TrevorLarsen
Chumono
As you can see by my quote I am a big Matt Dillahunty fan, and his explication of logic and reason changed the way I think more than anyone. So I’ll always recommend his many debates and his call in shows.
philosophy study, anyone?
- Thread starter pandacular
- Start date
-
- Tags
- philosophy
Gabler
Masterpiece
It makes sense, but it's a lot of jargon.
Gabler
Masterpiece
We're on the same page there, but why is it wrong to do things defrimental to human wellbeing? Why look out for anyone other than yourself? That's the nature of philosophical inquiry—to dig down to first principles and find the basis for our assumptions and beliefs.
Gabler
Masterpiece
It's a bit of a stretch to say that limitations on slavery are an endorsement of slavery. The Bible is a product of the time in which it was written, and it's not really possible to understand it without that context. The Torah, for example, (I think it's in Exodus) provides that a man can enter your service to pay a debt, and after seven years, he should choose whether to remain a part of the household or leave. If he loves his master, he should stay, and if not, he should leave.
That's written to make more humane the ubiquitous institution of debt slavery. It's not an endorsement of that practice, but a law protecting the slave from abuse.
It's impossible to overstate the fact that for most of history, in most of the world, slavery was just a fact of life. Humans were casually cruel in ways unimaginable to most of us living in the 21st century. Many practices that today seem barbaric were actually meant to improve even worse conditions.
Baku1875
Shohin
If it wasn't for the discovery of base 10 numbers, algebra, geometry, calculus, physics, circuitry, programming, would it be easy to simply wake up one day and invent it all without any education based on previous knowledge? Coming up with cell phones, computers, the electrical grid is all just obvious stuff right? Wrong....it took generations upon generations of innovation that built upon previous knowledge, and correcting mistakes of past knowledge to continue building upon it. That's why we go to school, and college- because everyone isn't expected to invent everything from scratch.
Consensus morality, religion, language, rituals all evolved simultaneously over time and built upon previous knowledge as well. Having respect, generosity, forgiveness for one another are core components of religions like Christianity, and those teachings were revolutionary when Jesus preached them in the Roman province of Palestine to the point that they had him executed...*He is speaking to women, lepers, the disabled, criminals, adulterers, gentiles as equals in public?! speaking out against fixation on money!? all people should have a chance to be redeemed and forgiven for their wrongs? kill him!* . Authorities were shocked and concerned that Jesus was attracting so many followers, and they were afraid that it would threaten their authority and the convenient hierarchy of the time. The Sanhedrin and Pilate agreed that he had to go....
What I'm seeing a lot of in this thread is- "nowadays Christians are xyz....Christians were slavers so I dont care..." you have to separate the core principles of Jesus's teachings from the average sinner. Christ's teachings and the Church's actions are not the same by any means and you cannot conflate the two as a way to disregard the original teachings as immoral rubbish.
People strayed from the path to pursue w/e they wanted throughout history. I am of the opinion that those in power during the Atlantic slave trade, scumbag plantation owners of the South and of other slaveholding nations of the West were extremely evil people who were only nominally Christian(to make themselves feel good about their own redemption) but in not practice. If Jesus witnessed any of that, he would have condemned it, and then they would have executed Christ for getting in the way of course...
If you could delete all knowledge of religion from all of history, from where would these morals have evolved? Perhaps they would have emerged somehow but the fact is that we will never know. The fact is that morality and religion evolved as an intertwined package until the Enlightenment.
I think that people are bringing their own personal biases against religion to the discussion with the notion that selfless atheism could have popped out of thin air during the bronze age and we would still have arrived at the same moral consensus today somehow.
Modern moral atheists have a lot in common with moral religious people minus the metaphysical beliefs. And the fact is that not a lot of atheists come from a long line of centuries of atheists, they inherit many of their morals from their nominally or devoutly religious parents, grandparents, etc. I am an atheist who was raised Catholic, I simply shed the 'magical' stuff and kept the morality components.
Son of god or not, Jesus was an extremely influential philosopher who had good things to say about how humans should treat one another, and modern Christians behaving badly is NOT his fault.
Consensus morality, religion, language, rituals all evolved simultaneously over time and built upon previous knowledge as well. Having respect, generosity, forgiveness for one another are core components of religions like Christianity, and those teachings were revolutionary when Jesus preached them in the Roman province of Palestine to the point that they had him executed...*He is speaking to women, lepers, the disabled, criminals, adulterers, gentiles as equals in public?! speaking out against fixation on money!? all people should have a chance to be redeemed and forgiven for their wrongs? kill him!* . Authorities were shocked and concerned that Jesus was attracting so many followers, and they were afraid that it would threaten their authority and the convenient hierarchy of the time. The Sanhedrin and Pilate agreed that he had to go....
What I'm seeing a lot of in this thread is- "nowadays Christians are xyz....Christians were slavers so I dont care..." you have to separate the core principles of Jesus's teachings from the average sinner. Christ's teachings and the Church's actions are not the same by any means and you cannot conflate the two as a way to disregard the original teachings as immoral rubbish.
