LordReed:


LMAO! Buy your slaves from other nations is not an acceptance of slavery. Bwahahahahaha!

The Israelities were commanded not to oppress the stranger Ms among them meaning they don't take slaves forcefully, and in those days slavery was different it was a way of getting workers etc



Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

LordReed:


No, in your world it might though.

You have confessed it already. Morality is subjective meaning rape is subjective.

Steep:
The Israelities were commanded not to oppress the stranger Ms among them meaning they don't take slaves forcefully, and in those days slavery was different it was a way of getting workers etc



Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

LoLz. Except the ones they took during war. I dunno how you can delude yourself that buying slaves or taking slaves after battle is not an acceptance of the practice of slavery.

LordReed:


So why did the Bible accept certain types of rape if rape is simply an objectively unacceptable thing?

you mean atheists accept rape, yeap rape is neither good or bad it depends on society or individual preferences... lordreed

LordReed:


LoLz. Except the ones they took during war. I dunno how you can delude yourself that buying slaves or taking slaves after battle is not an acceptance of the practice of slavery.

The slaves where not taken to be oppressed, by the way why do you have prisoners of war then?
Go ahead answer

Steep:
The slaves where not taken to be oppressed, by the way why do you have prisoners of war then?
Go ahead answer

Why should there be slaves in the first place?

The people taking prisoners of war don’t have universal morality?

If someone seduces, the person should be killed according to steep.

Steep:
you mean atheists accept rape, yeap rape is neither good or bad it depends on society or individual preferences... lordreed

LoLz. Don't deflect, if rape is objectively wrong why does the Bible accept some forms of rape. When you can point to where I said atheists accept rape you have a point meanwhile answer my question,.

Maynmann:

Why should there be slaves in the first place?

The people taking prisoners of war don’t have universal morality?

thee is slavery because it is a broken world of sin?

Maynmann:

Why should there be slaves in the first place?

The people taking prisoners of war don’t have universal morality?

If someone seduces, the person should be killed according to steep.

They have, everyone know what is wrong or what is right, it is universal, but people choose to ignore it, just as they reject God.

Steep:
The slaves where not taken to be oppressed, by the way why do you have prisoners of war then?
Go ahead answer

Come and be my slave, I promise I won't oppress you. LoLz.

POW are not slaves, they are to be given back once the war ends. When the Bible says buy slaves it says those slaves are slaves forever.

LordReed:


LoLz. Don't deflect, if rape is objectively wrong why does the Bible accept some forms of rape. When you can point to where I said atheists accept rape you have a point meanwhile answer my question,.

that is you, don't run away from what you implied.

Steep:
thee is slavery because it is a broken world of sin?

So what is objective good then if it’s world of sin?
The morality you have now where is it from?

Steep:
that is you, don't run away from what you implied.

LMAO! You won't answer because it rubbishes your position on so called objective morality. Bwahahahahaha!

Steep:

They have, everyone know what is wrong or what is right, it is universal, but people choose to ignore it, just as they reject God.

So seducing someone warrants death?
If it is universal why did your god tell people to take virgins for themselves?
Who told samuel to kill the king, did samuel did good?
Will that king children think samuel did good by killing their father?

LordReed:


Come and be my slave, I promise I won't oppress you. LoLz.

POW are not slaves, they are to be given back once the war ends. When the Bible says buy slaves it says those slaves are slaves forever.

whether they are given back or not is not the issue, people do take prisoners of war.
You seem to think the ancient times where like this modern time. Giving back soldiers back to a nation that have sworn to destroy you from generation to generation is not the smartest thing to do

LordReed:


LMAO! You won't answer because it rubbishes your position on so called objective morality. Bwahahahahaha!

You only rubbished your point of view, in reality we all know rape is wrong universally which means there is God, atheism cannot allow for this.

Maynmann:

So seducing someone warrants death?m
If it is universal why did your god tell people to take virgins for themselves?
Who told samuel to kill the king, did samuel did good?
Will that king children think samuel did good by killing their father?

Seduction can be fatal if the purpose is seducing someone in other to kill him then the seductress deserves death.
Virgins obviously were not among those who slept with the men in order to lure them to their destruction.

Killing the king was justice because the king has done murdered innocent people unjustly.

Steep:

Seduction can be fatal if the purpose is seducing someone in other to kill him then the seductress deserves death.
Virgins obviously were not among those who slept with the men in order to lure them to their destruction.

Killing the king was justice because the king has done murdered innocent people unjustly.

A seductress deserves death wow.
And it’s all the women except the virgins that seduced them.
How did they sleep with the men? Did they force the men?
So because virgins were not among them they should have the virgins for themselves? What is rape?

So jungle justice is right when it concerns a Murderer just as samuel killed the king?

FxMasterz:


And I've told you that I can't discuss anything just for argument sake. I don't have such time.

Please, I'm not talking about morality but universally accepted moral laws. Nothing you said up there addresses the issue

You're confusing me. You say you're not talking about morality, but instead universally accepted moral laws, which are still under the subject of morality.

Or is there an alternative definition I'm not seeing here.

Steep:

You only rubbished your point of view, in reality we all know rape is wrong universally which means there is God, atheism cannot allow for this.

Yet your bible accepted rape. The rubbish here is from you.

Steep:
whether they are given back or not is not the issue, people do take prisoners of war.
You seem to think the ancient times where like this modern time. Giving back soldiers back to a nation that have sworn to destroy you from generation to generation is not the smartest thing to do

Yet it is being done but if it was people like you POWs would either be killed or be slaves forever. The famous US senator and presidential candidate John McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War. If it was up to you and your god he would have rotted in a Vietnamese gulag because giving him back to the US would not have been smart.

Can you listen to yourself? You are trying to preach a morally superior position that only reveals itself to be so inferior even brutalists think it's dumb.

