Slavery

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why is that such a terrible thing? see - you are blinded by your faith.

No, I'm not blinded by my faith; YOU are blinded by YOUR faith that there is no God, IMO. Can you actually say you would prefer a picture that was formed by setting it up by a busy street the day after a big rainstorm and letting mud splashes go all over it by random chance, to a DaVinci masterpiece? Or even a DaVinci sketch, for that matter? One is formed by random chance, the other by skillful design. You would rather be a chance occurance than a beautifully planned and loved and wanted person? Again, I think YOU are being blinded by your faith. I know which option I would prefer.

(now please note that this particular answer ONLY addresses why it is a "terrible thing" - it does not address why I think that it's more logical to believe that we're created, so it's completely irrelevant to the point to say that it's just a WISH of mine that I'm created. That IS the point - any sane person would wish the option that is better.)

And BTW, I think that the VERY FACT that you hate slavery is something that strongly points to the existence of God. As I said before, why would slavery be so awful, unless it it because it's a crime against a incredibly beautiful and important created being, who was created to be free? Do you object that I enslave and then eat carrots? Of course not.

You won't even open your eyes to science. It's what many early scientists were put to death for - contracticting religious teachings - even though today we know the SCIENTISTS were correct.

Well, perhaps you are not quite an athiest - IMO (and no offense intended), I think perhaps the name of your god is "Science". A very good and useful and important field, but in terms of being a god, pretty lousy, IMO (and I have a university-level scientific background, BTW). The god named Science makes a lot of mistakes, doesn't it? That's why theories keep getting revised

Now, I have no objections to science as a useful and important field - in fact, I've benefitted from it many times - my only objection is when it's treated as a god. It is very, very useful in a limited area - but that's it.

Please be specific, BTW - how am I not opening my eyes to science?

And I'm sorry - can not believe that you woudl actually state that you feel that accepting slavery is better than evolution.

Well, I DIDN'T state that - please quote me more accurately. I said "There are much worse things, IMO, than slavery - one of which is being told that I am a completely accidental occurance that resulted from time and chance and mindless selection mechanisms originating from a single-celled thingy that no one has any idea where it came from. And another is going to hell, even if I have never been a slave." I never said to accept slavery; I DID say that I think that slavery is not the worst evil.

Why is it a requirement to LOVE and SERVE him? Is he so egotisitcal that he needs love? What about just being a good human being and caring about your fellow man? Isn't that more important than worshipping him?

This is a great question, IMO, and one I'll have to get back to, along with the rest of your post. I've posted a lot already today, and I have to do some boring, real-life work now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There can be no logical basis for morality in the creatures that are the result of evolutionary processes. And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!

Why can it not be? I am a THINKING creature - I can determine for myself what is right or wrong. Society itself has determined what is right or wrong and is made up of fellow humans. As a collective we have put limits on what people can do. I just don't think it's right to kill someone - solely because it hurts the people who care for them. It's the same reason I would not kill someone's pet - but the bible does not say anything about that. Do you go around killing other people pets or being cruel to animals? I don't remember the bible ever speaking out against that.

I find the attitude rather arrogant Rian actually to say..."And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!" Why would oit be irritating? I'm a THINKING persons who feels and empathizes with others. You believe this comes from god - I do not.

[Rían]

Just a quick post - (and note how I quote people! 0 :-) )

JD said "I suppose you think I should be a murdering, cruel,self centered animal because I don't believe in god."

Gwai answered "I do not, and I highly doubt Rian does."

Gwai is quite correct - why should you be all these things? Indeed, the moral code that God has implanted in you prevents your doing many wrong actions, and it gives you an uncomfy feeling in your conscience when you DO do something wrong.

And I would like to agree also with Gwai's disclaimer, and say I feel the same way : (quoted here for your convenience, since this thread is moving faster than a house a-fire!)

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is intended to offend. I consider JerseyDevil, Ruinel, and numerous other atheists to be among my friends. However, I do have different views than they, and am willing to discuss and debate this. Indeed, I believe that the thread of friendship runs under debate, and that each can strengthen the other.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I find the attitude rather arrogant Rian actually to say..."And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!" Why would oit be irritating? I'm a THINKING persons who feels and empathizes with others. You believe this comes from god - I do not.

