Tamaratonye1:
At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world: Science has definitively proven that no god exists - anywhere in the universe. All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job? Would your friends abandon you, or would you abandon friends? In what ways would how you spend your time change? Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade? Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question. Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it. What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

These last 2 years had made many of us suspicious of corruption and so much more in the scientific community. We were told to follow the science but we are learning that the science can be manipulated by men.

The proof of God is not a science.

Endtimer:


Notice, however that powerful nations send aid to countries in need and armies march to protect people on the other side of the world. This is not “natural” human behavior. It is benevolence borne by the ghost of Christianity in the western world.

We have an example unfolding as we write where the aid is motivated by national interests and not Christianity.

Endtimer:
Perhaps those people would like to read about the ancient samurai tradition to sodomize little boys (and only little boys) to see what happens in the absence of the Christian morals they think are natural.

The alleged presence of Christian morality didn't do much to help those poor Catholic altar-boys. Didn't help those poor Baptist kids.

Setting aside the fact that arguing from effect to cause is slipshod thinking, the fact is that millions of people sharing Christian values have committed millions of atrocities. Were your logic sound, your Christian morality wouldn't be exempt from harsh judgement. Fortunately for your faith, your argument is vapid.

@Endtimer

The Russian patriarch supports the war. The catholic church used to TORTURE and kill people. It is malevolence borne by the ghost of Christianity in the "Western" world. Often spread at the end of swords to other parts of the world.

To claim that "benevolence", also known to the non-brain-washed (or brain-deficient) as altruism and caring about other human beings, is due to Xtianity is deeply misguided at best, outright dishonest at worst. And we all know which of those you are.

I'm not even going to mention other societies - ALL of them, really - which practiced altruism and caring about others long before your toxic, hateful mythology sprung from the primitive, misogynistic brains of goat herders. There are ANIMALS who regularly exhibit altruistic behaviours, including our closest relatives.
In no way, shape or form is your particular mental security blanket, that you're so desperately clutching at because you're too weak-minded *and* arrogant to accept your utter insignificance and terrifying transience in this universe, responsible for this type of behaviour or unique in promoting it.

At the end of the day, keep trying to appease your blinding terror at the thought of your complete disappearance form the world in a mere blink of an eye. But you - and the rest of the weak-minded like you - keep it to yourselves. Clutch at your childish blankets all you want, stop your ears and pretend the universe is like you imagine it in your childish understanding of the world and of human beings. But STOP trying to impose your inability to deal with reality on the rest of the world.

tctrills:

These last 2 years had made many of us suspicious of corruption and so much more in the scientific community. We were told to follow the science but we are learning that the science can be manipulated by men.

The proof of God is not a science.

Hello there, and thanks for the input, tctrills. I'm afraid, however, that you are indeed quite late to the party, and I haven't the time to rethread old talking points. The arguments you bring up have already been addressed in detail on this thread. I'd kindly ask that you diligently peruse through the full thread, if you have the patience, so that you can be up to speed on the topic. Thanks.

Double post.

Near1:


The alleged presence of Christian morality didn't do much to help those poor Catholic altar-boys. Didn't help those poor Baptist kids.

Setting aside the fact that arguing from effect to cause is slipshod thinking, the fact is that millions of people sharing Christian values have committed millions of atrocities. Were your logic sound, your Christian morality wouldn't be exempt from harsh judgement. Fortunately for your faith, your argument is vapid.

I wonder what Endtimer here's excuse for the rape of the Cathars is.

"Many historians consider the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars an act of genocide." ~ Wikipedia

Dtruthspeaker:


That is for The God of Moral to Judge! But it is sufficient to know that The God of Morals did command that "that which is good, should be done and that which is not good/evil, should not be done"

And we all know those things which are good to do or not do as separate from those things which are not good/evil, to do or not do.

So knowing this, "We each walk the path, that we've chosen" Dmx. (And shall be judged by it)

Why is it that you can not address such a simple question? Is it your religious programming that puts up a firewall?
Please try again!
#1 Your god commanded slavery (or whatever you want to call it)*
#2 The Law never changes (according to you)
#3 Do you agree with slavery still being morally permissible?

