands (modern-day Jamaica, Barbados and Antigua) “formed the heart” of England’s overseas empire, after all, and it was powered by millions of enslaved Africans forced to work on sugar plantations.

“This can be seen as an attempt to appease the planter class saying, ‘Look, we're coming here. We want to help uplift materially these Africans here but we’re not going to be teaching them anything that could incite rebellion,’” Anthony Schmidt, the Museum of the Bible’s associate curator of Bible and Religion, tells Martin.

That meant the missionaries needed a radically pared down version of the Bible. “A typical Protestant edition of the Bible contains 66 books, a Roman Catholic version has 73 books and an Eastern Orthodox translation contains 78 books,” the museum says in a statement. “By comparison, the astoundingly reduced Slave Bible contains only parts of 14 books.”
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?

The Aztecs were probably following what they saw as the wishes of their particular god(s). Using the word god does not mean that the source of all ethics is not man. Man makes up different justifications for the ethics they choose at the time. An atheists made up ethics are no different than a theists made up ethics. Only the justifications vary.
 
What was Jesus supposed to say in a region and at a time in which slavery was the way of life?
What do you think happened to disobedient slaves?
Didn't He protect slaves by instructing masters to be fair?

And it's not for lack of trying to change. Paul had written to a slave owner regarding a runaway slave.


Slavery during the time of Jesus wasn't the same kind of slavery we know in modern times.
The Bible forbids human trafficking (kidnapping or abduction in order to sell people).

Well, if Jesus was actually god he should have no trouble saying whatever god should say. So I guess either he wasn't or god is a craven coward.
 
then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it")
That's not what you should be focusing on. Besides, your country has been killing people in millions like Stalin for decades — ABROAD.
 
My postulate is that religious ethics are derived from intrinsic biological ethics which are largely genetic. It's fairly consistent with the distribution of race and their respective religions across the world. I'm never going into anthropology though so it remains a psotulate.
So are you saying people are inherently good? Well there goes racism.
 
That's not what you should be focusing on. Besides, your country has been killing people in millions like Stalin for decades — ABROAD.

What about the Muslim Saudi Arabians who murder journalists?
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?

Were the Aztecs throwing virgins to their death for the fun of it, or for their religion?

But to answer your question, what stops them is people who don't want them to do that, preferably people with weapons.
 
Maquiscat may have found a weak point in the ethics of atheist. If is society, per se, and not God that makes the determination of what is ethical and/or moral, then what is to keep the Aztecs from throwing virgins to their death or a tyrant like Stalin from murdering perhaps millions of his own people ("the tsars did it") and simply seeing that as ethics for those particular societies?

I don't believe it is a weak point at all. The priestly classes of the Aztecs/Mayans believed that sacrifice was a means to appease the gods in times of famine, poor weather etc. They believed their gods wanted human sacrifice, so obviously, they considered it a moral/ethical response based upon their superstition in order to protect their sphere of influence. Stalin wanted the land of various peoples within his control for state run agriculture and he saw his methods as necessary to strengthen the communist ideology throughout the USSR at that point in time.

No doubt Hitler thought that his acts were moral and or ethical owing to the ideology and belief systems of his party.

Gods or religion are the invention of men and what is considered ethical or moral in a given society is subject to the mores of said society. The Bible itself, in various passages promotes murder and slavery (which was as barbaric as any form of slavery in the modern world despite the idealisation of some Xian apologists), and it was written by men who believed that there was nothing wrong with these acts given the circumstances. This alone reflects the attitudes of the society contemporaneous to the texts themselves, and it is ridiculous to believe that any codex of law or the foundation of any moral and ethical code originated from an outside source, even if those promoting said codes claimed thus. Groups have justified barbaric acts in the name of their gods, and no doubt will continue to do so, as evinced by a few fundamentalist theocracies throughout the Muslim world.

Ethical behaviour is an evolving concept that is borne of a group's need to work together in order to survive, and one can note the development of said codes throughout history. Once the Christian used the Bible just justify owning other humans, however, we have now moved on from that and consider the practice abhorrent. In Ancient Greece, paedophilia was considered to be acceptable and one can see this in pottery depicting scenes which we would consider perverse, and the Spartan military indulged in the practice after removing a boy from his mother at seven years of age for training. We consider this abhorrent and rightly so, but it is evidence of the mutability of moral and ethical behaviour based upon what a society considers to be acceptable or right.

Gods have never stopped a group from committing heinous acts, with many committed in the name of whatever god the group chose to worship. We, as a species, require strongly enforced laws created by our own society to protect ourselves from ourselves and each other. These laws are based on what we consider right for our continued survival, and no imaginary authority gave them to us, for we created them and then awarded credibility to them by claiming they originated with a powerful external source, when in actual fact it was those who led the community.
 
What was Jesus supposed to say in a region and at a time in which slavery was the way of life?
What do you think happened to disobedient slaves? Didn't they get punished?
Therefore, His advise to slaves was only practical. He made it easier for them to practice obedience to their masters by likening it to obedience to God.


So Christianity is the path to objective morality, but it couldn't give a clear explanation on slavery because that was too hard? Is this a real answer or are you punking me?
 
So Christianity is the path to objective morality, but it couldn't give a clear explanation on slavery because that was too hard?
Is this a real answer or are you punking me?

Perhaps, you just simply don't like the answer? :)

Not every answer is to our liking, I get that.
But....that doesn't necessarily mean the answer given isn't moral, nor does it mean there wasn't an answer at all.
Some answers can be complicated.

Life's issues aren't like the issues grade schoolers think and ask about that parents can give straight simple answers to.



Didn't you read this?

 
Last edited:

Always lame excuses disguised as thoughtful Apologism by the Bibliophiles. Always.


You of all people would say that? Do you know what lame excuses are actually like? :ROFLMAO:

Read all yours! :p

The classic of all lame excuses, and outright irrational - "Theistic Evolution is a belief! A belief! A BELIEF!" :ROFLMAO:
Even when it's already been said it is, and no one is saying it isn't
. :p
 
You of all people would say that? Do you know what lame excuses are actually like? :ROFLMAO:

Read all yours! :p

The classic of all lame excuses, and outright irrational - "Theistic Evolution is a belief! A belief! A BELIEF!" :ROFLMAO:
Even when it's already been said it is, and no one is saying it isn't
. :p


You are the one who keeps claiming that it is “science”. Science is about hypotheses. Religion is about belief. Quite different,
 
You are the one who keeps claiming that it is “science”. Science is about hypotheses. Religion is about belief. Quite different,
:rolleyes:

I quoted the NAS' view on Theistic Evolution.
We're all saying it is a religious belief - a belief that God created the universe and processes that makes evolution possible.
The NAS isn't ruling out creation by God! That's all.

You got hysterical over it. :)
The way you carry on, it's like as if we say the Boogeyman is coming! :ROFLMAO:

What can I say Watsup - you don't understand what's clearly explained in that NAS faq. 🤷
I can't help you.....
 
Back
Top Bottom