I just love books that generalize and smear and stereotype people.

I should write a book "The making of a christian: How being a giant asshole leads to faith".

Wouldn't that be nice?

I mean I have known christians who were giant assholes, so that completely justifies the stereotype that that is the one singular root cause of faith.

I've also met jews who are greedy and black people who are criminals. I should write a lot of these books!

@tim223 - 

"hi agnophilo,
I just saw your post. I didn't mean to come across as insulting atheists. (though technically, to an atheist there is no such thing as 'immorality', is there?)"

No, and that is a vile thing to say. Think for a moment how huge an insult it is to suggest that someone is not capable of being moral or having moral consideration. You are essentially calling me a sociopath just because I have a different worldview.

Imagine if someone walked up to a person on the street and said something similar, but about blacks or jews. How is what you are saying any less vile or insulting?

You presumably believe that morality is determined by god's will, ie something is god because god says it is. Divine authority. Setting aside that we don't really follow this kind of morality and the world hasn't since the middle ages (otherwise we'd be stoning people to death in the street and executing homosexuals and owning slaves and doing many biblically "moral" things). Setting that aside, my concept is that things are good or bad because of their intrinsic qualities. The moral difference between giving a child a piece of candy or giving them a hand grenade to play with is determined not by scripture or divine writ, but by what the two things actually intrinsically are, and what the consequences of those actions would be.

That is perfectly valid, and entirely practical.

Atheism is not believing in the existence of deities, not not believing in the existence of right and wrong. To suppose that no one has a concept of right and wrong outside of your ideological block is breathtakingly ignorant.

"I suppose it is possible that there are many paths into atheism. The atheists I've known have exhibited certain characteristics and come from certain backgrounds... but your point is valid that stereotypes can be unhelpful."

What "certain" characteristics and backgrounds?

"So, I would honestly be interested to hear more about your own journey, if you are interested to share it. Would you say that this "immorality --> atheism" pattern that the book describes was quite different than your own journey?"

Unrecognizable. Most atheists I've known are very ethical people. Just because they don't agree 100% with puritanical ethics doesn't mean they have none. And as an atheist I have always been monogamous, I don't drink, smoke, do drugs or party like the majority of my christian peers etc. Studies have shown that atheists in the united states are far less likely to go to prison, get divorced etc. And a recent study found that american atheists and agnostics ranked highest in their knowledge of the bible and religion, followed by jews, then mormons, and only then various christian sects. I've known more atheists who have read the bible cover to cover than I've known christians who have.

You cannot dismiss millions of people as being just being too weak to believe what you believe. It's bigotry of the highest order. And I'm sick of evangelists promoting christianity by smearing non-christians.

"I've noticed that most atheists I know have had a strong exposure to "hypocritical religiosity" by authority figures in their childhood."

This is america, is anyone not exposed to hypocritical religiosity in their childhood? You're talking about a country where 3/4 of the population is christian and the 1/4 that aren't are constantly evangelized to. It's not a shock that most atheists have heard of christianity any more than that most christians in iran have probably heard the name allah once or twice.

"Was this true of your journey also?"

I was raised christian, went to a christian school, started questioning the beliefs when I was old enough to think critically about them, and became more sure that they were not credible the more I learned about the bible and the more I thought about it.

"What started you toward atheism,"

The concept of hell first made me question what I had been taught. When I realized I wouldn't send anyone to hell if it was up to me regardless of their crimes (if I could just blink them out of existence instead) I could not conceive of a supreme being that was morally inferior to me and would torture people rather than just end their existence.

Would you respect a man who advocated abolishing the death penalty in favor of slowly torturing prisoners to death over months or years?

That made me question, and I lost faith in christianity years before I lost faith in god. But then I didn't consider it a great loss, and don't now.

"or had you been steeped in atheistic training by those who raised you?"

I was an atheist before I knew there was a word for it. I had never met an atheist or read any book about atheism before I stopped believing in god. One parent was christian and the other I assumed was a marginal christian, but found out when I was 20 that she was agnostic. That's how un-indoctrinated I was into atheism. To this day I have never read a book written by an atheist (barring books that aren't about atheism or religion, that is).

I was, however, christian due to indoctrination, as most people are. Most atheists in america are not indoctrinated into atheism, and most atheists abhor indoctrination and freely expose their children to religious views, only so long as they are exposed to many views, rather than having one hammered into their heads.

"Would you say it was mostly intellectual questioning that led you to atheism,"

Entirely.

"or mostly a desire to find a worldview compatible with your desires and impulses, or some mixture of the two, or something else?"

I don't think that way. I never saw the sense in feeling bad or inhibiting anything that didn't harm anyone. And my concept of god was never someone standing over me with a lightning bolt waiting to obliterate me if I masturbated.