Sorry, my sense of humor got the better of my consideration for others. I should have written that in a more neutral manner. *sends JD an apologetic, sisterly kiss which she hopes he'll accept*

But really, I must go pay some bills now, and I'll have to get to the rest of it later.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, I'm not blinded by my faith; YOU are blinded by YOUR faith that there is no God, IMO. Can you actually say you would prefer a picture that was formed by setting it up by a busy street the day after a big rainstorm and letting mud splashes go all over it by random chance, to a DaVinci masterpiece? Or even a DaVinci sketch, for that matter? One is formed by random chance, the other by skillful design. You would rather be a chance occurance than a beautifully planned and loved and wanted person? Again, I think YOU are being blinded by your faith. I know which option I would prefer.

It's in the eyes of the beholder. A lot of modern art is beautiful and it is random splashes of paint. So your example falls short. An elephant is still and elephant whether it was created or evolved. it doesn't change the end result. The leaves still chnage colors and fall from the trees. The sun is still warm and beautiful even though it is not a god riding in a flaming chariot.

And BTW, I think that the VERY FACT that you hate slavery is something that strongly points to the existence of God.

Why is that - because I'm a moral person who has never gotten into a fight, never killed anyone, never stole from anyone? it was my CHOICE not to do those things and it's the way I was brought up. If I was raised in a different family - I would have been very different.

As I said before, why would slavery be so awful, unless it it because it's a crime against a incredibly beautiful and important created being, who was created to be free? Do you object that I enslave and then eat carrots? Of course not.

Slavery is awefule because no human is better than another in my mind. I don't think that anyone is better than me - or less than me. To me a person is human and therefore should not be enslaved.

Well, perhaps you are not quite an athiest - IMO (and no offense intended), I think perhaps the name of your god is "Science". A very good and useful and important field, but in terms of being a god, pretty lousy, IMO (and I have a university-level scientific background, BTW).

it doesn't matter if you have a university-level scientific background if your scope of finding the truth is restricted to what the bible says. As for science beiung my god - it's not my god. Science however searches for the truth - with no strings attached. It's not trying to fit it's discoveries based on what is in a book.

The god named Science makes a lot of mistakes, doesn't it? That's why theories keep getting revised

Yes it does make mistakes - but science evolves and changes as more knowledge is gained. You and fellow extreme religious people refuse to accept anything that may contradict the bible. YOu feel the bible has all the answers and that what it says is the only truth - to me this is walking around with blinders on. I have lifted the blinders - you have not.

Now, I have no objections to science as a useful and important field - in fact, I've benefitted from it many times - my only objection is when it's treated as a god. It is very, very useful in a limited area - but that's it.

it's not treated as god - it's treated as the search for truth. If the evidence points elsewhere - then it goes in that direction. Science is ever chnaging - religion is a cult that needs for the people to believe it without thinking.

[jerseydevil]

Please be specific, BTW - how am I not opening my eyes to science?

You will refute anything that does not establish the bible as the only truth. You will even go so far as to defend the bible against the fact that it condones slavery and does not speak out against it. You will refuse to accept any evidence that evolution is a possiblity because you as you said in a post a long time ago "that it doesn't make sense". Just because it doesn't make sense - does not mean that the evidence isn't there to support evolution. What doesn't make sense is to believe in a mystical being and invisible creatures with wings and harps.

Well, I DIDN'T state that - please quote me more accurately. I said "There are much worse things, IMO, than slavery - one of which is being told that I am a completely accidental occurance that resulted from time and chance and mindless selection mechanisms originating from a single-celled thingy that no one has any idea where it came from. And another is going to hell, even if I have never been a slave." I never said to accept slavery; I DID say that I think that slavery is not the worst evil.

