Relativism- help me understand this.

[WITHTEETH]

Ok i understand the basics of relativism a bit but where do you draw the line in reltivism lets so another culture doesn't commit genocide on another culture. relativism seems like it says its ok but where does it draw the line? can anybody help me? :)

1."Any relativist who truly follows their beliefs cannot honestly condemn any action or beyond themselves make any moral claim."

2. "The holocaust was just someone else’s opinion(Hitler’s). A moral relativist may not like it but to actually call it wrong would be dishonest given what they claim to believe."

how do you answer these question? I'm debating against a few christians.

[alaspooryorick]

Unfortunately, the very term "relativism" is relative itself.

The statements you posted are accurate, from a certain point of view. But this is taking the concept of relativity very loosely. I would say that the accurate idea of "what is relative" is the Hegalian form of logic, against the formal and absolute.

That is:

Formal
A<-------->B
|
|
|
Actual

In my very crude schema, you would say that moral absolutists would claim A or B (in this case right or wrong), without any gray areas. Something is always either right or wrong, whereas a moral relativist would examine each situation individually somewhere in the middle as appropriate to its context and culture.

But of course, that's just one way to look at it.

[ocmpoma]

Here's the secret to relativism, the thing that many can't grasp immediately (both relativists and those that don't realize that they're relativists have trouble with it):

Morality is relative. We each decide for ourselves what is moral, amoral, immoral, good, bad, right, wrong. Just as we decide which food tastes good.
I like borscht. I know quite a few people that don't. Does that mean that borscht tastes good, or bad?
Same with morality. I think that genocide is wrong. Hitler thought that genocide was okay, as long as it was antisemitic genocide. Is genocide right or wrong?

The answer, for a relativist, is yes and no. For me, borscht is good, for someone else, borscht is bad. For most people (one would hope), genocide is wrong. For others, it is good.
To alleviate this misunderstanding, I strongly urge relativists to take the time and effort to phrase moral concepts accurately, insteading of taking linguistic shortcuts:
shortcut - Borscht is tasty. proper - I feel (or think) that borscht is tasty.
shortcut - Genocide is wrong. proper - I feel (or think) that genocide is wrong.

A moral objectivist will counter that the proper speech renders a moral relativist unable to attack any behavior as 'wrong'. This is a fallacy. By the same logic (that is, the objectivist's), no one can say that Borscht tastes good (or bad), which is ridiculous. Each person has the ability to condemn those actions that they feel are morally wrong, just as each person has the ability to say that Borscht tastes like crap. The fact that relativists admit that someone else might disagree with their moral judgements does not make their moral judgements less valid. The next counter is the idea that everyone's moral outlook is equal - that the person who feels that muder is moral is just as right as the person who feels that it is immoral, or the one who feels that it is amoral. This is the whole point of moral relativism. When the objectivist says this, just look at them like you won the argument - because you have:

Morality is basically just a very strongly held opinion. Imagine someone getting sent to jail for disliking borscht, and you can see why legislating morality doesn't make sense. Legislating against harm makes sense - no problem with sending someone to jail for killing someone else who didn't like borscht. That is the point of moral relativism.

[Philboid Studge]

I've thought about the 'proper speech' problem before. Theists and the cap-O Objectivists (who are theists, IN MY VIEW) love to play gotcha! when a relativist makes a statement without qualifying it nine ways from Sunday. Why is the onus on us to preface everything with 'I feel' or or 'I think' or 'In my opinion'? Why can't that be understood? Look, it's a frigging given: When Philboid makes a statement of any kind -- whether about borscht (sucks) or genocide (fucking nasty) or Ayn Rand (retentive hack) -- it's Philboid's fucking opinion.

[WITHTEETH]

So all relativism is roughly is knowing things are subjective, to admit someone may disagree?

[ocmpoma]

TEETH - Pretty much. If you're looking for a one-off line, I would go with this to express moral relativism's position:
There is no such thing as objective morality, we all decide for ourselves what is moral or immoral.