People strayed from the path to pursue w/e they wanted throughout history. I am of the opinion that those in power during the Atlantic slave trade, scumbag plantation owners of the South and of other slaveholding nations of the West were extremely evil people who were only nominally Christian(to make themselves feel good about their own redemption) but in not practice. If Jesus witnessed any of that, he would have condemned it, and then they would have executed Christ for getting in the way of course...
If you could delete all knowledge of religion from all of history, from where would these morals have evolved? Perhaps they would have emerged somehow but the fact is that we will never know. The fact is that morality and religion evolved as an intertwined package until the Enlightenment.
I think that people are bringing their own personal biases against religion to the discussion with the notion that selfless atheism could have popped out of thin air during the bronze age and we would still have arrived at the same moral consensus today somehow.
Modern moral atheists have a lot in common with moral religious people minus the metaphysical beliefs. And the fact is that not a lot of atheists come from a long line of centuries of atheists, they inherit many of their morals from their nominally or devoutly religious parents, grandparents, etc. I am an atheist who was raised Catholic, I simply shed the 'magical' stuff and kept the morality components.
Son of god or not, Jesus was an extremely influential philosopher who had good things to say about how humans should treat one another, and modern Christians behaving badly is NOT his fault.
Baku1875
Shohin
Just some snippets from wikipedia on the topic
"Book of Revelation condemns the slave trade on the basis that it involves the marketing of human souls and their bodies as if they were cargo.[4] The views that Paul and Revelation had are not the only ones in ancient Judaism to oppose slavery. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect in Israel which rejected much of the institutions of civilization, also rejected slavery, for violating the free equality of man.[5]
In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery."
And the justifications for the abolitionist movement as a part of what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" a reform movement rooted in Christian beliefs which ultimately led to abolition in the UK and the US....atheists did not destroy slavery, and it took a religious argument to justify its abolition because it was still economically convenient to enslave others....
"among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."[7] With others he labored, despite determined opposition, to finally abolish the British slave trade. English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood".[8] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies", and detailed its abuses.[9] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery."
en.wikipedia.org
Human rights and belief are intertwined. Now that we are centuries removed from these critical debates, it's easy to say-"Christians are bad, and you know what?! we could have done this without those principles!!!". Maybe yes, maybe no.....but that's not how it happened at all. One side is fact, the other assumption is science fiction.
"Book of Revelation condemns the slave trade on the basis that it involves the marketing of human souls and their bodies as if they were cargo.[4] The views that Paul and Revelation had are not the only ones in ancient Judaism to oppose slavery. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect in Israel which rejected much of the institutions of civilization, also rejected slavery, for violating the free equality of man.[5]
In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery."
And the justifications for the abolitionist movement as a part of what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" a reform movement rooted in Christian beliefs which ultimately led to abolition in the UK and the US....atheists did not destroy slavery, and it took a religious argument to justify its abolition because it was still economically convenient to enslave others....
"among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."[7] With others he labored, despite determined opposition, to finally abolish the British slave trade. English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood".[8] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies", and detailed its abuses.[9] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery."
Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia
Human rights and belief are intertwined. Now that we are centuries removed from these critical debates, it's easy to say-"Christians are bad, and you know what?! we could have done this without those principles!!!". Maybe yes, maybe no.....but that's not how it happened at all. One side is fact, the other assumption is science fiction.
Peter.Constantine325
Mame
Morality means good and evil, determining what is and isn’t. Objective means mind independent, as in there’s some external reference point outside of our minds to which we can turn to in order to ground our mere opinions in truth itself, going beyond opinion. Can you reply to what I actually said now that you know?
Peter.Constantine325
Mame
What does this have to do with what I said?
Gabler
Masterpiece
Peter.Constantine325
Mame
Cancel culture has more to do with specific moral issues like LGBT normalization or illegal immigration. It’s almost not even about morals in a sense so much as about liberals being unable to reason and resorting to shouting and belittling and running away instead. It’s hard to explain the point I’m trying to make. I’m more referring to the perennial moral standard that can be found underlying all ancient religions and philosophies, and more importantly, the actual struggle to transform ourselves accordingly. I used sex outside of marriage as a point because even Buddhists and Hindus would agree to to a certain extent that this is immoral or unwholesome. They just might not think it’s absolutely sinful in the strict Christian and Muslim sense. Today’s culture is all about satisfying the self, it’s about having an okay or decent moral standard, and going about life with no kind of ascetic struggle at all whatsoever. Other examples would be overcoming pride, or loving our enemies. It just seems a religious person sets the bar high, even if it’s unattainable for the average person until some serious transformation takes place, whereas secular people are just… Okay, decent. And that okay or decent moral standard, it should be pointed out, generally comes from the Christian faith.
