If God doesn't exist...

[ding]

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?

You're putting forth a straw-man argument. Whatever my answer is, you already have a reply ready for either. So my answer isn't relevant at this point. You're just waiting for an opportunity to attack something.

State your point, and then I will comment on that... I already told you what I think and you have your answer. Don't know why you're seeking more...

No. I'm having a conversation with you and you made two statements that seemed to conflict one another. I am trying to reconcile them. I can't be making a straw-man argument because I am restating what you have said. You wrote that slavery was not moral when it comes to humans, but in the insect world it is rampant because that is how they survive and it is done for the good of the population, but in the human world it is done because of laziness and greed. So I asked you if it were done in the human world for the same reasons in the insect world if you thought it would then be moral. My point? I am trying to determine if your beliefs on good and evil change based on the reasons. It seems to me that you are saying they would change. In other words, let's say you support abortion, ok? And if later the state determined - like China did - that it was in the good of the population to limit births to 1 child per couple, would you support forced abortions? Or would your position change? Because as near as I can tell, you don't support slavery, but if it were being done for the good of the population, you would.

 

[ding]

[
Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?

Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?

Do you?

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

 

[ding]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

True. I only know how I feel today. I could make that same argument about how one feels today about what he would feel in 2216. However some people do believe today that right and wrong is determined by groupthink. That whatever the group thinks is moral is moral. So if in 2216, the group believes it is in man's best interest to own other people, then that would be moral.

 

[BreezeWood]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

 

[ding]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

 

[BreezeWood]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

.

.

 

[ding]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

.

.

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.

 

[BreezeWood]

No. It has never been moral to own another person and it will never be moral to own another person. I don't believe in moral relativity.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
.

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.

.

... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

I am arguing the exact opposite.

no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.

.

 

[Czernobog]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The problem is that you have made a mistake about science. Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to. Science freely admits that it doesn't know. However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"

It is religion that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"

And, therein is the end of exploration, and research. After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The problem is that you have made a mistake about science. Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to. Science freely admits that it doesn't know. However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"

It is religion that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"

And, therein is the end of exploration, and research. After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?

Yet all the atheists appear to think they know that there is no God because they appear to think that science does hold all the answers.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ding]

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

.

I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.

- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
.

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.

.

... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

I am arguing the exact opposite.

no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.

.

I have no doubt that is how you read it.

 

[RWS]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.

My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?

I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.

So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?

Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?

 

[RWS]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The problem is that you have made a mistake about science. Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to. Science freely admits that it doesn't know. However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"

It is religion that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"

And, therein is the end of exploration, and research. After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?

View attachment 100535

Yet all the atheists appear to think they know that there is no God because they appear to think that science does hold all the answers.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Science doesn't have all the answers... yet. But it does have a huge chunk of them. Religion holds on by a thread, asking eternal questions that science has not answered yet (and probably never will).

Regardless of our debates, you are going to believe what you were born to believe, and there's no way for me to change your mind.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to make you understand that your religion is highly likely not correct. And therefore there is no need to continue to kill and despise others that think differently than your religion.

Keep it as a personal faith, something that makes you feel good inside, but STOP trying to push it onto others and dictating the way the world should be, based on a Santa Claus religion.

Open your mind to reality. That's what I'm trying to help do. There are so many wondrous things to think about, once you step outside that religious coffin...

 

[ding]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.

My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?

I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.

So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?

Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?

I couldn't be happier for you, but that wasn't even close to explaining the inconsistency of your previous comments. Never mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
.

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.

.

... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

I am arguing the exact opposite.

no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.

.

I have no doubt that is how you read it.

.

I have no doubt that is how you read it.

history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.

.

 

[ding]

lol, whatever you say, brother. Good thing you are not sensitive about this. The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks. In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites. Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America. Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

.

Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?

that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
.

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.

.

... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

I am arguing the exact opposite.

no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.

.

I have no doubt that is how you read it.

.

I have no doubt that is how you read it.

history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.

.

Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.

 

[RWS]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.

My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?

I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.

So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?

Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?

I couldn't be happier for you, but that wasn't even close to explaining the inconsistency of your previous comments. Never mind.

I have given you my answer to the question you posed. And yet you stand by, and don't answer it when asked of you.

Typical religious dude...

You must have a point, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question. So now it is back on your lap!

It's your turn.

 

[RWS]

Let me explain something really simple-wise...

If the God theory never existed, and all these religions didn't pop up around him/her/it, and destroy societies and knowledge throughout history, we would probably be travelling to other star systems by now.

We would be soooooo far advanced it not for the purge of religion, and burning of knowledge.... and having to start all over again every so often...

Really kicks my ass when i think about that... the religious purges... friggin jerks!

We would probably have figured everything out by now, if not for the constant religious reboots that our crazy beliefs have caused us to do.

So get your butts back to your private faiths, and stop trying to change the world, for something that has no more evidence than Santa Claus... You're ruining it all for the future of mankind!

Geez....Louise....

 

[RWS]

Because it's gonna happen again.

We'll have taken 1 step forward, and 1000 steps back.

And it's going to be because of religion. Again.