Do you see red the same way that I do? I suppose there’s not really a way to know. Even if we could agree on seeing the subtle differences between fire engine red and candy apple red, how do we know that we’re seeing those differences in the same way?
You could get an objective definition of red from its unique wavelength. But in practical matters, that’s of little use to the average person. None of us may see that wavelength in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, our society seems to move along quite well by using red in traffic lights to tell us when to stop. If you were to ask several different people to identify the exact shade of red in a traffic light, you might get different answers. In fact, if you were to compare the reds of different traffic lights, you might come up with slightly different shades. But traffic lights work because instead of making each light a different shade of red (which would be horribly confusing), we make each light an entirely different color: red, yellow, green. Two people might disagree over which red more closely matches fire engine red, but they won’t usually disagree when it comes to identifying red over green.
This is something we all understand without the need to endlessly equivocate over whether colors are subjective or objective. They’re both, and we’ve learned how to work with them accordingly. But when we begin talking about theism vs atheism, we seem to lose this ability. Not in regard to color, of course, but in regard to morality.
It seems to me that morality works in exactly the same way as color. Take modesty for example. What passes for modesty in one place and time may not pass for modesty in another. Every time I’ve seen Michelle Obama, I would describe her as being dressed modestly. However, were she to dress that way in a conservative Muslim country, they might feel very differently. Or if she were to travel back in time to Victorian England, her attire would be scandalous. So while the average person in Western culture would say that Michelle Obama is modest, when compared to stricter definitions of modesty, the label may not apply so easily. In the same way, while it’s easy to pick out red from red, green, and yellow, it’s harder to pick the “reddest” from three shades of red.
To use another example, consider the hippocratic oath. It says that the physician will never do harm to anyone. Yet don’t physicians often give shots? Or administer treatments like chemotherapy? But we know that sometimes momentary discomfort is necessary to bring about a greater good. Administering a shot and pricking someone with a pin are almost identical in regard to how it makes someone feel, but one is moral while the other is not. It’s not hard to see the difference between the two, and no superior being needs to tell us which is better, just like no superior being needs to tell us the difference between red and green.
In discussions about whether or not there is a god, theists will sometimes say that an atheist has no basis on which to decide that one version of morality is better than another. But I profoundly disagree with this. God never told anyone what names to give for the colors. Even so, most people can easily distinguish between red and green. By the same token, it’s very easy to determine that generosity is far more moral than rape — we don’t need a god to tell us that.
However, just as its difficult to choose between shades of the same color, there are times when deciding what’s moral can be quite difficult. If your Aunt Sally asks what you thought of her lasagna, is it preferable to lie and tell her that it was good, or to be honest and tell her that you didn’t like it? A compelling case can be made either way. If a child molester is going to be released from custody on a technicality, is it more moral for the father of the victim to abide by the ruling, or take justice into his own hands? Again, the “right” thing to do in such a situation is not all that clear. But these more difficult situations are not improved by believing in a god. Even theists are puzzled by the right thing to do under such circumstances.
The Bible gives a great example of this in David. In 1 Sam 13 and Acts 13, David is referred to as a man after God’s own heart. Yet we see David make some interesting choices, considering that description. In 1 Samuel 21, David is running from King Saul, and he and his men are hungry. So he goes to see Ahimelech the high priest and asks for some food. Ahimelech tells David that the only food they have is the consecrated bread, which only priests can eat. David and his men eat the bread. In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus justifies David’s act here by saying that some of these laws are meant to benefit people, not restrict them. In other words, it’s situational.
In 1 Samuel 27, things have gotten so bad for David (as in Saul is out to kill him), that he takes refuge in Philistia and serves King Achish. For over a year, he serves this king, and how does he repay Achish’s kindness? By raiding Philistine villages — something Achish would not have appreciated. Whenever Achish asks David what he’s been up to, David says that he and his men have been out raiding Israelite villages, which Achish thinks is great. And David never leaves any survivors who could rat him out to Achish. We’re never given any indication that God was displeased by this. In fact, it’s presented as being quite cunning — isn’t David cool?! So lying is okay if it keeps you out of trouble?
