Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So much for that 9th commandment

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
So much for that 9th commandment
Author Message
thenexttodiePosts: 835Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

hackenslash wrote:Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.

thenexttodie wrote:If you never existed would it still be wrong to rape a child?

Stupid question, and it tells me you didn't bother reading the linked article. You can do better than that.

Wrong? Useless term.[/quote]

I have read your article. I don't how you can say wrong is a useless term in a discussion on morality. You used it 5 times in your own article you linked to.

You define Morality as a broad agreement that we should not unnecessarily inflict harm upon one another. Ok. Not that I disagree with your definition but I was just wondering if you believe if it actually possible to fullfill this standard. That we do not unnecessarily harm each other?

Your disscussion;
hackenslash wrote:"We can agree that harm is caused when one of us kills another. We can agree that harm is caused when one of us rapes another, or steals from another.
Some of these are not set in stone (well, unless you're of a particular theological persuasion). There are many moral dilemmas littering the ethics literature that show that it isn't always easy to spot what a right action is in a given situation. For example, is it immoral to lie? Yes? Is it wrong to lie to a Gestapo officer about the Jewish family hiding under your floorboards, knowing that revealing them will lead to their deaths?

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have heard this all before in various Christian church sermons.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1880Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

hackenslash Doesn’t even believe in free will (defining free will as the ability to make choices at least sometimes)

So under his view morality can’t even exist, but at least he is being honest and consistent

hackenslash wrote:
Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.

Others like AronRa would deny free will and affirm moral objectivity by claiming things like the bible is morally wrong because….. bla bla bla
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:56 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 185Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

leroy wrote:
So under his view morality can’t even exist, but at least he is being honest and consistent

hackenslash wrote:
Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.

Leroy, you cannot seriously believe that the statement you make about Hackenslash's stance on the existence of morality is supported by the quote you show.

Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:24 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 546Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Again I must apologize for my inattention to this forum of late. I promise will monitor more closely from now on.

MatthewLee wrote:
AronRa wrote: we have perilously similar concepts occurring in the oldest myths known to man, which were written by the very grandfathers of the Biblical authors, whose familiar version doesn't appear in the Bible until more than a thousand years later. If the Bible did not not borrow these concepts from all the old myths of Semitic ancestry, then where do you imagine they came from? That's a serious question deserving an answer.
I have thought on this question for most of the day because it seems to cut right to the heart of the issue. Very insightful and incisive. What differentiates these ideas from the Bible narrative? The ideas could have been plagiarized or they could have been used because they were universal and easily understood symbols which opened deep and meaningful metaphors. How do we know which it was? in other words... does the fact that "Free Willy" has a whale in it mean that it was plagiarized from "Moby Dick?"
I would have thought Free Willy had more in common with Flying Wild, Roots, or Born Free. It doesn't matter what the animal is. That one thing is the ONLY thing in common between the two you just mentioned, and your answer ignore the fact that all the elder fables already existed in Semitic mythos long before the newer versions of those same stories appeared in the Bible, adapted to the new god of the new religion.

Genesis' creation narrative isn't written for geniuses, that's for sure. It's written for bronze age sheep herders who didn't exactly speak French. Much of it was a completely metaphorical narrative meant to explain things far more complex than the mind of man even today can fully grasp and so it had to contain things that would have had meaning to them when read aloud. The modern tendency to believe it literally robs it of all the power it has because if it's literal there's no metaphor and it's ridiculous. The metaphors are meant to carry a powerful lot of information in a small space.
I get that. One of the leading evolutionary scientists for a long time was Dr Robert T Bakker, who held PhDs from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Yet he was also a Pentacostal preacher who taught that to read the Bible literally deprived it of it's true meaning. That said though, we still have to acknowledge the fact that virtually nothing in those parables is literally or even figuratively true. I mean, we could say that the fable of the Garden of Eden was a parable about men should consider women as the bringers of civilization, which was an interpretation that made sense to me, and that it reflects the idea that "you can never go home again" or return to child-like innocence of mere animal intelligence. But otherwise everything about that story has only mislead and enslaved people. There's just no justification for prettying up the text so much that there's no actual truth to be found in it anymore.