I did quote you properly - you just didn't like how I refuted it. How did I not quote you properly when I put your quote right there. You are saying that you think Slavery is not as bad as being told that you came from evolution. How does evolution affect your life? It has absolutely no affect in the immediate present - unlike the act of slavery does on a person under slavery. So I do find your sentence very offensive. You would rather have your precious "god created world myth" than to not have slavery. And that is what you said with "There are much worse things, IMO, than slavery - one of which is being told that I am a completely accidental occurance that resulted from time and chance and mindless selection mechanisms originating from a single-celled thingy that no one has any idea where it came from." This is the attitude by people that had completely turned me against religion and convinced me it is just a mindless cult.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think you didn't read my post carefully; I think you just reacted to what you THOUGHT I was saying. Please re-read it, and note that I am ONLY talking about INTELLECTUAL integrity. I think GrayMouser is quite correct and honest on the Offshoot thread when he notes the INTELLECTUAL problem of the existence of morality for those that don't believe in God.

I hope you were not saying what I think you were saying: that only people who believe in a god can be moral or ethical. I do not believe in a god, yet I have a sense of right and wrong b/c of the society I grew up in.

...again, it is an INTELLECTUAL question that I honestly don't see a logical answer to. And your answer does not answer my question, BTW. In fact, it strengthens it - why would you be insulted if you didn't have moral feelings?

I do have morals. I know what is right and what is wrong. I also have empathy for my fellow man, yet I do not believe in a god. How is that contradictory? I just don't see it.

... I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of having moral feelings, and making moral judgements, if everything just came about by chance happenings. There is no morality in rolling a dice, or in something passing thru an impersonal filter called "natural selection", is there? Would you say to the wholly theoretical animal that mutated and was more fit, when this animal passed thru the filter of natural selection, "Good for you, animal! You did the right thing! I know you were tempted to die out, but you made the right moral choice in a difficult situation, and I commend you!" Of course you wouldn't!

There can be no logical basis for morality in the creatures that are the result of evolutionary processes. And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!....

What is a moral person? Is it someone who believes in a god?

Morality:
1. state or quality of being moral.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: ethics.
3. moral conduct: "There may be morality where there is no religion." -R.W. Dale 1878.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Moral emphasizes the difference between right and wrong as laid down by one's conscience, whereas, ethical relates to objectively defined principles governing ideal human conduct... honesty, integrity, and fairness, to name a few.

Humans have evolved a sense of right and wrong because it is best for the survival of the species. We are weak animals alone in the wild, so we formed social groups. Those social groups formed rules by which we lived by. (We'll leave out the need to explain our existance and our environment forming religion and theism.) If members of the social group went around murdering one another or stealing from each other, it would cause distrust among the members, and they would leave the group, and become weak again. We are stronger in numbers, so we formed rules of conduct for right and wrong.

Your argument is in error. You are comparing evolution and natural selection to morality. The fact is, that the animal did not choose to have the best adaptation for the environment. It came about at a more fundamental and subconscious level. Example, when the temperature dropped and glaciers pushed south, those animals that either (1) escaped to a warmer climate and/or (2) had a layer of fat under their skin to keep the warmth in (or some other adaptation to the cold)... survived... the other's did not. This has nothing to do with the forming of society. That is on a different level all together. You do not understand the complexities it seems. Or perhaps you do and chose to post something erroneous. Your statement hasn't anything to do with morality.

[Lizra]

JD, I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to discuss morality topics with "The bible tells me so" people. No matter how clear you say something, they will just reinterpret the bible again, (this gets so boring, because the bible is such a long meandering thing) or if that fails, they will tell you that your common sense reply is just your opinion. I mean no disrespect either, I like you guys, but all I see are heads in the sand. These types of threads seem to galvanize my atheist opinions even more. Of course, you that enjoy such debate keep going. I care not!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
These types of threads seem to galvanize my atheist opinions even more.

I feel the same way and I agree with the rest of your post too.

BTW - I told myself I was goign to stay out of this thread - just like I stopped going into the other ones. There is only so many times I can have the bible quoted to me as proof of how something is - without presenting any hard evidence.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I agree; fit does not necessarily mean physically strong. But, it does refer to some strength; strength of intelligence, for instance. Homo sapiens did not (considering evolution to be true) evolve into what it is by being compassionate, saving the whales, etc.

no but “compassion� may have been a real benefit to our evolution as well don’t forget. Never mistake cold heartedness for strength. Sometimes cooperation and niceties make us strongest. And nature (through evolution) simply reflects whats most beneficial at any given time.