"If you'd rather email or message than post publically on xanga, that's fine too."

My views are out there for anyone to see.

"And if you are interested in my story, I'd be glad to share it with you."

I assume you're christian? Did you lose faith out of lust or something?

@tim223 - 

"Hi Agnophilo,
Thanks for sharing about your journey."

You're welcome.

"You accused me of "breathtaking ignorance", "bigotry of the highest order" and making "vile" "insults" toward atheists because I suggested that to an atheist there is no such thing as immorality. Let me just comment a bit more about this. Of course atheists can be "good people" in relative / societal terms. Most of my atheist friends are quite nice, and like you, many of them don't "drink, smoke, do drugs, or party". They can be "ethical", which means that they abide by some particular standard of ethical principles, such as the golden rule or the categorical imperative or whatever. http://www.google.com/search?q=ethics+vs+morality My friends are not sociopaths, and I never suggested you were either."

Just that to us nothing is immoral or wrong. Yes, you did.

"However as I understand atheism and atheists, they believe that morality is relative and subjective."

Morality is relative. I don't know anyone who can argue that it isn't. And it is subjective, though this is hard to imagine since to do so you must perform thought experiments involving hypothetical non-humans, since the aspects of human nature that would have to be different to fundamentally change human morality are more or less universal. But suffice to say if human nature were such that stabbing people caused no physical or mental pain, carried no risk of infection and didn't threaten anyone's health or leave disfiguring scars, and the "victim" healed instantly, then our philosophies about the immorality of stabbing people would be wildly different, as would our laws.

"This takes different forms. Some, like Michael Shermer in his recent debate with Greg Koukl, talk of "morality" being objective since it stems from neural impulses which can be measured."

Meaning it is an objective phenomenon, not that ethical statements are not abstract. Asking whether morality is objective or subjective is like asking if light is objective or subjective. The color blue exists only in the human mind, but we know light exists independent of our minds. And what I suspect shermer was talking about was the fact that with modern neurobiology and brain scanning technology, science can objectively examine subjective sensations, thoughts and impulses, which on some level were objective the entire time, we just couldn't get at them.

"But this is not truly objective reality, because there is still the overarching question of which neural impulses to obey and which to deny. Others, like Sam Harris, talk of "morality" being objective and even "scientific" as a set of principles that cause the "flourishing of conscious creatures". While this sounds objective at first, it still doesn't have any normative force, as an individual person has no overarching reason to abide by such principles, even if all societies agreed on them (which they don't)."

Many different things can be called "morality". I define morality as anything that guides or inhibits human behavior. This can include biological impulses to do "good", capacities for sympathy and empathy, societal norms, peer pressure, religious ethics, selfish impulse, and philosophical morality, just to name a few.

Most people have a combination of most of these at some point, but I think philosophical morality is the best.

"Therefore, since atheists really do believe this about morality, I was simply stating a fact. I was not insulting them."

Atheists are individuals, they do not follow a central dogma. Do not generalize as if we all operate from a hive mind, it is insulting.

And I don't think you're representing those atheists' views adequately. "Morality" is a vague term and a very complex subject, no worthwhile philosophy about it can be summed up in a sound bite.

"No, I do not hold to the "divine command theory" of morality (one of the two horns of Euthyphro's dilemma). Instead, I think William Lane Craig's explanation is a better one: things are good not because of some external standard apart from God, nor simply because "God says so", but because of God's character. If you're interested in the difference, see http://psalmtrees.org/2009/12/22/moral-realism-and-the-euthyphro-dilemma/"

God's character is jealous, vengeful, wrathful and allows for genocide, slavery, sexism and countless other things you would never consent to. That is of course if we're using the bible to determine god's character which I assume you are. Though I suspect not well, from your below descriptions of biblical slavery.

"or http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/."

All of these are arguments from ignorance, and the premises of the arguments when stated logically are mostly either false, self-contradictory or unsupportable. These arguments were refuted long ago.

"Interesting. On your concept, though, "why" should one give candy to a child, as opposed to giving a hand grenade to the child? For example, assume that we know that the candy (or healthier snack) has "intrinsically beneficial consequences" for the child, and the grenade has "intrinsically harmful consequences". Why ultimately ought one to do what is better for other people (in this case, better for the child)?"

You have to be joking.

I hate when religious people play dumb as a form of argument. As if you would give a child a hand grenade unless jesus came down and told you it was a bad idea. As if you couldn't work it out for yourself.

Don't be an idiot.

"You might say, "Because that's what makes society function the smoothest."

No, that is a ridiculous answer to that question.