And still, Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith.

The Creation parts aside, the fall of man is a deep and significant explanation of the human condition and of free will. Free will is what differentiates us from the animals... can an animal actually do evil?
I have to adhere to rigid precise definitions within the precise context we're talking about, and I've never heard a better description of evil than the one proposed by Scott Clifton.

"A particular action or choice is moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or both."

Here we have an objective standard for what good and evil are. Have animals caused harm unnecessarily? Yes, on a few occasions, that has been shown to happen. According to the sacred stories, God has committed evil several times too.

Can an animal be held morally culpable for breaking a rule? Even smart ones are still just called "wild" animals unable to be charged with a crime... they are animals. We have 99% similar DNA to a chimpanzee but we will never try one in a court of law for murder... even the one that ripped that poor woman's face off.
The reason why we won't is because the punishment does no good if the criminal doesn't know why or even that he is being punished, which completely refutes the garden of Eden fable, since Adam and Eve were forbidden to learn right from wrong.

Have you never noticed the similarities that story has with the tale of Prometheus and Pandora? They're very nearly the same thing, but with the Christian crucifixion thrown in several centuries before the story of Jesus.

Humans on the other hand are morally culpable so what is different? That's where the tree of knowledge of good and evil comes in. We were just like everything else... walking about naked and multiplying with abandon and not really thinking about the right and the wrong until we were given a rule. Once we were given a rule we were given the choice to break it we were given the ability to learn what free will was. We made a choice and that choice had consequences...but this is the story of not just a literal man and woman it's the story of the first self-aware humans. It's a definition of free will and what makes it free... you have two choices: one is seductive and pleasurable but leads to death and the other is following the rules and living. We had God's will already and we knew the Good. We had to be tempted by an equally attractive choice to be able to actually make a meaningful choice between good and evil. Enter temptation via a serpent and a tasty fruit. Why did we need free will? Why does any father want children? Could you just buy a bunch of robots and consider them your kids or do you want a self aware being... one more... in your own image?
We had no choice, because in that story we didn't have free will until we ate the forbidden fruit. We had no knowledge of right or wrong before then. So you can't call it free will. At most we were naive enough to believe the one character in that fable who didn't lie. Not that even God lied in that story, but the serpent told the truth.

When you google temptation the first image hit... at least when I did it... is this image...

The metaphor holds even today for the sign of temptation and that is because the symbols are universal. Trees bear fruit. The tree of life bore fruit that grants life and to be in the garden and enjoy the benefits of this tree, you had to follow the rules and not break them. Breaking them even once resulted in death because that's sin. If you never eat the fruit of the tree you only know good. If you break the rule and eat the fruit you know both good and evil and realize that you can do either if you choose... you become morally culpable because you understand right from wrong. God says 'they have become one like us' which means there are self-aware and non-self aware beings and we had just joined the host.

Inanna's tree conveyed none of that message to me. There was no temptation in her garden. It was just a tree which harbored some unsavory characters, one of which was a serpent who was immune to spells. The fruit was immaterial because the tree was just going to become furniture anyway, lol. The story in the poem with Gilgamesh was more of an entertaining narrative to me which perhaps would have spoken more to me if I had spoken the language and lived in the time. It was telling a story whose shades of meaning have been grayed by history. It left no metaphor or meaning with me speaking of greater truth.

External to that: The meaning of a tree is universal, it bears fruit. Jesus even talks about the fruit a tree bears... judge a tree by it's fruit for example.
Serpents are naturally shifty symbols of things we fear that mean to poison us. The serpent is not to be trusted no matter what age you live in... they mean you harm and it's in their nature. If one talks to you, you probably shouldn't trust him. And you should get medication because even in the wizarding world, hearing voices isn't good.
The garden was the temptation. She was trespassing. The other irrelevant elements were added later, and these already familiar original elements were changed to adapt to a new metaphor.

