I'll respond to some comments left by infidels in response to James Anderson's post on "Bugs, Features, and Atheism."
As a Bible believing Trinity worshipper, on what basis would you condemn something like slavery? On what basis would you condemn someone who poisoned and killed a child because of something that child's father did (2 Sam 12:14-18 and no I'm not "taking it out of context" no matter how desperately you insist I am.)? On what basis would you condemn global genocide (including infanticide)?
Short answer:
i) First of all, it's nice to see XTheist tacitly concede that atheism has no objective basis for right and wrong. Since he can't rebut Dr. Anderson's argument on that score, the best he can do is try argue for parity with respect to moral relativism.
ii) Whether slavery is morally condemnable depends on what kind of slavery you're talking about, how someone becomes enslaved, and the viable alternatives.
All things being equal, a Christian could condemn slavery on the grounds that in a fallen world it's generally imprudent to give one person that much power over another. Likewise, it denies the slave the freedom to exercise his duties to God. Moreover, unless the slave had done something to forfeit his freedom, liberty should be the default condition.
There are, however, situations in which a person can, through misconduct, forfeit his freedom.
Likewise, there are situations where the lesser evil principle the best available option.
iii) The other two examples fail to distinguish between what's permissible for God and what's permissible for man.
On the one hand:
Christianity: Not evidence-based. In fact, directly contradicts the evidence. Has justified slavery, racism, sexism, and homophobia; and continues to justify the murder of children by "faith healings". Harms people immensely.
On the other hand:
You make quite a show of pretending to have "objective" morals, but at the end of the day, your morality is societally based, just like everyone else's. The only difference is that atheists have the strength of character to admit it.
Second objection negates first objection. If everybody's morality is societally-based, then how can one societally-based morality condemn another societally-based morality? If sexism is a societally-based morality, then what's the problem?
Where do you get your idea that slavery is bad? So long as the Israelites are not the slave, the Bible is expressly in favor of it.
Lawmakers aren't necessarily in favor of what they regulate. Some laws simply seek to mitigate evil.
The Mosaic law could not abolish human trafficking in countries outside the holy land. And foreign slaves purchased by Israelites enjoyed certain protections not afforded them elsewhere.
Where do you get the idea that rape is bad? So long as the woman is not engaged/married, the Bible never has an ill word to say of rape, and often encourages it.
Demonstrably false.
What can you say against racism, sexism, human sacrifice, and the murder of children, when you deity has encouraged them all?
The OT forbids human sacrifice. The Bible does not encourage "racism."
No comments:
Post a Comment