Peter.Constantine325
Mame
Perennially speaking, religions and philosophies that are worthy of man make serious demands of man. They set high standards and give paths to eventually achieve them. The spirit of Tradition if you will, in this sense, is completely contradicted by the lazy, hedonistic and all around decadent way of life of your average atheist or none. This is my biggest pet peeve with atheists who preach their atheism, they simply don’t replace the standards of these religions and philosophies with something just as demanding, nor give paths to eventually achieve them.
Gabler
Masterpiece
I'd say that if you're not worshiping the God, you're definitely worshiping a god. Even self-professed atheists have something that matters most, and that thing becomes an object of worship. Even most self-professed Christians, myself included, tend to prioritize other things higher than faith in God, at least occasionally. That's idol worship.
That's not to say you should abandon all worldly pursuits and do nothing but pray. You need to work to put food on the table and rest to be able to sustain that work over time, but all of that should be oriented toward and subordinate to a higher ideal than mere resource gathering or recreation for its own sake.
NashsMan
Shohin
I don't subscribe to this at all! There is no "thing" that I worship. There is no "entity" that I worship.
I do prioritize Order over Entropy, Information over Disinformation, directed Energy over Stasis, Becoming over Decay (these are all the same dyad: Yang/Yin). In every case, both polarities exist and are always balancing.
I suppose my highest ideal is "Thought" or if I were to look in Genesis "the Word" Logos, or in Eastern thought "the Tao" but there's nothing there to worship; indeed, there's no "There" there
Gabler
Masterpiece
It doesn't make much difference if you think of the object of your worship as a material object or an abstract concept—an ideal is an ideal. If you don't have an explicit god, you'll have an implicit god.
Relatedly, people don't have ideas; ideas have people; so it's important to choose carefully.
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
I never said other Christians didn’t end slavery, because it had to be them they were by far the majority in America. Also I was raised believing in Jesus and my whole family still does, and I love them and we are still very close. I in no way think all believers of any religion are all bad. Quoting Wikipedia is rather weak since it is edited by the public and most people are Christian. Read some of the actual scholars on the subject.Just some snippets from wikipedia on the topic
"Book of Revelation condemns the slave trade on the basis that it involves the marketing of human souls and their bodies as if they were cargo.[4] The views that Paul and Revelation had are not the only ones in ancient Judaism to oppose slavery. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect in Israel which rejected much of the institutions of civilization, also rejected slavery, for violating the free equality of man.[5]
In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery."
And the justifications for the abolitionist movement as a part of what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" a reform movement rooted in Christian beliefs which ultimately led to abolition in the UK and the US....atheists did not destroy slavery, and it took a religious argument to justify its abolition because it was still economically convenient to enslave others....
"among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."[7] With others he labored, despite determined opposition, to finally abolish the British slave trade. English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood".[8] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies", and detailed its abuses.[9] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery."
Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia
Human rights and belief are intertwined. Now that we are centuries removed from these critical debates, it's easy to say-"Christians are bad, and you know what?! we could have done this without those principles!!!". Maybe yes, maybe no.....but that's not how it happened at all. One side is fact, the other assumption is science fiction.
I highly recommend listening to this debate it is very informative and expresses my opinion. But I understand if you don’t since it’s rather long.
HEATED DEBATE Matt Dillahunty & Dr Josh Vs Cliffe & Stuart Knechtle | Is Biblical Slavery Moral?
LINKSMatt: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeityDr Josh: https://www.youtube.com/digitalhammurabiCliffe: https://www.youtube.com/user/askcliffeStuart: https...
www.youtube.com
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
You look out for other people because a society in which people look out for each other is better for the well being of you.
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
Saying the south was only nominally Christian is wrong you should look into it. Stone Wall Jackson famously would not mail a letter if he thought it might still be in transit on a Sunday since it’s the day of rest. They were extremely Christian.
Much if not all of the best things Jesus taught were already concepts in other older religions. I agree selfless atheism could not have “popped out of thin air” (which is a straw man logical fallacy I would never say or think that) of corse human have to learn and part of that is learning what not to do, and what not to do is base our morality on a book written by people who knew a minute fraction of what we have in our pockets all day every day.
I was also raised Christian. I agree it’s not the fault of the character Jesus that is written about in the Bible, but if Jesus is real and all powerful it is his fault.
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
Sorry if I came off rude with the gibberish comment. I asked because I think we found our miscommunication. When i say morality I don’t mean good or evil. Those are superstitious religious terms. When I say moral I mean what is better for the well being of a person and if that person lives in a society then that too.
Also when I say objective I agree it’s mind independent in that it is not just someones opinion but not some abstract supernatural concept. An external reference point isn’t what I mean so I think our miscommunication is based on fundamental differences in our world views.
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
You said “For example, religion generally restrains us in regard to sex. It’s not just about pleasure, nor should it be so. But people don’t want to be told no, they don’t want to embrace a high moral standard. They’d rather be lazy and not practice anything at all.” And my example showed that the secular world is doing what you said and the religious world is hating them for it.
TrevorLarsen
Chumono
You should look into secular humanism they set a very high bar.