Philboid - that would be nice; unfortunately, it is a characteristic of the English language as it is used today that saying "Borscht is crap" can be (and is) taken to mean that borscht is, unequivocally, crap. If a relativist wants to have a good discussion (read: win an argument) it is better to avoid the use of "is" when discussing questions of morality. This will tend to have a galvanizing effect on objectivists - I got a good reaction from VoR one time when I used the term "I feel".

Personally, I think that many objectivists are afraid to embrace relativism for the same reason that many theists are afraid to question their faith - they don't want to lose the idea of a concrete, be it a protecting deity or a sense of absolute right and wrong.

[schemanista]

If a relativist wants to have a good discussion (read: win an argument) it is better to avoid the use of "is" when discussing questions of morality. This will tend to have a galvanizing effect on objectivists
Have you read Korzybski?

[ocmpoma]

Have you read Korzybski?

Nope. Never head of him/her/it.

(edit):
Looked him up on wikipedia. Interesting. Don't know if I'd take it that far... in subjective matters I would, though. In objective matters, I see no problem with using 'is'.

[schemanista]

Have you read Korzybski?

Nope. Never head of him/her/it.

(edit):
Looked him up on wikipedia. Interesting. Don't know if I'd take it that far... in subjective matters I would, though. In objective matters, I see no problem with using 'is'.
The wikipedia article doesn't do his views justice. The most egregious omission is Korzybski's concept of time-binding.

The European Society for General Semantics has most of his writing online. This is a good inroductory article (http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak1.htm).

[StillSurviving]

My teachers always told me not to use qualifiers such as "in my opinion" because it was redundant.

[WITHTEETH]

OK, so relativism is a view where its subjective whether abortion is ok or not but with the objectivist view its ABSOLUTE wrong because they have a god who makes up their rules, "How can a god be wrong, right?".

Also, I can state my opinion but its not absolute, it could still be wrong becausei don't know everything about that one topic, i would be lucky if i could learn it in a life time so i make an educated guess, i do the best i can do.

I think i've got it. thanks guys!

[ocmpoma]

Schem -

Read a little more on Korzybski. Very interesting stuff, thanks for the intro.

[Nicole]

My teachers always told me not to use qualifiers such as "in my opinion" because it was redundant.
I'm a teacher and I don't think it's always redundant. For example. "In my opinion, genocide is justifiable." That's a crazy statement but no one can say that you don't have a right to your own opinion.

It can be redundant when you use a model. For example. "In my opinion, genocide might be justifiable." The 'might be' says the same thing as 'in my opinion'.

Next time you read one of my posts you might notice that I'm very careful to express things that are 'moral' opinions and not facts with 'I think, I believe, it seems as though and so on'. I'm saying that I understand my values are not everyones' and that I respect that. This is where I think theists get into trouble because they don't usually say; "I think abortion is wrong." They say "Abortion is wrong."

[thomas]

In a sense the theist isn't really "getting into trouble". They are accurately stating their position, that they think their morality is absolute and not relative.

[Nicole]

In a sense the theist isn't really "getting into trouble". They are accurately stating their position, that they think their morality is absolute and not relative.
How can someones' opinion on a subject be absolute. Just the fact that another person disagrees makes it subjective.

To ignore other peoples' opinions and disregard them is, in my opinion, unbelievably arrogant. This is the crux of most atheists' disagreement with religious people. We feel that everyone has a right to an opinion and a right to express that opinion. We also feel that people shouldn't be able to force their opinions on others. That's why governments should be seperate from religion. It would be a real shame if the Jewish faith took over and we couldn't eat shellfish anymore as an example.

You, of course, recognize this but so many religious groups and individuals don't.

[thomas]

I don't see any problem in having an opinion that something is absolute. And, if I disagree that 2+2=4 does that make it subjective ? No. It just means I'm wrong about an objective answer.

You say ignoring other people's opinions and disregarding them is arrogant. Aren't you ignoring and disregarding my opinion about absolute morality ?

[Tenspace]

I don't see any problem in having an opinion that something is absolute. And, if I disagree that 2+2=4 does that make it subjective ? No. It just means I'm wrong about an objective answer.