If the Bible gives us mixed messages when it comes to the moral conundrums that we all find difficult to navigate, and if we don’t actually need any help in figuring out what’s moral when presented with extremes (caring for the needy vs murder), then why are we supposed to think that belief in a god is somehow necessary to establish moral principles at all? When you get right down to it, identifying morality is usually like identifying colors: you know it when you see it. Why make it more complicated by that?
Finding Truth 
“so your position is what I thought it was. thanks for clarifying.”
Anything you need William. If you needed clarification that people die everyday I am only happy to be of assistance.
LikeLike
“LOL… the atheist in full blown name calling cursing mode because he has absolutely ZERO evidence for the claim he continues to hold on to.”
LOL, it is funny because we’re saying the same thing. I’m trying not even argue but point out where we’re in agreement. I dont know about all Christians, but maybe you’re too s=busy trying to have argument that you cant tell when there’s nothing to argue over.
and I’m not an atheist. A small point – so dont worry about it.
“Don’t make claims against a passage unless you have positive proof that it says what you want it to say. ”
are you saying now that you dont know whether david was or wasnt portrayed as wrong?
“Anyway now that you are in full name calling mode you can discuss with your comrades how you were right and i was an ahem asshole” Mike, there’s no need for any discussion here.
If I was offensive, i apologize. I was really mentioning it in an off color joking way – which may be why i included myself. poor choice on may part.
but even so, the name calling isnt our focus is it?
LikeLike
“Anything you need William. If you needed clarification that people die everyday I am only happy to be of assistance.”
thanks. are you saying that some individuals dies multiple times, on a daily basis? or are you saying that in fact, that there are individuals who die, on a daily basis?
or were you just being an asshole? (wink) 😉
naw, but seriously, I was wanting to know how you gauge god’s morality as it related to things most people view in modern times as absolutely immoral – like genocide. I think it’s a fair question when discussing morality. didn’t mean to be a bother.
thanks again.
LikeLike
“If I was offensive, i apologize”
The if there is hilarious. Under what conditions would asshole not be an insult? Or were you secretly possible claiming I had the incredible positive ability to remove human waste from an environment? lol
and you directed it solely at me the second time around so don’t even try that out.
look the Samuel 27 fraudulent claim that the passage implies “cool david” is hardly surprising. its pretty how you guys approach the BIble. Nate has countless posts just like it and in some of them (particularly his alleged contradiction posts) people have pointed out his errors or facts that he didn’t know that SIGNIFICANTLY weakens his claim and his only recourse is to say what you said “it still seems to say” or his favorite – it should be more clear to me an atheist in the 21st century so though you raise a very good point that disputes my earlier claim of a factual proven contradiction I still a maintain its a contradiction because its not clear enough to me (talk about moving the goal posts) .
lets face it this blog is more for rubber stamping your beliefs. its why you couldn’t contain yourself and started the name calling and cursing because I insisted on some evidence from you and you had none.
LikeLike
“and you directed it solely at me the second time around so don’t even try that out.”
well you’re right. the second time I meant it. i should be sorry for that… It’s something i’ll have to work on. but the silver lining is that regardless of how it was meant, you have the power to take in constructively.
LikeLike
“Nate has countless posts just like it and in some of them (particularly his alleged contradiction posts) people have pointed out his errors or facts that he didn’t know that SIGNIFICANTLY weakens his claim and his only recourse is to say what you said “it still seems to say” or his favorite – it should be more clear to me an atheist in the 21st century so though you raise a very good point that disputes my earlier claim of a factual proven contradiction I still a maintain its a contradiction because its not clear enough to me (talk about moving the goal posts) .”
the “you raise a very good point” isnt entirely accurate. there are problems with those points, but I can see where a believer would see it that way, having been one myself.