Oh and never assume that because we have a highly developed brain that we are the top of the “evolution chain� and the strongest. We hardly are. That’s a normal homosapien specific bias that we are somehow superior because of our brains. We aren’t. its just the way our species has been successful so far. This oh so powerful brain could end up being our demise quite easily. And plants and bacteria and other life forms that have been here hundreds of millions of years before we have will continue on after our extinction without even a hiccup because of our disappearance. Now who is the real power here? We are such egotistical fools sometimes…

Also, you did not address the point of the value of accidental slime. By the way, as an agnostic, do you believe that man is an accident, or do you believe that, if there is Something out there, that It planned man?

remind me again this accidental slime thing? Im writing this offline right now and just zooming in to post it.

Well as an agnostic I believe that man and everything else in this universe is part of one big chemical reaction. We just appear to be independent and outside of the whole thing cause to our perception of time everything is just about frozen and static. But speed up the life of the universe about 10 to the 6 times and youll start to see what looks like a nice little pattern. Like flames in a fire or dye in water. As to if there is purpose behind it well I don’t know of course. That’s when the agnostic part comes in.

But as to “planning man� I think it’s a rather silly and (once again) egotistical concept that an entity of powers beyond our wildest imagination capable of making this incredibly complex and massive universe would JUST happen to have us in mind as his children and his image. I mean why would he make countless (as in trillions) of OTHER planets and yet ONLY think of US as his sheep? Whats the point of going to all that trouble? Why not just put earth in a jar and be done with it? That way we can see we are the center of everything and we are the trophy in the collection. Why make the endless sectors of deep space and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies just as a back drop? Seems like quite a waste of energy and time.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There can be no logical basis for morality in the creatures that are the result of evolutionary processes. And the really irritating thing (for your side) is that it's clear that you have morals!

Of course there can be! The nerve... Do I need to drag you back to the Good & Evil thread kicking and screaming now? What you perceive as morality is a reflection of the behavior that is most successful in our particular niche in nature. If I do things (that you would consider immoral) and it gets me in trouble and perhaps dead well Im not gonna be very successful in passing on my propensity to do evil to others. Ill die out and the others who DO act in a moral way will be more successful BECAUSE that’s what IS successful in our particular environment. Now if you happen to live in 5th (5th?) century AD and you are a powerful leader of wild looting heathens called The Huns then guess what, whats beneficial is to hack and loot and rape and piliage and become one of the most powerful men to have ever lived. So the propensity for doing great evil IS in us but it only comes out when factors are such that its to our decided benefit as a breeding adult. Otherwise it tends to be much too dangerous so being “moral� is the default. Never forget that we are just living machines and we operate under all the rules of living machines. Morality is certainly within the realm of these rules.

[Insidious Rex]

Ha ha! we are talking about evolution in the slavery thread now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Ha ha! we are talking about evolution in the slavery thread now.

You noticed that too? When you can't defend the bible in one way - resort to evolution vs creationism.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I hope you were not saying what I think you were saying: that only people who believe in a god can be moral or ethical. I do not believe in a god, yet I have a sense of right and wrong b/c of the society I grew up in.

Thank you so much for asking and for not just assuming that I meant that. I am most emphatically NOT saying that "only people who believe in a god can be moral or ethical." I'm not saying that, because I don't think it's true at all. Quite the contrary!

I AM saying that people all over the world are moral beings, independant of whether or not they believe in God. This is clearly observable. This includes you - you and JD both have a very strong sense of justice, which I admire. And in my worldview, that is BECAUSE there is a God, and He has implanted in people's souls a moral code.

See, my worldview explains the presense of morality. Your worldview not only can't explain the presence of morality, but is contradicted by the observed presence of morality all over the world, because EVERY argument your side has ever brought up to explain morals, DEPENDS upon morals - i.e., that it is GOOD for a society to exist, for example.