You say ignoring other people's opinions and disregarding them is arrogant. Aren't you ignoring and disregarding my opinion about absolute morality ?
Wouldn't ABSOLUTE morality apply to all entities equally, just as 2+2 will always be 4 in a Euclidean world? Stating that it is your opinion that morals are absolute is quite different than stating that your morals are absolute.

If morals were absolute, that would mean they are unchanging, right? Can you explain the shift in our moral 'absoluteness' over the past hundred years?

Tenspace

[thomas]

I say it's my opinion because I can't prove it. If morality is absolute then it is unchanging regardless of what people's opinions of morality are. For example, if murder is absolutely morally wrong, the presence of a society that think murder is OK doesn't negate the absoluteness of morality, it just means that society is wrong.

Also, just because morality is absolute doesn't mean it is known by everybody or that it isn't discovered over time. For example, logic was discovered as a system by Socrates, but logic existed as a system even before that discovery.

[Tenspace]

I say it's my opinion because I can't prove it. If morality is absolute then it is unchanging regardless of what people's opinions of morality are. For example, if murder is absolutely morally wrong, the presence of a society that think murder is OK doesn't negate the absoluteness of morality, it just means that society is wrong.
Then you're saying that morality is unchanging?

Also, just because morality is absolute doesn't mean it is known by everybody or that it isn't discovered over time. For example, logic was discovered as a system by Socrates, but logic existed as a system even before that discovery.
Morality is a system like logic? I'd have to disagree. I see morality as a moving target, whereas logic is inviolable, in the sense that subjective logic is illogical.

Tenspace

[thomas]

Yes, I'm saying that absolute morality is unchanging, even though societies idea of what morality is is changing.

And yes, I think absolute morality is a priori knowledge like logic and math. Like I said, logic is historically a moving target, because it was discovered at a point in human development.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Yes, I'm saying that absolute morality is unchanging, even though societies idea of what morality is is changing.

And yes, I think absolute morality is a priori knowledge like logic and math. Like I said, logic is historically a moving target, because it was discovered at a point in human development.
What, then, would constitute a moral proof? What evidence would demonstrate unequivicably that murder was wrong (or right)?

[Tenspace]

Yes, I'm saying that absolute morality is unchanging, even though societies idea of what morality is is changing.

And yes, I think absolute morality is a priori knowledge like logic and math. Like I said, logic is historically a moving target, because it was discovered at a point in human development.
How does this jibe with your bible beliefs? There are obviously things in the bible that we would consider immoral today (slavery, misogyny, sacrifice, etc). Are you saying that these things were moral then and now?

Tenspace

[Blod]

How does this jibe with your bible beliefs? There are obviously things in the bible that we would consider immoral today (slavery, misogyny, sacrifice, etc). Are you saying that these things were moral then and now?
Don't forget wine drinking. :D

[TheSnake]

Thomas: Murder is unjust killing, so it's by definition always wrong.
If you haven't checked it out yet, on theologyonline.com there was a kind of a formal debate between Zakath (the resident atheist) and one of the moderators Knight on absolute morals. I found it quite entertaining. You might get some good argument points from Knight.

[Philboid Studge]

How does this jibe with your bible beliefs? There are obviously things in the bible that we would consider immoral today (slavery, misogyny, sacrifice, etc). Are you saying that these things were moral then and now?
Yarrh. The thread that will not die (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=5) rises up from the ashes yet again like a priapic phoenix on Viagra. Thomas and lurker wrestle with their timeless moral codes beginning at about post #63, and ending ... we know not where. Yarrh.

[thomas]

Yes, I'm saying that absolute morality is unchanging, even though societies idea of what morality is is changing.

And yes, I think absolute morality is a priori knowledge like logic and math. Like I said, logic is historically a moving target, because it was discovered at a point in human development.
How does this jibe with your bible beliefs? There are obviously things in the bible that we would consider immoral today (slavery, misogyny, sacrifice, etc). Are you saying that these things were moral then and now?