*so he basically already judged.....slavery to be a-ok

Tamaratonye1:

Hello there, and thanks for the input, tctrills. I'm afraid, however, that you are indeed quite late to the party, and I haven't the time to rethread old talking points. The arguments you bring up have already been addressed in detail on this thread. I'd kindly ask that you diligently peruse through the full thread, if you have the patience, so that you can be up the speed on the topic. Thanks.

Ok thanks, I would if I find the time.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is for The God of Moral to Judge!

So you, a supposed adult (or at the very least young adult) are completely incapable of knowing whether slavery is ok.
You need someone else - whom you've never seen or interacted in any demonstrable way - to tell you whether it is right or wrong to own other human beings as if they were simple tools?

There's a tool here all right. Congratulations! You are a moral vacuum who cannot tell right from wrong on his own! Lol!

Dtruthspeaker:

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

Code of Ur-Nammu says hello
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

You are wrong by ca. 2000y! Looking back from today towards Rome, thats... 100%!

Endtimer:


.

Happy Sunday, and thanks for the mention.

I've actually glanced at this thread a couple of times in the past, and have a lot to contribute.

I wanted to open a specific thread on morality, but since the discussion has already started here, I guess I'll just continue it here

My weekend is a bit busy, but I hope to be able to drop a few responses to both sides of the argument soon

Dtruthspeaker:


That is not True!

You are confusing customary law with Natural Law.

Natural Law is the same everywhere exactly as there isn't any culture where stealing and adultery is not frowned upon.

I'm confusing nothing . There are countless societies in the world, and in world history where stealing from others IS the way they lived, and no one "frowned" on it. Your problem is you are simply ignorant of world cultures and history. . even the PATRIARCHS in the Bible, whom your god rewarded, practiced what is TODAY considered adultery. Again, your problem is your ignorance . You're even ignorant of the Bible.

If [b]men made laws is the question not then "Did they not have Law before they made their law?

Many cultures made the laws to permit child sacrifice . you just simply wrong and ignorant.

Where they not under Law which they obeyed and were obeying before they made their own version?

meaningless drivel. They ALWAYS had their own cultures, which evolved. Your ignorance is astounding.

When the man or people who manufactured their law, was born did they bring the law with them?

Oh . all assertions and no evidence. No references. We're supposed to take the word of someone who doesn't know the proper use of "where" and "were" ?

You need to get a BASCIC education . Take Anthropology 101, and you will lean how cultures and law evolved.
You HAVE NO EVIDENCE ANY LAW EXISTED until it evolved, in different ways in different places, AND you have nothing to show us that some sort of per-existing law code existed BEFORE humans formed their law codes.

Secondly, All the laws men make have a time when they made them which the records showed started only around the 12th century Eg The Law of the 12 Tables (Year 449BC)

Human societies have existed for more than 10,000 years, maybe FAR older than that.
No "group" of humans can live together without customs, (and if you say the). You have no evidence AT ALL that there was some sort of universal code ALL societies lived by.

British Treason Act (Year 1351)

Nope , LOL

Suppression Act Year (1414).

Nope, LOL

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

Nope, LOL

Human legal system evolved very differently in different cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...egal_codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://www.worldhistory.org/Egyptian_Law/

Meanwhile, at that time Roman Law was based on 'Natural Law"[/b] which Cicero and other Natural Law,ers influenced and formulated.

Prove it.
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence.
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

chryssanthe:

Code of Ur-Nammu says hello
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

You are wrong by ca. 2000y! Looking back from today towards Rome, thats... 100%!...

More commonly known as the Summerian Code. Except for the hearsay claim nothing else is truly and directly known about it, especially with its extinction. So it is an unreliable source of law.

So I think it fit to stick to real-eye-able places, who still exist today as it was in the past.

midnight378:

I'm confusing nothing . There are countless societies in the world, and in world history where stealing from others IS the way they lived, and no one "frowned" on it.

See, you could not name a few places were stealing was a Law in force were In fact if you are not a thief, they would punish you, but if you were a thief, they honoured you.

midnight378:

Many cultures made the laws to permit child sacrifice . you just simply wrong and ignorant.

I did not ask whether many cultures made laws.

midnight378:

meaningless drivel. They ALWAYS had their own cultures, which evolved. Your ignorance is astounding.