I didnt know we were talking about moving goal posts.
and the “it still seems to say” is really all you have yourself. so being critical may not be the correct course of action, but i could be wrong.
and you know what, I guess god will or wont judge us in the end, right?
LikeLike
“naw, but seriously, I was wanting to know how you gauge god’s morality as it related to things most people view in modern times as absolutely immoral – like genocide”
God’s morality is fine. As I stated before but you missed – If God is not moral to take life that belongs to him then you could make the claim that anything else but immortality marked God as immoral – a totally weightless argument. Genocide for most of the world is defined as people deciding to take human life based on race or nationality not God judging men. You might want to check the opinion polls
Besides Most people rightfully think genocide is immoral because they think killing is immoral and sorry they got that idea from a thing they call the ten commandments. Outside of a few instances where God who knows all things expressly commanded the killing of people who he knew (not me. I know no such thing ) deserved it its absolutely forbidden for anyone to do it today. According to revelations no one can add to the scriptures to make that claim.
Atheists such as yourself (or whatever you wish to pretend makes any significant difference) employ circular reasoning on this issue. You claim that such a command was never from God therefore its shameful or That God is not really God and has no moral right to determine who lives and dies.
Always of course implying that such a belief would lead anyone today to rightfully make the claim God had told them to commit genocide today
Meanwhile the only prominent persons I have heard of recently implying people perhaps should be killed for their faith is the atheist Sam Harris (before beating a hasty retreat with an excuse that just does not hold water)
LikeLike
“God’s morality is fine. As I stated before but you missed”
no i got it, and I thanked you for it, remember? I didnt argue over it. I feel like you’re wanting to argue so badly. why?
“Besides Most people rightfully think genocide is immoral because they think killing is immoral and sorry they got that idea from a thing they call the ten commandments.”
and moses got it from the sumarians.
“Atheists such as yourself (or whatever you wish to pretend makes any significant difference) employ circular reasoning on this issue. You claim that such a command was never from God therefore its shameful or That God is not really God and has no moral right to determine who lives and dies.”
hmm. I dont recall making that claim, but if i did, i must have misspoke. I do claim that the bible was delivered by men who claim they were speaking for god… is that what you were trying to say? i ask why we should believe their claims. so when i find things that look suspect to me (and I could be wrong), it gives me pause – I just cant seem to buy what they’re trying to sell. and as far as circular reasoning, yeah, it’s no good – one reason I left the bible.
I dont know sam harris and not sure how he applies, but “neat,” i guess?
LikeLike
“the “you raise a very good point” isnt entirely accurate. there are problems with those points, but I can see where a believer would see it that way, having been one myself.”
Well of course being an anti-Christian you would feel that way but isn’t that the entire point? Its kind of like accusing of lying. Honest people when they are instructed on possible other explanations come off their claim of lying. Claiming someone is lying has a burden of proof to it among civilized people. You don’t make that claim lightly if you are intellectually honest.
You guys suspend that etiquette for the Bible. You think it contradicts or lies so it contradicts or lies. if It isn’t clear to you despite counter points being presented against your claim of lying it doesn’t matter. Instead over and over what i read is ” its not hard to imagine” well it doesn’t seem” “its not clear” “well I still think” . Good night Nate’s favorite fall back is ” couldn’t it have been put more clearly” and since it isn’t to him it stands as a contradiction – his version of digging up the goal post in Georgia and moving it to Iowa since unclear in no dictionary means contradiction.
So in other word you flip the burden of proof to be – we don’t have to prove there is a contradiction you have to prove its not a contradiction. EXACTLY what you did in this thread – essentially begging that I have to show in Samuel 27 evidence against your no evidence claim which you can’t find support for anywhere in the text – which is of course just utter nonsense and rank foolishness. its the equivalent of we don’t have to prove you are lying you have to prove you are not lying or our accusation sticks.