I do have morals. I know what is right and what is wrong. I also have empathy for my fellow man, yet I do not believe in a god. How is that contradictory? I just don't see it.

Again, thanks for asking for clarification. I'll try to explain better. You may not agree with me, but at least we're trying to understand one another. And that's the purpose of talking, IMO.

What you said, "I do have morals. I know what is right and what is wrong. I also have empathy for my fellow man, yet I do not believe in a god." is NOT contradictory. I completely agree. It's not contradictory because if it is true that there is a God that implants moral values in people, as the Bible teaches, then it does not matter whether or not you believe that there is a God!

Another way to put it -
1. observable fact - When I left for an outing with the girls, the kitchen was a mess. When I came home, it was clean.
2. I think that my hubby cleaned it up.
3. Actually, it was my son that cleaned it up.
4. because I think that my hubby cleaned it up, does that falsify the fact that my son cleaned it up? No!

IOW,
1. observable fact - people all over the world are moral beings.
2. Ruinel thinks that it is because of various non-God-related reasons.
3. IF IT IS THE TRUTH THAT IT'S BECAUSE GOD IMPLANTED A MORAL CODE IN EVERYONE'S HEART, then IT DOES NOT MATTER that Ruinel does not believe in God. To put it another way, the fact that someone does not believe in something that is truthful does not negate the truth.

I'm sorry I can't seem to be any more clear - do you follow what I'm saying? My worldview makes sense - I have moral values REGARDLESS of the fact that I believe in God, and you have moral values REGARDLESS of the fact that you DON"T believe in God.

What is a moral person? Is it someone who believes in a god?

Nope.

Humans have evolved a sense of right and wrong because it is best for the survival of the species.

Do you see? Do you see? You just sneaked in a moral judgement! You can't explain the existance of morals by saying that it's GOOD (a moral judgement) for us to have them! Do you see what I mean?

Ruinel, this discussion, IMO, has nothing to do, IMO, with whether or not we believe in God. It's which of our worldviews fits THE OBSERVABLE FACT that people are moral beings. And IMO, mine fits, and yours doesn't.

Your argument is in error. You are comparing evolution and natural selection to morality.

No, no, I'm not! I'm saying that you cannot EXPLAIN the presence of morality by the processes of evolution and natural selection. And I go even further and say that the observable presence of morality CONTRADICTS the idea that humans evolved via natural selection.

The fact is, that the animal did not choose to have the best adaptation for the environment. .... This has nothing to do with the forming of society. That is on a different level all together. You do not understand the complexities it seems. Or perhaps you do and chose to post something erroneous. Your statement hasn't anything to do with morality.

Oh Ruinel, that's exactly my point - that evolutionary processes have nothing to do with morality! Then ... WHY is morality present? I honestly think you cannot explain it without using morality in your explanation!

If you would like, I'll give you my cell phone # and we could try to talk in person. Typing is really a pain when trying to discuss complex ideas

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You noticed that too? When you can't defend the bible in one way - resort to evolution vs creationism.

That was rather mean, JD - you explain your views in terms of atheism because you think they're true, and I explain my views in terms of Christianity because I think it's true. What's wrong with that?

IMO, the most commonly held atheistic worldview, and the one that you hold, INCLUDES atheistic evolution, and has some LOGICAL problems with it (in addition to some scientific problems). That's what I'm trying to explain - the logical objections with your atheistic worldview. It has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution specifically. It's the athiestic worldview vs. Christianity that I'm discussing here.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why can it not be? I am a THINKING creature - I can determine for myself what is right or wrong.

The existence of morals is by no means a logical inference from your ability to think. Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]It's in the eyes of the beholder. A lot of modern art is beautiful and it is random splashes of paint. So your example falls short.

No, MY example is not "modern art", because modern art is the outcome of a CREATOR, and would be similar to the DaVinci picture. MY example was created by splashes of mud from random environmental happenings, so it is a perfect example. Now which would you prefer to have?? Hmmm?

If I was raised in a different family - I would have been very different.

But you would still be a moral being, even if the real JD's morals don't match up with the JD-in-another-family's morals.