I did not ask if they had their own cultures.

midnight378:

You need to get a BASCIC education . Take Anthropology 101, and you will lean how cultures and law evolved.
You HAVE NO EVIDENCE ANY LAW EXISTED until it evolved, in different ways in different places, AND you have nothing to show us that some sort of per-existing law code existed BEFORE humans formed their law codes.

In other words, you refuse to answer the questions since you see it implicates you, so you decided to commit the fallacy of Changing Post and Switching the burden of Proof.

midnight378:

Human societies have existed for more than 10,000 years, maybe FAR older than that.

Change of Post/Off point. I did not say humans did not exist more than 10, 000yrs.

midnight378:

Human legal system evolved very differently in different cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

Change of Post Didn't ask you whether human legal system evolved.

midnight378:

Prove it.
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence.
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

All I said is right in your Google. So Google them.

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_naturale&ved=2ahUKEwiAmrqHs8L6AhUdQ_EDHYpGAx0QmhN6BAgIEAI&usg=AOvVaw2pJ2v_sAJTVScEMa6I2wkV

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.[citation needed]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law&ved=2ahUKEwjPmtKd5cH6AhVRg_0HHZCvDOYQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pTie3dFe1salTe6jKt4K-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law

And besides this request for reference, you said nothing in counter. ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE OFF POINT, A DEPARTURE FROM ISSUE, A DODGING OF POINT AND FALLACY AD HOMINEM. ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID COUNTER

chryssanthe:

So you, a supposed adult (or at the very least young adult) are completely incapable of knowing whether slavery is...

Of what effect is my judgement? Nil.

Would it stop you from being who you are and want to be? No.

Would it release or chain a slave? No.

Therefore, let Those who can set the captives free come and Judge.

chryssanthe:

Why is it that you can not address such a simple question? Is it your religious programming that puts up a firewall?
Please try again!
#1 Your god commanded slavery (or whatever you want to call it)*
#2 The Law never changes (according to you)
#3 Do you agree with slavery still being morally permissible?

*so he basically already judged.....slavery to be a-ok

I answered you I told you He did not command slavery and that it is your evil Bible talking. I bet that Bible does not contain that He commands that every 7 years a person in bonds must be free and his debt (liability) cancelled.

Tamaratonye1:
At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world: Science has definitively proven that no god exists - anywhere in the universe. All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job? Would your friends abandon you, or would you abandon friends? In what ways would how you spend your time change? Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade? Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question. Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it. What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

Just saw this even if its been long.
A god adds one thing: (1) PURPOSE to the picture and removes (2) OBLIVION from the picture.
To be sincere with you, think this through, what do you think is keeping the word from falling apart? It's just the believe in a higher power. Though, EXTREME or misguided belief in this same higher power is also causing problem as well.
The moment a headline like that comes out, there will be worldwide chaos as never seen before, almost everyone will be off balance, ALMOST nothing will work(PURPOSE) AND lastly, try and find the meaning of Oblivion yourself. Just imagine just your life just in that state. I won't think for you but as for me, Oblivion is far scary than death/ hell fire.

Dtruthspeaker:


Fall of Switching the burden of proof. I made no allegation.

Unfortunately for you, this is a shameless lie . You already posited that absolute morality derives from your god. That means that the burden is on you to..

1. Demonstrate this god's existence,
2. Demonstrate that is is the source of morality, and
3. Demonstrate that his morality is objective rather than subjective.

You are always desperate to use the language of fallacies, but as anyone here can see, you don't know how to use them correctly. Coupled with the myriad of senseless, grammatical suicide that you keep committing in your posts, this failure to detect real fallacies only serves to accentuate your retardation and further establishes you as an unlettered, fractious idiot.

Dtruthspeaker:


So among all your abundance of insults, this is the only thing you said which attempted to address my post?

And in the end, it was a response that IS NOT THE ISSUE. COMPLETELY OFF POINT!

Kikikikikiki. You are already running out of ammo. Once again, you can't come up with a decent response to well-reasoned arguments, so you switch to pretending as if the co-discussant missed your point

Your cowardly hand-waving will do you no good. You're really going out sad on this thread.