Tenspace
Sort of. I don't think that everything that is described in the Bible is considered moral. For example, David doing away with Bathsheeba's husband is described but not moral, the behaviour of the people of Sodom is described but not moral. I find these much easier to discuss on an individual example level than as an over-riding principle.

[thomas]

How does this jibe with your bible beliefs? There are obviously things in the bible that we would consider immoral today (slavery, misogyny, sacrifice, etc). Are you saying that these things were moral then and now?
Yarrh. The thread that will not die (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=5) rises up from the ashes yet again like a priapic phoenix on Viagra. Thomas and lurker wrestle with their timeless moral codes beginning at about post #63, and ending ... we know not where. Yarrh.
It's a tough one to avoid because you all think that you've got a stick to beat us with over the behaviour of God in the Bible and we think your moral relativism is a real weakness in the position of an atheist, because behavour, thought patterns and language that you see around you every day have a strong assumption of an absolute morality.

[Philboid Studge]

I find these much easier to discuss on an individual example level than as an over-riding principle.
Hebrews wipe out Canaanites. Moral, immoral, or amoral?

[thomas]

A just war

[Philboid Studge]

God didn't simply order a war; he ordered a genocide. He told the Herbrews to slay babies, which they did (and for which they richly rewarded). Will you argue that it was 'just' that those babies were killed? I'd be interested to hear that. The moral relativist can't think of a scenario where genocide is ever justified. Again: it's not that genocide happened to result from a war. The genocide itself was ordered by God.

[calpurnpiso]

God didn't simply order a war; he ordered a genocide. He told the Herbrews to slay babies, which they did (and for which they richly rewarded). Will you argue that it was 'just' that those babies were killed? I'd be interested to hear that. The moral relativist can't think of a scenario where genocide is ever justified. Again: it's not that genocide happened to result from a war. The genocide itself was ordered by God.
Exactly. Isn't amazing, since the religious are readers of only one book, that we atheists know MORE about what the religious texts say, than those people infected by them? I can do circles around the christ-psychotics and their dogmas before sending them to visit a neurologist and get their brains repaired..... :)

[Lurker]

Also, just because morality is absolute doesn't mean it is known by everybody or that it isn't discovered over time. For example, logic was discovered as a system by Socrates, but logic existed as a system even before that discovery.
I agree (surprise!). Logic is a priori we just discovered it over time. Did man invent logic? I say no. Same with morality. We are discovering it over time.

[thomas]

The moral relativist can't think of a scenario where genocide is ever justified.
I'll come back on the rest of the post later, but one quick thought. Doesn't the moral relativist just say that genocide is justified (morally correct) whenever somebody feels that it is ? That is the Hebrews were correct in what they did because they thought they were ? Isn't your repulsion to genocide and your post an indication that you think that you and I and everybody else should share the same sense of moral incorrectness regarding genocide ?

It screams out from your post "Look God says He is moral, and yet here is an example where everybody should agree that this act is immoral". You'd be morally outraged if I came back and said "murdering children in order to gain territory is morally correct"

[TheSnake]

Did man invent logic? I say no.
How do you know this or are you just guessing?

[Philboid Studge]

Doesn't the moral relativist just say that genocide is justified (morally correct) whenever somebody feels that it is ?
First, let me say that I meant that this moral relativist (Philboid) can't think of a realistic scenario where genocide is ever justified. I fully understand that the Hebrews felt they were morally correct. Put another way, if I had been an Israelite back when, I certainly would have killed babies if I thought God commanded it. Further, if I had been a Canaanite, I would have helped them toss their babies onto the sacrificial pyres; after all, their gods commanded that! But the 2005 Philboid finds such behavior repugnant.

That is the Hebrews were correct in what they did because they thought they were?
From their POV -- correct; from my POV -- incorrect. (I think you are treating the word 'correct' as an absolute. I agree with part of your earlier statement that 'language that you see around you every day ha[s] a strong assumption of an absolute morality.' It makes discussions with absolutists difficult -- but not impossible!)

Isn't your repulsion to genocide and your post an indication that you think that you and I and everybody else should share the same sense of moral incorrectness regarding genocide?
Sure, I think so. In this case, if everyone shared my sense of morality there'd be no genocide, and from Philboid's POV, that would be 'good.' But ancient peoples would probably think it was plain weird to write off genocide as a strategy.

It screams out from your post "Look God says He is moral, and yet here is an example where everybody should agree that this act is immoral".
No. First of all, God is not to blame for the Hebrews' perfidy, the Hebrews are. Philboid (the 2005 model) thinks it was immoral. The Canaanites back when no doubt thought it was immoral. Probably only the Hebrews thought it was moral (although others were later convinced of it as well). Again: you are thinking of the words 'moral' and 'immoral' as if they are absolute. I have my POV; the Hebrews had theirs. (By the way, I believe that the source of my morality and that of these perfidious Hebrews -- and the Canaanite's, for that matter -- is essentially the same. I'll explain later if you want to hear it.)

You'd be morally outraged if I came back and said "murdering children in order to gain territory is morally correct"
Oh, I'd be apoplectic. But other baby killers throughout time and place would probably just nod sympathetically, and I'd wonder what parts of your education and experience had led you to that conclusion. 'God said so' wouldn't cut it.

Thanks for sticking with this.

[Tenspace]

I find these much easier to discuss on an individual example level than as an over-riding principle.
Okay, how 'bout the angel coming to slay all the Egyptian firstborn? Is this another case of a just cause? And what absolute moral law did the firstborn cattle break?

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that [was] in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Tenspace

[Philboid Studge]

I find these much easier to discuss on an individual example level than as an over-riding principle.
Okay, how 'bout the angel coming to slay all the Egyptian firstborn? Is this another case of a just cause? And what absolute moral law did the firstborn cattle break?

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that [was] in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Tenspace
Hey, there is a queue you know! :o

Will you argue that it was 'just' that those [Canaanite] babies were killed? I'd be interested to hear that.

[Tenspace]

Hey, there is a queue you know! :o
:D thomas is a big boy. He can handle it. I expect he will respectfully answer your baby-killing question before he answers mine.

Then we can hit him with the she-bears decimation of a whole classroom full of the rebellious little shits. After that, I want to know about the innocents that died in the Great Flood.

To paraphrase the anti-death sentence activists, "If one innocent dies, it's one too many."

Tenspace

[Lurker]

Did man invent logic? I say no.
How do you know this or are you just guessing?
How dare you plagiarize me! ;)

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that logic would still exist without man.

[Tenspace]

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that logic would still exist without man.
Considering that logic is, "the study of the principles of reasoning", I would have to say that without man, there would be no logic, unless another beast was capable of reason.

Tenspace

[Lurker]

Considering that logic is, "the study of the principles of reasoning", I would have to say that without man, there would be no logic, unless another beast was capable of reason.
By that definition you're right. Without anyone to do the studying there can be no reasoning. I think a related question was asked in another thread - if there is nobody to do the counting, does the concept of numbers (or math) still exist? I didn't read the responses.

[calpurnpiso]

Thoughts do not exist unless produced by the human brain. The Gioconda ( mona Lisa) would not exist if it had not been painted by Leonardo...so, logic does not exist by itself as well as anything else which is produced by the imagination of man. This includes god.

Does logic, logos or god exists in the brain of a chimp, our closest relatives,?..don't think so since they lack a more advanced, improved and evolved biological computer. The brain.

One must remember that logic can be ALTERED by a mere bunp on the head or the use of psychoactive substance....isn't amazing how facts and evidence can separate the sane from the insane?...:)

[Tenspace]

Does logic, logos or god exists in the brain of a chimp, our closest relatives,?..don't think so since they lack a more advanced, improved and evolved biological computer. The brain.
This is an interesting subject. Especially in the light of the fact that scientists are injecting monkey brains with human neural stem cells. Is that warm, fuzzy, worshippy feeling limited to humans? Afterall, it is another chemically-induced emotion.