Steep:
that was an error on my part , rather objective morality, objective morality does not depend on society or individual preference. For example rape is wrong regardless of whether society accept it or not, regardless of individual preference or not. It is wrong because it degrades because people are made in God's image.

Rape itself is subjective, as I've pointed out to you with my spousal rape example, which is not rape in Nigeria but is rape in some countries. Even non-spousal rape is very subjective. In some countries, having sex with a person who said 'no' or is incapable of consenting, is rape, while in some countries evidence of resisting is required. Its why there's much argument on guilt. If not, she'd say you raped her and you'd be guilty.

Subjects in a society define rape, and that makes it subjective.

Wilgrea7:


You're confusing me. You say you're not talking about morality, but instead universally accepted moral laws, which are still under the subject of morality.

Or is there an alternative definition I'm not seeing here.

No. We're particular about the unwritten laws. Not the acts.

Steep:

My world view is, if there is God then it makes sense that morality would be objective, because he made everyone and we all belongs to him, so it makes sense that what is right in one place would be right every where.
That is why, North Korea would be wrong for denying right to life.

You don't seem to understand. Pointing to an arbitrary God to answer the question of where morality comes from simply doesn't work.

Let me give examples. i will try to phrase it in the same manner you did

1. If there are digital overlords (simulation argument) then it makes sense that morality would be objective because the overlords would program it that way

2. If there is an unknown part of our brain responsible for morality then it makes sense because our brains have very similar composition which would explain why we all have ingrained morality.

All these, including yours, are possible attempts to explain why we have this "ingrained morality".. but without any sort of proof, they remain just claims.

This is a situation of

1. We have something
2. We want to know the origin of this something
3. Something else must have caused this something

Be it the universe, morality, consciousness or what not. Pointing fingers to some arbitrary unproven thing does not help .. in any way

If you want to claim it's one thing or the other, then provide proof. That's all we're saying

What you are trying to do is compare society to God which is illogical because the definition of God and the definition of society is not the same.
Just because birds can fly does not mean fishes should fly.

I'm not comparing society to god. I'm merely pointing out that adding the idea of god your argument does not make the moral laws you subscribe to any less societal. Not until you can prove said god.

Steep:

Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

I'm amazed that you can not see that the above is subjective.

Different laws applying to the homeborn subject and the subject that is the stranger that sojourneth among you should be a sufficient hint to anyone who understands the meaning of subjectivity.

LordReed:


Come and be my slave, I promise I won't oppress you. LoLz.

POW are not slaves, they are to be given back once the war ends. When the Bible says buy slaves it says those slaves are slaves forever.

Why take prisoners of war at all?

LordReed:


Yet it is being done but if it was people like you POWs would either be killed or be slaves forever. The famous US senator and presidential candidate John McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War. If it was up to you and your god he would have rotted in a Vietnamese gulag because giving him back to the US would not have been smart.

comparing two completely different cultures and scenarios.
In ancient times wars are often from generation to generations, the wars that the fathers could not win would be continued by the children.

Can you listen to yourself? You are trying to preach a morally superior position that only reveals itself to be so inferior even brutalists think it's dumb.

slavery was part of literally every human society sometimes buying slaves an mean saving them from harsh condition eg famine, people do sell themselves into slavery as a survival strategy

From what commanded the israleities on how to treat the strangers, it means slaves in Israel were better treated.

Wilgrea7:


You don't seem to understand. Pointing to an arbitrary God to answer the question of where morality comes from simply doesn't work.

Let me give examples. i will try to phrase it in the same manner you did

1. If there are digital overlords (simulation argument) then it makes sense that morality would be objective because the overlords would program it that way

2. If there is an unknown part of our brain responsible for morality then it makes sense because our brains have very similar composition which would explain why we all have ingrained morality.

All these, including yours, are possible attempts to explain why we have this "ingrained morality".. but without any sort of proof, they remain just claims.

This is a situation of

1. We have something
2. We want to know the origin of this something
3. Something else must have caused this something

Be it the universe, morality, consciousness or what not. Pointing fingers to some arbitrary unproven thing does not help .. in any way

If you want to claim it's one thing or the other, then provide proof. That's all we're saying




I'm not comparing society to god. I'm merely pointing out that adding the idea of god your argument does not make the moral laws you subscribe to any less societal. Not until you can prove said god.

You are comparing society to God, your argument sees to suggest society can also determine morality, this is false and it has being proven so.

Steep:
companies two completely different cultures and scenarios.
In ancient times wars are often from generation to generations, the wars that the fathers could not win would be continued by the children.

slavery was part of literally every human society sometimes buying slaves an mean saving them from harsh condition eg famine, people do sell themselves into slavery as a survival strategy

From what commanded the israleities on how to treat the strangers, it means slaves in Israel were better treated.

LMAO! Why does it matter what era it is if the morality of it is as you say objective? What bearing does the difference in society have to play in it?

What you aren't getting is you are making it clear that the morality you calling objective is actually subjective. Bwahahahaahaha!

Steep:
Why take prisoners of war at all?

Do you think all combantants should be killed?

Steep:

You are comparing society to God, your argument sees to suggest society can also determine morality, this is false and it has being proven so.

If that is what you got from my reply, then I humbly tip my hat to you once more and wish you the best. I don't know how else to explain my position to you.

LordReed:


LMAO! Why does it matter what era it is if the morality of it is as you say objective? What bearing does the difference in society have to play in it?

It's the other way round, because morality is objective God works to bring people out of sin.
If morality is subjective then everyone is right and should stay the way they are.

What you aren't getting is you are making it clear that the morality you calling objective is actually subjective. Bwahahahaahaha!

that is because you don't know what objective morality or subjective morality is.