When a fringe lunatic is given internet access, he displays the reason why his mother should have stuck to anal.

Dtruthspeaker:


More commonly known as the Summerian Code. Except for the hearsay claim nothing else is truly and directly known about it, especially with its extinction. So it is an unreliable source of law.

So I think it fit to stick to real-eye-able places, who still exist today as it was in the past.

"The Code of Ur-Nammu itself has been fragmented and eroded by the elements and time. What remains is a tablet divided into eight columns, which in turn are divided into about forty-five small lines. Only some of the lines are fully legible. A portion of the tablet also includes a prologue with many weathered segments and is only partially comprehensible but references the gods An and Enlil turning over the Kingship of the city Ur to the god Nanna. Nanna then backs the Kingship of Ur-Nammu, who was born of Ninsun.

Other legible lines include practices for matters of both criminal and civil. For example, it references certain capital offenses, such as robbery, murder, and adultery. Misdemeanors are also listed, and the law code describes penalties for such crimes to be paid in silver. There are a total of fifty-seven laws, with only about thirty of them having their crimes and consequences both being legible. Some of the legible laws with their consequences include, but are not limited to, the following:

If a man commits murder - the penalty is death.
If a man commits kidnapping - the penalty is imprisonment and a fine of fifteen shekels of silver.
If a man sleeps with the virgin wife of another man - the penalty is death.
If a man rapes the virgin female slave of another man - the penalty is a fine of five shekels of silver.
If a man cuts off another man's foot - the penalty is ten shekels.

... that's not "hear-say"

"The Code of Ur-Nammu was found in Nippur, Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq. This first copy of the Code of Ur-Nammu resides in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. When Professor F. R. Kraus was the curator at the museum, he noticed that the peculiar tablet was in two pieces and joined them together.

Samuel Kramer helped translate the Code of Ur-Nammu tablet in approximately seven days in 1952 CE. Later, archaeologists found more copies of the tablet at Ur, which were translated and helped fill in some gaps for the first weathered tablet. Only about 40 of the 57 laws have been somewhat decipherable. Still, some of these forty are partially fragmented, leaving about 29 completely legible."

Dtruthspeaker:


See, you could not name a few places were stealing was a Law in force were In fact if you are not a thief, they would punish you, but if you were a thief, they honoured you.



I did not ask whether many cultures made laws.



I did not ask if they had their own cultures.



In other words, you refuse to answer the questions since you see it implicates you, so you decided to commit the fallacy of Changing Post and Switching the burden of Proof.



Change of Post/Off point. I did not say humans did not exist more than 10, 000yrs.



Change of Post Didn't ask you whether human legal system evolved.



All I said is right in your Google. So Google them.

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_naturale&ved=2ahUKEwiAmrqHs8L6AhUdQ_EDHYpGAx0QmhN6BAgIEAI&usg=AOvVaw2pJ2v_sAJTVScEMa6I2wkV

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.[citation needed]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law&ved=2ahUKEwjPmtKd5cH6AhVRg_0HHZCvDOYQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pTie3dFe1salTe6jKt4K-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law

And besides this request for reference, you said nothing in counter. ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE OFF POINT, A DEPARTURE FROM ISSUE, A DODGING OF POINT AND FALLACY AD HOMINEM. ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID COUNTER

Nice try at diversion. Every single thing you said is false , and I proved it to be false. You just can't handle the truth.
Everything I said was in counter . "The fact you don't know something" (and you don't, your twelve tables is WRONG) "does not mean others don't" .... sound familiar ?
YOU get to provide references and support, (which I do consistently, and which you are unable to even try to refute), BEFORE you ask for it.
Your questions were ALL answered in the links I gave you.... Every one.
You are simply WRONG about almost everything .
You are so uneducated that you can't even see the answers to what you asked right in front of you.

449 BC is FAR FAR later than the Code of Hammurabi. You do know what "BC" means, right ?

The 1st century BC Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates that the Roman institution of slavery began with the legendary founder Romulus, giving Roman fathers the right to sell their own children into slavery, and kept growing with the expansion of the Roman state. Slave ownership was most widespread throughout the Roman citizenry from the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) to the 4th century AD. The Greek geographer Strabo (1st century AD) records how an enormous slave trade resulted from the collapse of the Seleucid Empire (100–63 BC).