LikeLike
“and moses got it from the sumarians. ”
do tell. you have letters From Moses? 🙂 thats going to make you a rich man if the dating holds up to be pre 1200 AD 😉
LikeLike
“You guys suspend that etiquette for the Bible. You think it contradicts or lies so it contradicts or lies. if It isn’t clear to you despite counter points being presented against your claim of lying it doesn’t matter. Instead over and over what i read is ” its not hard to imagine” well it doesn’t seem” “its not clear” “well I still think” .”
mike, it’s really as simple as the counter arguments dont hold up, dont make sense, or have no basis in anything and are entirely made up on the spot without any proof or evidence, or all of the above. If you’re convinced by it, cool. I’m just not. so maybe there’s nothing more to discuss.
LikeLike
“I just cant seem to buy what they’re trying to sell. and as far as circular reasoning, yeah, it’s no good – one reason I left the bible.’
You’ve forgotten Will my boy. I don’t buy you were a real believer before. So you are free of course to mention it but it raises no point to me. I’m really only here wating for some evidence for any of your claims but its been crickets (in regard to facts) ever since you were held to tasks too hardly for the facts and started cursing. Was that supposed to replace for um any real evidence?
LikeLike
“and moses got it from the sumarians. ”
It’s historical fact that the code of Hammurabi predated the 10 commandments. when you really start looking, you’ll find that much in the bible was done earlier elsewhere.
it’s pretty well known and not hard to find when looking. Unless you’re only looking for things that support the bible.
LikeLike
“You’ve forgotten Will my boy. I don’t buy you were a real believer before. So you are free of course to mention it but it raises no point to me. I’m really only here wating for some evidence for any of your claims but its been crickets (in regard to facts) ever since you were held to tasks too hardly for the facts and started cursing. Was that supposed to replace for um any real evidence?”
Cool.
LikeLike
“mike, it’s really as simple as the counter arguments dont hold up, dont make sense, or have no basis in anything and are entirely made up on the spot without any proof or evidence, or all of the above.”
You mean like your Samuel 27 claim that it says or implies “Cool David” Right? lol its almost like you were purposefully summarizing your own points.
LikeLike
“You mean like your Samuel 27 claim that it says or implies “Cool David” Right? lol its almost like you were purposefully summarizing your own points.”
not at all. not the same. I’ve allowed multiple times that i reading out of the context and that i could be mistaken, and you could be correct – but since the text doesnt provide solid proof either way, there’s no point in arguing about it..
but if we were talking about the genealogy of christ, where the text is clear, but an apologist swears that means something other than what it says – it’s those I dont find compelling. maybe there’s a better argument or a better explanation as to why it shouldnt be a problem – i just havent heard it.
does that help clarify?
LikeLike
“It’s historical fact that the code of Hammurabi predated the 10 commandments. when you really start looking, you’ll find that much in the bible was done earlier elsewhere.”
And zero evidence that Moses got it from there. When you do some real research (or even some light bible reading in your case)you will discover that most of the ten commandments are moral law already revealed before ether the code of Hammurabi or the tten commandments. Again a point that seems to fly right over your head is that a huge part of Moses writings in Genesis are HISTORICAL to Moses not contemporary. So citing evidence of moral law before Moses makes no point whatsoever
“Unless you’re only looking for things that support the bible.”
Or only trying to find what allegedly contradicts it
LikeLike
“but if we were talking about the genealogy of christ, where the text is clear, but an apologist swears that means something other than what it says – it’s those I dont find compelling. maybe there’s a better argument or a better explanation as to why it shouldnt be a problem – i just havent heard it.”
Bleh that one is so boring because its been explained by many people (but of course not to your anti-christian liking but as you have said elsewhere – its just your opinion ) and we don’t have independent genealogical records to confirm anyway. I might be wrong but as I recall in my scan Nate had a number of things he did not know pointed out to him but fell back to the usual fall backs.
However I was having a much greater time reading the total failure of showing a contradiction in the resurrection account with the women though I am quite sure Nate swore he did.
“but since the text doesnt provide solid proof either way, there’s no point in arguing about it..”