And stating the obvious, I don't think Cal meant that monkeys don't have brains, just that they don't have human brains. Right, Cal? ;)

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

And another thing: wouldn't Relative Moralism be a more accurate term than Moral Relativism? Almost sounds like we're attributing morals to relativity. :)

Ten

[Downslide]

I find these much easier to discuss on an individual example level than as an over-riding principle.
Hebrews wipe out Canaanites. Moral, immoral, or amoral?
A just war
I've always been a bit confused by that: and admitadly, I don't know what your beliefs are... but i'm going to assume some sort of catholic/christian derivative....

wasn't one of the 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill"? (I think it was number 6)

and I do have a question Thomas... do you really believe that "God" really created the world? in 6 days?


do realize though, I have a really hard time comming to grips with the concept that people ACTUALLY believe this kind of thing... so don't take too much offense. I've always just thought that people went to church & mouthed the appropriate words because church has a strong social influence, politcal position & power are gained by it (really, the concept that "god" created the world is absurd... maybe it's due to indoctrination from the early formative years - in the manner that pepsi & macdonalds can have lifelong customers by the age of two from correctly targeted advertising & product placement) ... and some, perhaps for a sense of community & belonging.

PS - Thomas, when I saw your name, I totally thought of this book by Eric Ericson called The Sorcerer

... oh, I'm new here... and really don't tend to get into these types of discussions.

... and NO, i'm not appologizing for spelling or gramar.

[TroggleHumper]

Short ansers are the best and i would say that if the nazis had won the war then the holcost would have been a "good" thing from the perspective of future genorations of nazis.

If they dont understand that explain how we kill untold numbers of amarican indians and some how that does not make it into grammer school textbooks.

But you will never be able to prove that to them. Because if you get them to say that morals are relitive then they are saying that there is no unchangeing god judging every thing.

[thomas]

God didn't simply order a war; he ordered a genocide. He told the Herbrews to slay babies, which they did (and for which they richly rewarded). Will you argue that it was 'just' that those babies were killed? I'd be interested to hear that. The moral relativist can't think of a scenario where genocide is ever justified. Again: it's not that genocide happened to result from a war. The genocide itself was ordered by God.
Before I answer this, can you clarify which piece of the Bible you are referring to ? It's a genocide ordered by God on the Canaanites ?

[thomas]

I've always been a bit confused by that: and admitadly, I don't know what your beliefs are... but i'm going to assume some sort of catholic/christian derivative....
Yes, a Christian.

wasn't one of the 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill"? (I think it was number 6)
It was one of the 10 commandments but is intended to cover personal conduct. Looking at Deuteronomy etc, it's clear that penal killing by the state is acceptable, as is killing in the pursuit of war.

and I do have a question Thomas... do you really believe that "God" really created the world? in 6 days?

I believe that there was "a beginning" and that in that beginning God created the universe. I don't think it was ain 6, 24 hour periods.

do realize though, I have a really hard time comming to grips with the concept that people ACTUALLY believe this kind of thing... so don't take too much offense. I've always just thought that people went to church & mouthed the appropriate words because church has a strong social influence, politcal position & power are gained by it (really, the concept that "god" created the world is absurd... maybe it's due to indoctrination from the early formative years - in the manner that pepsi & macdonalds can have lifelong customers by the age of two from correctly targeted advertising & product placement) ... and some, perhaps for a sense of community & belonging.
I'm not offended. A little patronized, maybe, but not offended. There is a sense of community and belonging in Christianity, but in my experience that doesn't rank high on people's reasons for believing. Most would say that they have had a life-changing experience, caused by an encounter with Jesus and sustained by the Spirit and the Bible.

[Philboid Studge]

Thomas, After I'd collected some verse from the Book of Joshua and elsewhere, my computer crashed and I lost everything. Can't you find anything more important to pray for? :(

Anyway, I think Yahweh's instructions are unequivocal.

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." Josh 6:21

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." Josh 10:40-41
[Deuteronomy recounts a similar final solution:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2
"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." 20:16]

[calpurnpiso]

Thomas, After I'd collected some verse from the Book of Joshua and elsewhere, my computer crashed and I lost everything. Can't you find anything more important to pray for? :(

Anyway, I think Yahweh's instructions are unequivocal.

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." Josh 6:21

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." Josh 10:40-41
[Deuteronomy recounts a similar final solution:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2
"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." 20:16]
Stop...those benevolent, pious and extremely good words of god bring tears to my eyes...when I realize the Christ-psychotics believe every bit that compendium of absurd idiocies says.....I know it is cruel to laught at their neurological infirmity, but they do not want to be cured.......:)

[Philboid Studge]

Cal, I haven't figured out which is worse, the fundamentalists (let's call them 'Christ-Psychopaths') who would have taken this call to exterminate their neighbors seriously, or the 'moderates' (the mere X-Psychotics) who are too squeamish to get the job done right!

[Little Earth Stamper]

Cal, I haven't figured out which is worse, the fundamentalists (let's call them 'Christ-Psychopaths') who would have taken this call to exterminate their neighbors seriously, or the 'moderates' (the mere X-Psychotics) who are too squeamish to get the job done right!
Well, whoever wrote the original instructions for genocide was just making crap up, and Christ himself (Or whoever invented him) was just some guy who made stuff up and contradicted whatever parts of the religion he didn't like.

Anybody who discards parts of the bible is just following in Christ's intellectual footprints, and besides, they have as much claim to divine insight as any of the original writers.

So, I don't care when Christians don't get the bible exactly right.

[calpurnpiso]

Little Earth Stomper wrote:

"Anybody who discards parts of the bible is just following in Christ's intellectual footprints, and besides, they have as much claim to divine insight as any of the original writers.
So, I don't care when Christians don't get the bible exactly right. "

The problem is that the retards don't even know where their beliefs came from;

Check this out:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

now all of the pieces of the puzzle come together to form the picture!...:)

[Little Earth Stamper]

Little Earth Stomper wrote:

"Anybody who discards parts of the bible is just following in Christ's intellectual footprints, and besides, they have as much claim to divine insight as any of the original writers.
So, I don't care when Christians don't get the bible exactly right. "

The problem is that the retards don't even know where their beliefs came from;

Check this out:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

now all of the pieces of the puzzle come together to form the picture!...:)
I can tell you where all of them come from: Some guy who made shit up. Maybe he hallucinated. Maybe it was a woman.

Here in America, we're indoctrinated to divide beliefs into "valid religions" and "cults". Christianity is considered valid while Scientology is a cult. Now, part of this has to do with the way these religions treat members, but mostly it's an arbitrary distinction.

The thing is, it's so ingrained that even atheists tend to buy into it. I've heard atheists call Christians hypocrites for, say, believing in evolution and Christianity.

But Christianity is something people pretty much make up. There's no real reason that the theory of the bible as an allegory should be less valid then the theory that it is literal, or vice versa.

It's all stories people tell, and if you don't have respect for the original story, why should you mind if somebody alters it?

This is one of those "atheist issues" I've thought about at great lengths.

[thomas]

Thomas, After I'd collected some verse from the Book of Joshua and elsewhere, my computer crashed and I lost everything. Can't you find anything more important to pray for? :(
Nothing springs to mind immediately..;)

Anyway, I think Yahweh's instructions are unequivocal.

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." Josh 6:21

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." Josh 10:40-41
[Deuteronomy recounts a similar final solution:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2
"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." 20:16]
I agree that the instructions are unequivocal. And I honestly don't have a good answer for you, in regards to how a good God could command these things, that doesn't make me uncomfortable. Here are the "best" arguments I could find :

1) The Canaanites were very evil people, previously warned by God, who deserved their punishment, and that God is just in exacting His punishment through other nations. Later in the Bible, God does the reverse and uses other nations to punish Israel.

2) Nobody deserves to live other than God allows it, and it's his complete perogative as to when somebody's life ends. So, really he's being merciful to the Canaanites when He isn't killing them :(. After all He didn't have to design us so that we died, but He did, and obviously intends our life to be impermanent

3) The necessity of creating a vehicle for the salvation of mankind (Israel) made the conquest of the Canaanites a "best good", that is the net good of the solution outweighs the bad acts required to created the solution

4) Don't question God. He can do what He likes.