Dtruthspeaker:
"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.

As we see "Natural law" did them a lot of good.
As the Roman would say "Nugae, ineptiae, gerrae"

Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Dtruthspeaker:

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

.. now look up on Google "The Law of Hammurabi" and come back and tell me what the two dates are.
One is FAR FAR earlier than the other .
Hint : It's not the Twelve Tables.
Being perversely ignorant has no cure.

From your link "There is no scholarly agreement about the exact historical account of the creation and promulgation of the laws of the Twelve Tables. Ancient writers' stories about the Twelve Tables were recorded a couple of centuries later, in the second and first centuries BC. The first known publications of the text of the Twelve Tables were prepared by the first Roman jurists. Sextus Aelius Paetus Catus (consul in 198 BC) in his work on jurisprudence called Tripertita included a version of the laws of the Twelve Tables, his commentary on them and the legal formulas (legis actiones) to use them in trials. Lucius Acilius Sapiens was another early interpreter of the Twelve Tables in the middle of the second century BC. Meanwhile Roman historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus provided the most detailed accounts of the creation of the laws. In addition, different versions of the story are known from the works of Diodorus Siculus and Sextus Pomponius."

Dtruthspeaker:


More commonly known as the Summerian Code. Except for the hearsay claim nothing else is truly and directly known about it, especially with its extinction. So it is an unreliable source of law.

So I think it fit to stick to real-eye-able places, who still exist today as it was in the past.

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BCE.

There is a picture of the actual tablet on the wiki I linked
But, as I am in a funny mood, let's grant you are right: ur nammu never existed. Roman law is still, by far, not the oldest law we have, and it is not the only law our societies are following today, not even Christian societies.

The seminary at Bob Jones University, (BJU), teaches us that we cannot know God .
https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/...wable-god/
Furthermore , Paul tells us in Romans 3:10–11 that we do not even seek God. this means that even if we were aware of God’s existence , his love and his beauty and his glory, we would still flee in the opposite direction, for our hearts are utterly sinful . we cannot know God, we do not want God, and we do not seek God.

The fact is, every human LEARNS what they know from countless childhood (and adult) prompts and interactions.
People saying they know something from a god , is just human delusion and self-talk.
Psychology knows how humans learn , and at no point in the science of human learning do any of the gods enter in.

I learned my morality from his god also.
The Bible tells me I can stone my disobedient children to death .. .
countless times throughout history, believers *said* they learned their morality from their gods , AND FELT GOOD about torturing others, murdering those who do not believe as they do, etc etc.

chryssanthe:

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BCE.

There is a picture of the actual tablet on the wiki I linked
But, as I am in a funny mood, let's grant you are right: ur nammu never existed. Roman law is still, by far, not the oldest law we have, and it is not the only law our societies are following today, not even Christian societies.

...and even if it weren't, the Code of Hammurabi is also FAR FAR older than what he cited.
Mistakenly , Hammurabi used to be said to be earliest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Dtruthspeaker:


I answered you I told you He did not command slavery and that it is your evil Bible talking. I bet that Bible does not contain that He commands that every 7 years a person in bonds must be free and his debt (liability) cancelled.

You didn't answer my questions, and you know it! Here they are again:

#1 Your god commanded slavery (or whatever you want to call it)
#2 The Law never changes (according to you)
#3 Do you agree with slavery still being morally permissible?

Remember the bold parts, in which your god commanded to keep a human being as property, to pass this human property to your children, and keep it for life?

Do you deny that your god commanded, in Leviticus, humans to own another human as property?
Do you hold this as being morally permissible?
These are simple yes or no questions!!

Dtruthspeaker:


I answered you I told you He did not command slavery and that it is your evil Bible talking. I bet that Bible does not contain that He commands that every 7 years a person in bonds must be free and his debt (liability) cancelled.

Actually, you are finally correct. Yes, that is your "evil Bible talking". Slavery was culturally so common and accepted among the Hebrew tribes and in Middle and Far East that they simply wrote their tribal war god accepting it as well.
The bible mirrors the society in which it was written. It's not that difficult to understand.