LOL…back to your handwaving and special pleading that your claim has merit even without ANY evidence. Sorry poor chap – The text provides solid proof that your claims have no support from the text which is why after several posts you have not even bothered to present one single verse
its quite apparent you have no intention of offering any either so until perhaps something factual drops into your lap from a random wind burst I’ll take a break from this discussion that never rose to the level of a debate because you had and have no evidence to support your claims.
LikeLike
“And zero evidence that Moses got it from there. When you do some real research (or even some light bible reading in your case)you will discover that most of the ten commandments are moral law already revealed before ether the code of Hammurabi or the tten commandments.”
except that his law is shown to predate him.
“So citing evidence of moral law before Moses makes no point whatsoever”
except to illustrate people dont need the bible to know morality.
“Or only trying to find what allegedly contradicts it”
this is a good point and you’re right. I can only assure you that I was once a devout believer, whether you believe it or not is no concern of mine. regardless, we should try to search for the truth, not what we want it to be. We are in agreement it seems.
LikeLike
“LOL…back to your handwaving and special pleading that your claim has merit even without ANY evidence. Sorry poor chap – The text provides solid proof that your claims have no support from the text which is why after several posts you have not even bothered to present one single verse.”
I guess I missed it. Where is david condemned for deceiving the philistines? what in the context makes that point? you keep saying it, but always neglect to cite your case.
as far as the genealogy, you’ve just dismissed that with a wave of your hand in the same post you’re criticizing me of doing so. But still, the passages say both line are through joseph to jesus, even though they’re different. The apologetic I’ve read and heard are just nothing more than “huh, uh.”
I guess since nothing is impossible for god, he could have two seperate genealogies for Joseph and jesus if he liked – i just dont find that claim of man plausible.
if you have something more, you can give it, but it may be better posted on a thread devoted to that. I just brought it up here for illustrative reasons.
LikeLike
“except that his law is shown to predate him.”
Sigh. You don’t read well do you. THIRD TIME. Of course Moral Law predates Moses. Moses relates SEVERAL HISTORICAL incidents where people are punished for sins and names them. Think. That means that Moses recognizes that sin and violations of moral laws of God PREDATES him. Your idea that anything that predates Moses proves that laws were derived from someone else besides Moses’ God is a strawman because Moses himself NEVER himself makes that claim . Genesis after all has genealogies that show Moses was relating incidents .- Almost all of the ten commandments are related in these accounts as sin – that precedes him by hundreds and even thousands of years. SO you can argue that the laws of Hammurabi predates biblical morality but its not an evidence that your are right about the laws coming from there initially..
“except to illustrate people dont need the bible to know morality.”
actually thats ingrained in them to a degree as being created by God but not on a rational basis but under theism. What you have no evidence for and neither does nate is that morality is deducible without reference to theism. You take religion out of a society and the historical record rebuffs you. regimes get less moral. Case closed
LikeLike
“Sigh. You don’t read well do you. THIRD TIME. Of course Moral Law predates Moses. Moses relates SEVERAL HISTORICAL incidents where people are punished for sins and names them. Think. That means that Moses recognizes that sin and violations of moral laws of God PREDATES him. Your idea that anything that predates Moses proves that laws were derived from someone else besides Moses’ God is a strawman because Moses himself NEVER himself makes that claim . Genesis after all has genealogies that show Moses was relating incidents .- Almost all of the ten commandments are related in these accounts as sin – that precedes him by hundreds and even thousands of years. SO you can argue that the laws of Hammurabi predates biblical morality but its not an evidence that your are right about the laws coming from there initially..”
I never said they originated with Hammurabi, I just brought hammurabi to show that they predated moses. You can say it serves no point, but I’m not using as iron clad that this is where moses got it.
the point does two things.
1) show that morality predates the bible “god’s word”
2) a plausible alternative to “moses got it from god.”
it’s a valid point and wasnt being used as a strawman.