AronRa wrote:The idea of the snake being female didn't come from this fable but rather from a Talmudic legend, which itself was adapted from this story, and then adapted again by the Jews, before being accommodated by Medieval Christians. In that story, the serpent wasn't just a companion of Lilith's but an incarnation of hers: returning to seek vengeance against the younger woman, Eve. This is why virtually every rendering by all the Christian artists of the Renaissance depict the serpent in the garden as a woman.
You are correct about the Talmudic legend, but Talmud is not really Scripture. It doesn't alter or supersede Torah, I don't think... [/quote]No, it was meant to clarify the Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament.

I was always told that if you want to understand why the Talmud was written then ask a Jew how they atone for sin now that their temple has been destroyed and they can no longer make animal sacrifices. They will start to perserverate on the Torah and how it doesn't really say what it says and then go through mental gymnastics which eventually result in a Talmud.
I'm sure you were told that, by another Christian, and that you haven't actually attempted that experiment. I learned a long time ago that if you want to know what a Mormon or a Hindu believes, don't ask a Baptist, because they don't know and will only lie to you.

No messiah, no temple: no atonement and no salvation. It's an inescapable truth of their own Scripture.
That's not the truth at all. I don't know about the rest of it, but they definitely have a messiah. They wrote the basis of your Bible, remember? They laid out the criteria for their messianic savior therein, and Jesus failed to meet any of those requirements.

To my knowledge, temporally, the Talmud was also composed at the very least 800 years after even the most pessimistic scholar might date the final compilation of the Torah.
You're talking about what was originally practiced as the oral torah, when the Tanakh (Old Testament) was called the written Torah.

There is nothing in Scripture which called the serpent Satan and nothing that calls it Lilith either, as far I have ever read.
Believers often read into their scriptures things it does not say and ignore much of what it does say. The paintings absolutely indicate what you say with female serpents. I can't say why this is, but it isn't Biblical.
It is also isn't Biblical to worship and idolize Mary or to be able to buy forgiveness of sins from the pope in scroll form but boy the Catholics sure did a lot of that. I don't always understand why people interpret things the way they do.[/quote]Yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy were the foundation of the modern Christian belief, and Christians since then have adopted another legend which you admit isn't Biblical either.

I watched the Noah's Ark video you linked by the way. Very interesting. Your conclusions were not in error and well supported given the premise you started with. I think the attempt to date the flood by the scholar was entirely in error.

I find it interesting, however, how many flood myths there are. This is another case of plagiarism vs something everyone would understand... The flood myths were in cultures all over the world that had little or no contact.
And had very little similarity because the most obvious exaggeration any child with no knowledge of scripture would likely have invented on his own.

Perhaps there was a flood.
There was never a global flood. We know that much for certain.

Perhaps we need to read more carefully. That's what I hear in a lot of your work... the implication that I need to put my nose in the Book and see for myself rather than believing the interpretation of people who believe dinosaurs walked with men. For that, all Christians should thank you.
: :)
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:12 am
leroyPosts: 1880Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:
And still, Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith.

That has been refuted by scholars, it is just a results of “creative neat picking” one can also read the gospels and use the same type of “creative neat picking” to infer that Dragon Ball (the cartoon) was based on the gospels. After all the God “Kami-sama” was born from a virgin, had 12 disciples, came to earth in form of a human, was 3 entities in 1 created food with supernatural powers, was murdered, resurrected etc.

But obviously these parallels don’t prove plagiarism, everybody understands that these are coincidences and that anyone who has seen the cartoon and read the gospels would know that the stories are completely different and independent.

But Even if Adam and Adapa where the same person, I don’t understand why would that help to falsify the bible, if the bible was reporting real events in real history, finding other independent documents reporting the same events would help verify the historicity and reliability of the bible.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:50 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests