Atheism And Moral Progress

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, Christians are under no obligation to execute adulterers, even though the behavior is still immoral. Again, we are not under the Mosaic Civil code. If a particular state did execute adulterers that would be up to them.

You claim to be under God’s Law and that is quite specific when it comes to adulterers and much else as well. It is bad and the perpetrators must be executed. You don’t do so because today’s social mores don’t permit it. In short, biblical morality is interpreted according to current social values. This has always been the case.

E.g. society today is more tolerant of divorce/adultery. A few generations back kings had to abdicate if they wanted to marry a divorced woman. Nowadays the future UK king marries a divorced woman and Evangelicals happily vote a multiple divorcee into high office.

Same applies towards attitudes towards homosexuality. The social mores have changed and it is considered in the developed world. .

I was just interpreting what you said, and you said slavery was a moral good.

Slavery was once considered "morally good" by certain segments of society, e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention and its interpretation of scripture. But no more...not officially at least. No doubt white supremacists think differently.

That makes no sense, what modern knowledge? Are you saying that if something is "natural" it is morally good?

No, what I’m saying is that homosexuality is no longer considered a perversion of the natural order.

[Tassman]

Previously you said that nobody had to believe in it. Are you now saying a certain percentage of people have to believe something is good for society before it is moral?

Example: The Moral Statement: Stealing is wrong.

Does that statement remain true even if nobody in the world believed it to be true? Or does it require a certain number of people to agree to it before it becomes true?

Moral rules evolved naturally to ensure the survival of the family and community and social order so that the human species survives. Stealing is disruptive to social order and is therefore considered wrong.

[seer]

Slavery was once considered "morally good" by certain segments of society, e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention and its interpretation of scripture. But no more...not officially at least. No doubt white supremacists think differently.

Like you still believe that slavery is a moral good.

No, what I’m saying is that homosexuality is no longer considered a perversion of the natural order.

According to whom? The majority of the world?

[Tassman]

Like you still believe that slavery is a moral good.

Not at all! Even the Southern Baptist Convention has renounced slavery as being ordained by God. Mind you, it took them 150 years to get there.

According to whom? The majority of the world?

According to the educated people of the world.

[seer]

Not at all! Even the Southern Baptist Convention has renounced slavery as being ordained by God. Mind you, it took them 150 years to get there.

Are you this slow Tass? I'm just interpreting what you said to mean that slavery is moral. Just as you suggest that some Christians interpret prohibitions against homosexual behavior as really meaning that such behavior is morally acceptable.

According to the educated people of the world.

So Muslims, Christians and Orthodox Jews are not educated? And how does education tells us if something is moral or not? Like I posted here in the past, there are SOME very educated people who think infanticide is morally acceptable.

[Sparko]

No, I'm saying that belief has nothing to do with it. The whole world could believe that theft, murder, rape, whatever is in the best interests of the community of man and yet that belief still be wrong.

You just keep flip-flopping between morality not depending on what people believe and being determined by what people rationally agree on.

If theft is not in the best interests of society, then it is not in the best interests of society whether anyone believes it or not. Of course, being rational beings most of us can see that stealing from each other is not in the best interests of society.

What if everyone believed that theft was in the best interest of society? Let's say you had a society of Pirates, who's economy was based on stealing from other societies. They all agree that stealing is in the best interest of their society. Is it moral for them to steal?

[Tassman]

Are you this slow Tass? I'm just interpreting what you said to mean that slavery is moral.

I know what you were doing, but your game-playing does not invalidate the demonstrable fact that moral values change over the millennia and that biblical interpretations have changed along with them. I’ve provided several examples, e.g. the biblical justification of slavery and racial discrimination of the Southern Baptist Convention and Jim Crow advocates...neither of which are morally acceptable today.

Just as you suggest that some Christians interpret prohibitions against homosexual behavior as really meaning that such behavior is morally acceptable.

It’s more than a mere “suggestion” on my part. Many Christians nowadays DO interpret the prohibitions against homosexuality in a non-literal way...e.g. two thirds of Mainline Protestants regard homosexuality as morally acceptable.

So Muslims, Christians and Orthodox Jews are not educated?

Even some educated people erroneously claim homosexuality is a sinful choice rather than a normal aspect of human sexuality...as stated by the American Psychological Association and most psychological associations worldwide.

And how does education tells us if something is moral or not? Like I posted here in the past, there are SOME very educated people who think infanticide is morally acceptable.

Were the Inquisitions moral? Was the execution of witches moral? Were the genocides of Moses moral? Nowadays we recognise that these things are morally unacceptable, previously they were justified as divine commands. Even today, some regard discriminating against homosexuals is religiously justifiable. Imagine!

[seer]

I know what you were doing, but your game-playing does not invalidate the demonstrable fact that moral values change over the millennia and that biblical interpretations have changed along with them. I’ve provided several examples, e.g. the biblical justification of slavery and racial discrimination of the Southern Baptist Convention and Jim Crow advocates...neither of which are morally acceptable today.

It is not game playing Tass, there are many things in Scripture that are perfectly clear, prohibitions against homosexuality is one of these. No interpretation is needed.

It’s more than a mere “suggestion” on my part. Many Christians nowadays DO interpret the prohibitions against homosexuality in a non-literal way...e.g. two thirds of Mainline Protestants regard homosexuality as morally acceptable.

I have no idea what you mean by a non-literal way. Do those Christians interpret prohibitions against murder, stealing, fraud, adultery, lying, etc...in a non-literal way? They are at best inconsistent. And remember the more you study Scripture the more likely you will see homosexuality as immoral. The Biblically illiterate tend not to see it as immoral.

Even some educated people erroneously claim homosexuality is a sinful choice rather than a normal aspect of human sexuality...as stated by the American Psychological Association and most psychological associations worldwide.

Who gets to decide what is normal? Adults have sex with animals, adults have sex with children, prostitution is wide spread, so is porn, as is adultery, orgies, etc... These have all been a "normal" part of the human sexual experience.

Were the Inquisitions moral?

No...

Was the execution of witches moral?

If they really were witches, yes.

Were the genocides of Moses moral?

It was war, like what we did to Dresden and Tokyo, so yes.

Nowadays we recognise that these things are morally unacceptable, previously they were justified as divine commands. Even today, some regard discriminating against homosexuals is religiously justifiable. Imagine!

Nonsense, you are offering a personal opinion, no more.

[Tassman]

It is not game playing Tass, there are many things in Scripture that are perfectly clear, prohibitions against homosexuality is one of these. No interpretation is needed.

I have no idea what you mean by a non-literal way. Do those Christians interpret prohibitions against murder, stealing, fraud, adultery, lying, etc...in a non-literal way? They are at best inconsistent. And remember the more you study Scripture the more likely you will see homosexuality as immoral. The Biblically illiterate tend not to see it as immoral.

There are laws that command people be killed for reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents or not being a virgin on your wedding night etc. The social mores of today no longer recognise these things as necessarily immoral. Hence the scriptures are interpreted according to current social values...as they always have been. Or, more sensibly, dispensed with altogether.

Who gets to decide what is normal?

In this instance psychiatric professionals get to decide...they have the expertise. Ancient writings deriving from the Bronze Age do not; they merely reflect the social values of their day.

Adults have sex with animals, adults have sex with children, prostitution is wide spread, so is porn, as is adultery, orgies, etc... These have all been a "normal" part of the human sexual experience.

Bestiality and pedophilia etc have never been an acceptable norm in human society. Why do you equate these things with homosexual relationships?

If they really were witches, yes.

What do you mean “IF”, how can you tell?

It was war, like what we did to Dresden and Tokyo, so yes.

What Moses did was genocide, not war, and it was allegedly under God’s personal direction.

Nonsense, you are offering a personal opinion, no more.

What I am “offering” are today’s evolving social values. There is no good reason why homosexuals be deprived of their civil rights...despite what Evangelicals may believe.

[seer]

There are laws that command people be killed for reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents or not being a virgin on your wedding night etc. The social mores of today no longer recognise these things as necessarily immoral. Hence the scriptures are interpreted according to current social values...as they always have been. Or, more sensibly, dispensed with altogether.

What are you talking about? Those things certainly can be immoral even if we don't apply Mosaic Civil Code penalties (there is an old covenant and new covenant, Christians are under the new covenant). And I am not interpreting Scripture according to current social values, that is pure BS.

In this instance psychiatric professionals get to decide...they have the expertise. Ancient writings deriving from the Bronze Age do not; they merely reflect the social values of their day.

Nonsense why do psychiatric professionals get to decide what is moral or not? Have they become the new Priest class?

Bestiality and pedophilia etc have never been an acceptable norm in human society. Why do you equate these things with homosexual relationships?

And for the most part homosexuality has not been accepted as the norm, especially in western culture, until recently. Perhaps when we become more enlightened we will accept bestiality and pedophilia too.

What Moses did was genocide, not war, and it was allegedly under God’s personal direction.

You are an idiot Tass, it was war, they had been fighting with each other for years (for instance see the Amalekites), never mind the fact that incest, infant sacrifice, ritual prostitution, bestiality were rampant in these Canaanite tribes. God finally said to put an end to it. You know like what we did with the a-bomb. And BTW complete genocide never actually happened.

What I am “offering” are today’s evolving social values. There is no good reason why homosexuals be deprived of their civil rights...despite what Evangelicals may believe.

Except you have no way of claiming that your present moral beliefs are objectively better or more valid than our beliefs. It's all relative in your world.

[Tassman]

What are you talking about? Those things certainly can be immoral even if we don't apply Mosaic Civil Code penalties (there is an old covenant and new covenant, Christians are under the new covenant). And I am not interpreting Scripture according to current social values, that is pure BS.

Was the Dutch Reform Church under the New Covenant when it scripturally justified apartheid? Or the Southern Baptist Convention when it similarly justified slavery and the Jim Crow Laws...or the witch-killers of Salem etc? You don’t hold these views now because social values have changed. And the scriptural understanding of these things has changed accordingly.

Nonsense why do psychiatric professionals get to decide what is moral or not? Have they become the new Priest class?

Psychiatric professionals are not deciding what is moral; they are providing authoritative information about the nature of homosexuality to enable informed decisions to be made.

And for the most part homosexuality has not been accepted as the norm, especially in western culture, until recently.

In was commonplace in the Classical world. It was the negative influence of the Abrahamic religions, grounded in tribal values, that demonised it.

Perhaps when we become more enlightened we will accept bestiality and pedophilia too.

Probably not! Neither animals nor children can give informed consent to sexual activity.

You are an idiot Tass, it was war, they had been fighting with each other for years (for instance see the Amalekites), never mind the fact that incest, infant sacrifice, ritual prostitution, bestiality were rampant in these Canaanite tribes. God finally said to put an end to it. You know like what we did with the a-bomb. And BTW complete genocide never actually happened.

Nonsense! They were murderous tribal wars authorized by Moses’ tribal god; they were no different in principle from the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs.

Except you have no way of claiming that your present moral beliefs are objectively better or more valid than our beliefs.

Whatever fosters a peaceful, prosperous society is the objective measure of valid moral beliefs. The societies that top the Happiness Index and the Human Development Index tend to be the secular ones in which homosexuality is accepted.

It's all relative in your world.

And yours! Your values, as with everyone’s, are based upon the social mores of the day. See above.

[seer]

Was the Dutch Reform Church under the New Covenant when it scripturally justified apartheid? Or the Southern Baptist Convention when it similarly justified slavery and the Jim Crow Laws...or the witch-killers of Salem etc? You don’t hold these views now because social values have changed. And the scriptural understanding of these things has changed accordingly.

I would be happy to see where scripture justifies racism. Oh wait, it doesn't, that has nothing to do with cultural norm.

Psychiatric professionals are not deciding what is moral; they are providing authoritative information about the nature of homosexuality to enable informed decisions to be made.

WE were speaking of who decides what it moral or not. And what authoritative information? That people engage in this kind of behavior? What is your point?

In was commonplace in the Classical world. It was the negative influence of the Abrahamic religions, grounded in tribal values, that demonised it.

Actually it was not common place, particular countries were more accepting than others.

Probably not! Neither animals nor children can give informed consent to sexual activity.

Why is informed consent the line in the sand? In that last 60 years we have crossed every other line, including killing millions of our own offspring.

Nonsense! They were murderous tribal wars authorized by Moses’ tribal god; they were no different in principle from the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs.

Right they were WARS...

Whatever fosters a peaceful, prosperous society is the objective measure of valid moral beliefs. The societies that top the Happiness Index and the Human Development Index tend to be the secular ones in which homosexuality is accepted.

Oh please, whether homosexuality is accepted or not has nothing to do with general happiness. And remember people who have devout religious beliefs are happier and more content than the non-religious. Imagine how happy Norwegians would be if they were more religious.

And yours! Your values, as with everyone’s, are based upon the social mores of the day. See above.

Show me where any of my religious beliefs are the result of the mores of the day. Give me a specific.

[Tassman]

I would be happy to see where scripture justifies racism.

Then ask the Christians that justified such behaviour as being scriptural. Christians have a long, inglorious history of justifying their own personal prejudices and ideologies with scripture.