Slavery is awefule because no human is better than another in my mind. I don't think that anyone is better than me - or less than me. To me a person is human and therefore should not be enslaved.

I agree.

it doesn't matter if you have a university-level scientific background if your scope of finding the truth is restricted to what the bible says.

It's not. Science and the Bible overlap at very few points, IMO. Truth is what's important - and if something is repeatedly observable in the lab, and contradicts the Bible, then I would think that the problem is with my understanding of one or the other.

Yes it does make mistakes - but science evolves and changes as more knowledge is gained. You and fellow extreme religious people refuse to accept anything that may contradict the bible. YOu feel the bible has all the answers and that what it says is the only truth - to me this is walking around with blinders on. I have lifted the blinders - you have not.

I don't feel that the Bible has all the answers in the sense that I think you mean it - for example, it can't tell me what the derivitive, with respect to x, of 5x*x is - but my knowledge of calculus can tell me this. Does that mean that I should throw out the Bible? No. It just means that the Bible and calculus don't overlap. And my knowledge of calculus and advanced mathematics can't tell me if slavery is right or wrong, no matter how many methods I try - integrating, differentiating, Laplace transforms, Fourier transforms, etc. Does that mean that calculus and higher math should be tossed out the window? No, it just means that I recognize the area of applicability of calculus and higher math, and it does not include morality, and that the Bible DOES discuss moral issues!

it's not treated as god - it's treated as the search for truth. If the evidence points elsewhere - then it goes in that direction. Science is ever chnaging - religion is a cult that needs for the people to believe it without thinking.

Will "science" tell you whether it's right or wrong to murder? The best it would do is tell you what the observable effects of murder are. And I still can't believe that you've really read my posts and can say that thing about believing without thinking You seem to think that if I don't agree with you, then I am not thinking. Is that right?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
That was rather mean, JD - you explain your views in terms of atheism because you think they're true, and I explain my views in terms of Christianity because I think it's true. What's wrong with that?

Then why does evolution come up in every religious thread - even when it has nothing to do with the discussion? Also- I state my views assuming their is no god because I can't prove it - neither can you.

IMO, the most commonly held atheistic worldview, and the one that you hold, INCLUDES atheistic evolution, and has some LOGICAL problems with it (in addition to some scientific problems).

It's not an atheistic view though - it's SCIENTIFIC view. Your view is based solely on belief of a book you only belief god wrote. We've been over this a thousand times and it's the same old argument. You can go into any of the existing religious threads and you will see the same thing.

That's what I'm trying to explain - the logical objections with your atheistic worldview. It has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution specifically. It's the athiestic worldview vs. Christianity that I'm discussing here.

Well we were discussing SLAVERY in the bible - not evolution, not creationism. Personally - if that's the case - then the admins should just combine all the threads that have any religious tone into one - that includes the gay and lesbian thread, the offshoot religous thread, the evolution threads and this thread. Then you can have the "Christianity vs the world" discussion. It's not just "Atheistic view versu Christianity" you would have a problem if their was a muslim or Hindu or anyone going against your beliefs.

This is descussion is going nowhere fast - just like all the other religious threads I have refrained from going back into. I'm sure before long I will stop posting here - just don't feel like going around and around circles again. Unless this goes back to "Slavery and the bible" I will attempt to stay out of this discussion.

To answer your questions in the above post - it would depend on what the splashes looked like. The shadowing and affect.


As for murdering - no science does not tell me not to murder - my MIND does. I choice not to murder. I can go out get a gun and blow anyone's head away. Actually the way I feel toward my former renters - I wish I could. But I control MYSELF and MY actions. I don't even like to kill certain bugs - I take them outside if I can. I don't need god or religion to tell me how to act toward fellow humans or living creatures - I can make my own decisions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
hen why does evolution come up in every religious thread - even when it has nothing to do with the discussion?

Because it is MY view that it DOES have something to do with the discussion (a created person being a slave is worse than an accidental person being a slave) - and as you said, I'm just as important as you are.

Also- I state my views assuming their is no god because I can't prove it - neither can you.