“actually thats ingrained in them to a degree as being created by God but not on a rational basis but under theism. What you have no evidence for and neither does nate is that morality is deducible without reference to theism. You take religion out of a society and the historical record rebuffs you. regimes get less moral. Case closed”
regimes get less moral, or the society under the regime does?
you dont get the irony of slamming people for nor providing any proof when you continually neglect to do so? Are you just messing around?
LikeLike
I guess I missed it. Where is david condemned for deceiving the philistines? what in the context makes that point? you keep saying it, but always neglect to cite your case. ”
Oh please over and over and over with the same tired washed up claim. the absence of any explicit condemnation or approval does NOT make a claim that there was an approval stand or have any merit whatsoever. Its a false indictment. It has no merit. I am not claiming there is any condemnation or approval in the text. The passage just states the facts. You and Nate are the ones begging that the passage relates or implies approval. You are simply doing EXACTLY what I said – claiming that I must prove your no evidence thesis incorrect rather than citing a singe piece of evidence outside of your “in my opinion”
“as far as the genealogy, you’ve just dismissed that with a wave of your hand in the same post you’re criticizing me of doing so”
I’m sorry but umm thats more nonsense- what was there to dismiss? You presented nothing but the claim in this thread and as you indicated its not the place for it. I criticize you rightfully on the subject of this thread where it HAS been discussed.
“i just don’t find that claim of man plausible.”
and I don’t find your claim to knowing anything about Jewish genealogies plausible especially since you seem blissfully unaware that one of the genealogies being Mary’s is not the only option Christians have held to.
Like you said however – not the thread for it.
LikeLike
“I never said they originated with Hammurabi, I just brought hammurabi to show that they predated moses. You can say it serves no point”
sure I will because it disputes nothing. its straw because its assumes a premise not in existence
“1) show that morality predates the bible “god’s word”
it doesn’t it merely assumes that God’s word begins with Moses. regardless it offers no proof either for or against.
“a plausible alternative to “moses got it from god.”
Nope. You pulled it out as proof not just a plausible alternative. You are back pedalling
“you dont get the irony of slamming people for nor providing any proof when you continually neglect to do so?”
Okay at this point you are just fibbing big time. YOU made a positive claim that the passage relates david as a hero in 27. I gave the entire text as evidence that there is no such claim in the text ANYWHERE. Thats my evidence unrebutted by you for now six or seven times I’ve stated with not even a feeble attempt to relate a single verse in the entire chapter from where you derive your claim – Basically nothing but I er FEEL it does which shows the depth of your rigor in being fair with any biblical text..
Then YOU relate some general statement about The hammurabi inscription being a historical fact that predates the Bible as evidence of one of your claims and I gave a historical fact that regimes that have abandoned theism have historically declined in morality – particularly human rights
but umm thats not evidence but your general hammurabi claims are? Alrighty then 🙂
I return you to your regularly scheduled rubber stamped posts and “oh this is soo good because it feeds my bias” comments. You still are not up to handling or finding truth beyond that.
LikeLike
You’re right, Mike. The Bible does not explicitly applaud David for his lying to Achish. However, multiple passages say that David was a “man after God’s own heart” — as far as I know, that’s a description given to no one else in the Bible. And it’s a fact that the Bible does not condemn his lying to Achish.
The impression I got that the Bible was portraying David as cunning in this regard is just that — an impression that I got. It may not have been the writer’s intent. Either way, this was a minor point of my original post.
As far as morality is concerned, it sounds like we’re all in agreement that morality was not born with the 10 Commandments. William’s point about Hammurabi is worthy of consideration for the following reason:
Some Christians (maybe not you) claim that the 10 Commandments is our source of morality. That we needed those laws to teach us right from wrong. But even if we accept the Bible’s own chronology, Moses would have lived long after Hammurabi, and the 10 Commandments definitely appear to be derivative of Hammurabi’s code, which itself is derivative of the earlier Code of Ur-Nammu. So we didn’t really need for Moses to be divinely inspired in order to understand the basics of morality.
An even stronger point to consider is that other mammals have shown basics of morality as well, which indicates our species has been working on morality long before we developed a god concept.
LikeLike