Oh wait, it doesn't, that has nothing to do with cultural norm.

Of course it does. Apartheid was the cultural norm in South Africa and effective apartheid, via the Jim Crow segregation Laws, was the cultural norm in much of the Deep South.

WE were speaking of who decides what it moral or not.

The community decides what is moral or not.

And what authoritative information? That people engage in this kind of behavior? What is your point?

The authoritative information is that homosexuals are exercising a normal valiant of human sexuality, despite what ancient tribal morality has to say via ancient writings.

Actually it was not common place, particular countries were more accepting than others.

Actually, it was commonplace and accepted in ancient Greece and much of the Roman Empire. One of the great Roman emperors, Hadrian, had a male lover as did Alexander the Great.

Why is informed consent the line in the sand?

Without "informed consent" it is rape...witness the current pedophile scandal in the RCC .

In that last 60 years we have crossed every other line, including killing millions of our own offspring.

Here we go.

Throughout the history of Judeo/Christianity there is little to no mention of abortion as a topic of great alarm – from the days of the Old Testament until modern history, i.e. until relatively recently when it has become a political issue.

Right they were WARS...

They were murderous tribal wars authorised by Moses’ tribal god and no different in principle from the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs or the Rwanda genocide.

Oh please, whether homosexuality is accepted or not has nothing to do with general happiness.

Secularism is the argument, not homosexuality per se

And remember people who have devout religious beliefs are happier and more content than the non-religious. Imagine how happy Norwegians would be if they were more religious.

Delusional people are often very happy indeed. Many even believe they are loved by a fictional god/man and will live forever.

The high Human Development and Happiness Index of Norwegians is reality-based.

Show me where any of my religious beliefs are the result of the mores of the day. Give me a specific.

All of them are grounded in the social mores of the day

[seer]

Then ask the Christians that justified such behaviour as being scriptural. Christians have a long, inglorious history of justifying their own personal prejudices and ideologies with scripture.

That is the point Tass, men are wicked. The Bible does not support racism - period, you know that since we have gone over it in the past, and just because some try and use Scripture to justify personal bias does not mean Scripture supports it.

Of course it does. Apartheid was the cultural norm in South Africa and effective apartheid, via the Jim Crow segregation Laws, was the cultural norm in much of the Deep South.

I was speaking of the fact that you CAN NOT justify racism with Scripture.

The community decides what is moral or not.

So if a community decide to jail homosexuals then that is moral. Got it...

The authoritative information is that homosexuals are exercising a normal valiant of human sexuality, despite what ancient tribal morality has to say via ancient writings.

If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality then so is adultery, bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, etc...

Actually, it was commonplace and accepted in ancient Greece and much of the Roman Empire. One of the great Roman emperors, Hadrian, had a male lover as did Alexander the Great.

As was pedophilia...

Without "informed consent" it is rape...witness the current pedophile scandal in the RCC .

So what? That is just another one of your shifting cultural norms.

Here we go.

Throughout the history of Judeo/Christianity there is little to no mention of abortion as a topic of great alarm – from the days of the Old Testament until modern history, i.e. until relatively recently when it has become a political issue.

I don't need the Bible to know that killing our own offspring is immoral - do you?

Secularism is the argument, not homosexuality per se

Except we know that religious people are happier and more content.

Delusional people are often very happy indeed. Many even believe they are loved by a fictional god/man and will live forever.

The high Human Development and Happiness Index of Norwegians is reality-based.

Except they would be even happier if they were religious.

All of them are grounded in the social mores of the day

Then give me an example, which one of my Christian beliefs is grounded in the social mores of today. Be specific please.

[JimL]

You just keep flip-flopping between morality not depending on what people believe nor is it determined by what people rationally agree on.

No, as usual you just keep miscomprehending what I say. Morality is neither dependent upon what people believe, nor is it determined by what people rationally agree upon, particularly since both assertions amount to the same thing.

What if everyone believed that theft was in the best interest of society? Let's say you had a society of Pirates, who's economy was based on stealing from other societies. They all agree that stealing is in the best interest of their society. Is it moral for them to steal?

No. Now try and see if you can grasp the point being made. We can talk about individual communities, or we can talk about the community of man in general. In either case, whatever is in the best interests of the latter, i.e. in the best interests of all human society, is also and ultimately in the best interests of the former. If your society of pirates are good with stealing from other societies, then those others would be just as good with stealing from pirates. Therefore theft being seen as a moral good would not be in the best interests of either society.