It's not an atheistic view though - it's SCIENTIFIC view.

JD, look at these two sentences you just wrote. You just stated that you can't prove there is a god, and you've acknowledged before that you can't prove there ISN'T a god. It's therefore abundantly clear that you can't scientifically prove the theory of atheistic evolution to be true. It is a theory - I will even grant you that it is the most widely held theory - but it is a THEORY, and not fact.

Well we were discussing SLAVERY in the bible - not evolution, not creationism.

Yes, and in MY opinion, as I stated above, it is entirely pertinent to discuss why slavery would be worse against a created being than a product of mindless evolution.

It's not just "Atheistic view versu Christianity" you would have a problem if their was a muslim or Hindu or anyone going against your beliefs.

What? WHAT?
*sigh* Please don't bother trying to state opinions for me, you're typically wrong. I would be glad to discuss a Muslim or Hindu worldview with anyone, and talk about logical issues.

This is descussion is going nowhere fast - just like all the other religious threads I have refrained from going back into. I'm sure before long I will stop posting here - just don't feel like going around and around circles again. Unless this goes back to "Slavery and the bible" I will attempt to stay out of this discussion.

Well, considering the Bible says that man was intentionally created by God, what in the world is your objection?

BTW, would you please read my previous post, I think you might have missed it

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Because it is MY view that it DOES have something to do with the discussion (a created person being a slave is worse than an accidental person being a slave) - and as you said, I'm just as important as you are.

No one is accidental - we are all products of our PARENTS.

JD, look at these two sentences you just wrote. You just stated that you can't prove there is a god, and you've acknowledged before that you can't prove there ISN'T a god. It's therefore abundantly clear that you can't scientifically prove the theory of atheistic evolution to be true. It is a theory - I will even grant you that it is the most widely held theory - but it is a THEORY, and not fact.

See - you view evolution as a "atheistic" science - that's why you have blinders on. It's is neither atheistic or theistic. I learned evolution in catholic school. As for the theory of evolution - it is backed up far more scientifically than creation. You can not prove creation at all - it is just your belief.

Yes, and in MY opinion, as I stated above, it is entirely pertinent to discuss why slavery would be worse against a created being than a product of mindless evolution.

Why - wouldn't you still have a thinking mind, family who loved you, made of blood and bone? You have a funny way of seperating created man from evolutionary man - I say it doesn't matter if it's one or the other. We are human and that's all that matters. If science suddenly had absolute proof that evolution was true - would you all of a sudden not care about your family and friends?

What? WHAT?
*sigh* Please don't bother trying to state opinions for me, you're typically wrong. I would be glad to discuss a Muslim or Hindu worldview with anyone, and talk about logical issues.

Well you said that all these issues have a bearing to discussions because it's "atheistic worldview against christian view". I just don't believe that they do have aany bearing on the bible and slavery.

Well, considering the Bible says that man was intentionally created by God, what in the world is your objection?

My objection is that evolution versu creationism has nothing to do with slavery. And you do NOT know that god or any god created man. It is your opinion and belief. Just because the bible says so - does not make it rtrue.

BTW, would you please read my previous post, I think you might have missed it

I didn't miss it - I added my replies to it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
To answer your questions in the above post - it would depend on what the splashes looked like. The shadowing and affect.

Then I will let you choose your favorite bit of random stuff that looks good (as long as there is no intelligent direction behind it), and I'll pick a minor DaVinci - and I'll meet you at Christy's auction house and we'll see what the opinion on the value of the two things are

As for murdering - no science does not tell me not to murder - my MIND does.

And what is the reason that your mind gives for you to not murder? Does it involve moral words like "wrong" and "harmful"?

Actually the way I feel toward my former renters - I wish I could.

Sorry, JD I hope you are able to salvage some things. They were WRONG to do that to you.

But in an evolutionary viewpoint, I suppose they did nothing wrong.

But I control MYSELF and MY actions.

Yes, often based on MORAL reasons.

I don't need god or religion to tell me how to act toward fellow humans or living creatures - I can make my own decisions.

Based on a set of morals, when applicable