If you claim the "God of Morals" is so moral, would you become my slave under the connditions spelled out by Leviticus 25? Or anyone elses slave for that matter,?

YOU SAID: See, you could not name a few places were stealing was a Law in force were In fact if you are not a thief, they would punish you, but if you were a thief, they honoured you.

-And why do you think that is?

Because one god somewhere, that none of them had ever heard of, is said to have said something...


Or because there's something -about stealing- that people, anywhere, whether they've heard from this god or not, might notice?

What is that thing? That..would be the grounds of an -objective- moral code.

How about you?


Can you think of anything -about stealing- that might be bad, other than what a god might have said about it?

Dtruthspeaker:


See, you could not name a few places were stealing was a Law in force were In fact if you are not a thief, they would punish you, but if you were a thief, they honoured you.



I did not ask whether many cultures made laws.



I did not ask if they had their own cultures.



In other words, you refuse to answer the questions since you see it implicates you, so you decided to commit the fallacy of Changing Post and Switching the burden of Proof.



Change of Post/Off point. I did not say humans did not exist more than 10, 000yrs.



Change of Post Didn't ask you whether human legal system evolved.



All I said is right in your Google. So Google them.

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_naturale&ved=2ahUKEwiAmrqHs8L6AhUdQ_EDHYpGAx0QmhN6BAgIEAI&usg=AOvVaw2pJ2v_sAJTVScEMa6I2wkV

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.[citation needed]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law&ved=2ahUKEwjPmtKd5cH6AhVRg_0HHZCvDOYQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pTie3dFe1salTe6jKt4K-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law

And besides this request for reference, you said nothing in counter. ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE OFF POINT, A DEPARTURE FROM ISSUE, A DODGING OF POINT AND FALLACY AD HOMINEM. ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID COUNTER

YOU SAID: Of what effect is my judgement? Nil.

You seem to have a low opinion of your faculties.

YOU SAID: Would it stop you from being who you are and want to be? No.

Sure, I've been talked into and out of things - not always because the other person makes good arguments...but it definitely helps when they do.

What argument would -you- make..to stop a person from stealing? Tell them that someone else said not to do it?

YOU SAID: Would it release or chain a slave? No.

Yes, actually....history is full of people getting others to pursue or forego acquiring human property.


I think the latter cause was greatly effected by it's ability to make good arguments on factual premises about the nature and inevitable ends of slavery.

You might notice that people telling other people that someone else said to do it or not do it...even a god..was pretty spotty.

YOU SAID: Therefore, let Those who can set the captives free come and Judge.

The fate of a slave being left with their master is a complete dereliction and perversion of anything that could be credibly called an objective moral position.

That's not a system of right or wrong at all

It's a system of protecting the financial interests of people who own human property.

Do you really believe this would be a good thing to do?

Dtruthspeaker:


Of what effect is my judgement? Nil.

Would it stop you from being who you are and want to be? No.

Would it release or chain a slave? No.

Therefore, let Those who can set the captives free come and Judge.

1000WaysToLive:

You seem to have a low opinion of your faculties.

You just had to give a low blow when all I have said is that no one appointed me Judge

1000WaysToLive:

Sure, I've been talked into and out of things - not always because the other person makes good arguments...but it definitely helps when they do.

What argument would -you- make..to stop a person from stealing? Tell them that someone else said not to do it?

No matter how good an argument is people never change. So to a thief, all I would tell him is that, it ends in death either by prison stabbings or by mobbing or by shooting.

1000WaysToLive:

YOU SAID: Would it release or chain a slave? No.

Yes, actually....history is full of people getting others to pursue or forego acquiring human property...

You know this does not cut it. Giving a judgement setting a person free is not the same as lobbying.

1000WaysToLive:

YOU SAID: Therefore, let Those who can set the captives free come and Judge.

The fate of a slave being left with their master is a complete dereliction and perversion of anything that could be credibly called an objective moral position.

True! But are you breaking down people's doors and offices judging them for keeping slaves at home or in the office? No.

We need The Creator and Owner of man. It is He Who the Power to break down all doors and no one will be able to stop Him.

So, I prefer to wait for Him.