5) The book of Joshua is mythical and it never occured in the way it is described. Archeology says that the Canaanites were not wiped out by the Israelites. Also, later books of the Bible describe the same battles without the genocide and also contradict the fact that the Canaanites were completely wiped out.

All of these explanations have different problems for me.

[Philboid Studge]

Thanks, thomas. Your explanations actually aren't half bad. (I think #3 is the 'best.') I won't pick through each one because I daresay we probably have the same problems with them. I think you thought my example was an attempt to show what a prick God is (but that was only a fringe benefit :)). Actually I chose this one specifically because it speaks to the source of absolute morality. Here is God speaking directly to man with instructions to wipe out a culture. My question was whether you think this genocide (or ethnic cleansing or simple conquest if you like) was moral, immoral or amoral. (I gather that your jury is still out?)

Your discomfort with the rout of the Canaanites (and God's possible motives in issuing the marching orders) hardly disproves the absolute morality you believe in, but it may suggest that you have relativist stirrings deep inside your soul. (Or not.)

May I ask you to look at this case as an atheist would for a minute? (C'mon, God won't care -- He doesn't even have to know! *distant clap of thunder*). As an atheist, I'm more interested in the Hebrews' motives than 'God's'. Here's what I see:

A nomadic tribe wipes out its principal rival in a brutal campaign. Never mind whether it was genocide or ethnic cleansing (or even whether the campaign was justified) -- the point is it happened, and the archaeological evidence supports it. The leader of this tribe told his followers that 'God' told him He wanted this to happen, that all the unpleasantness associated with killing and maiming was sanctioned by God Almighty.

Which is more likely:

A) The leader of the tribe wanted to rouse its members to fight by assuring them that a 'God' was not only behind them, but that He commanded the war -- and would help them prosecute it. This was more than just a war of necessity, it was a moral imperative from God. (Need I point out contemporary examples of leaders* who have stretched the truth a bit in order to rally the citizenry to conquest?)

B) God Almighty appeared to the tribe leader (and no one else) and told him what to do.

What's an atheist to think?

Okay, you can go back to being a theist again.


*It is only a coincidence (of cosmic proportions) that the current leader of the US tribe claims he is informed by the very same God that whispered sweet somethings into Moses' ear.

[thomas]

PhilBoid, I tried really hard to look at it from a relativist atheist position, but couldn't manage it so I just spent some more time praying that your computer would fail again. Sorry. Anyway I can see why you would take the position you do about these events, it's completely reasonable, but none of it denies God.

Let me explain part of the reason why my repugnance to the acts I see in Joshua don't make me reject God. It's because this is not the only thing that I see, or feel or reason about God and His intervention in my life. A weak analogy would be that if I stumbled upon my wife holding a strangers hand whilst walking around town, I would put that seeminlgy comprimising behaviour in the context of the rest of our relationship and many years spent together. I'd start from assuming some innocent behaviour. I could be an idiot for thinking that way, I could be mistaken, but I could also be right. Likewise with God. I don't understand some of the OT behaviour and I struggle to reason it away, but I end up giving Him the benefit of the doubt based on other things I see and experience of Him.

[Philboid Studge]

Hey Thomas. Yeah, I guess I'm in the position where 'denies God' came a long time ago. But again, I didn't intend this example to be what-a-prick-God-is scenario, so much as yet another chapter in look-what-happens-when-people-think-they-are-privy-to-absolute-knowledge.
I like your analogy! The Canaanite episode is just one of many examples, so it's less like stumbling across a one-time hand-holding incident and more like finding strange underwear under your bed, again, on top of a mysterious love-note you'd found, on top of DNA tests that showed your kids were sired elsewhere ... But the many years of fidelity prevents you from believing the worst. (The husband is always the last one to know.)

I can't tell if my commentary is mean spirited this morning; I haven't had coffee yet. I hope it doesn't come across that way ... :|

Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, we tend to believe what we want to believe, a formula that has been misinforming both the faithful and infidels since time immemorial.