"But that wouldn't really answer the question. Why ought you or I ultimately care about making society function smoothly?"

Oh I dunno, concern for your fellow human beings. An alien concept I'm sure, right?

"Of course atheists believe in relative, societally-defined, "right" and "wrong"."

Right and wrong are determined by society, not decided by society. Something harmful doesn't stop being harmful because of a majority vote or unanimous agreement.

"But are you suggesting that atheists believe in the existence of absolute right and wrong that is cross-cultural, cross-generational, and absolutely binding upon everyone? Most atheists I know don't believe this. But that is what absolute morality is."

And absolute morality is an over-simplified sham of morality. The idea that morality is fixed and doesn't change at all with the situation is silly, and I'm sure you've had this point illustrated to you before many times, so why insist that some kind of one-size-fits-all-situations magical blanket morality exists, when no sane person would adhere to it.

Morality is situational. If you have two options 1) tell a harmless lie or 2) tell the truth and get 20 innocent people killed, then you lie. That doesn't mean lying is good. Lying is generally not good. Just like killing people is generally not good. And war is generally not good. Etc. Generally, not absolutely. The reason for the apparent universal quality of morality is simple - the near-universal aspects of human nature.

What will kill someone in one culture will kill someone in another. Is it any wonder stabbing people is shunned wherever you go? Do we need divine planning to account for it? No, it's just the commonality of human nature. And most of what humans have in common in terms of psychology and morality are not even exclusively human traits, they are found in some form in most social mammals.

"If this is indeed what you're suggesting, then what is the source or origin of this absolute standard of right and wrong?"

I just told you.

"And how do you know the details of this absolute standard?"

The same way you know anything else, education and thought and discussion.

As far as an "absolute" standard, you could write a book listing absolute and infallible human morality, but it wouldn't look anything like the bible. It would not say "You shall not kill", it would say "You shall not kill unless..." followed by about ten thousand pages of text describing every possible moral situation involving killing someone. That would be absolute morality. Clunky and impractical beyond belief.

"And what happens if you accidentally do something that is "wrong"? Are there any consequences?

If there are no consequences, you haven't done anything.

I think you mean personal consequences, punishment. I should hope I wouldn't need that kind of incentive, but there are often personal consequences for "wrong" actions which you know about.

"If you're referring to the 2010 Pew survey, Mormons and evangelicals actually knew more about the Bible and Christianity than atheists,"

It's worth mentioning that atheists ranked higher than "christians", though some christian sects were higher.

"but atheists knew more about other world religions. http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
I would agree that the atheists I know tend to be well-informed in general about religion. But unfortunately I find their reasons to disbelieve in the God of the Bible to be shallow and unconvincing."

The main reason atheists disbelieve is because we find the reasons to believe to be shallow and unconvincing.

"For example, I'm currently dialoging with another atheist/agnostic about slavery in the Bible. But I find that he has never thoroughly examined the OT system, and how it actually helped poor people better than welfare does today."

So you're pro-slavery?

"When he sees the word 'slave' in the Bible, he thinks of other slavery systems throughout history, such as the abusive chattel slavery of the southern states 200 years ago, and never bothers to dig deeper into what the Bible was actually calling for."

Actually it is you who do not bother to dig deeper. The chattel slavery in the united states was directly and explicitly modeled after biblical slavery. The idea that slavery was just indentured servitude in the old testament is a fiction which dates back to the days of the abolition movement. In reality both systems had indentured servitude, debt servitude etc, and both had systems of permanent slavery of foreigners and non-believers who you did not have to treat kindly or ever set free. People who advocate the view that all slavery in the bible was indentured, debt-based servitude that forbid slaves from being treated badly cite passages like this passage:

"And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God."

They ignore the fact that these passages refer to isrealites/hebrews, and are usually followed directly by passages advocating "bad" slavery for all other peoples. To continue this passage from leviticus 25 (39-46):

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Slavery of "us" being forbidden except for well-regulated indentured servitude, and permanent and cruel slavery of foreigners and non-believers. Yeah, sounds totally different than slavery in the US.

And there are passages excusing violence toward your slaves, but I'm sure you're aware of them by now if you're debating with another atheist about it.

"Yes, I am a Christian. I've written briefly about my story here (http://tim223.xanga.com/717341168/november-29th-1989/), although not going into much detail about my more skeptical years."

Not really any detail actually.

"I too saw a lot of "christian" hypocrisy. But I have discovered reasons to believe in God and in Jesus Christ that are extremely strong."

Strong emotionally, but not logically I would wager.

"I don't consider myself to be a Christian because I'm "smarter" or "better" or "more holy" than my atheist friends; far from it. I am amazed that God would save someone as unworthy as me.
With esteem, Tim"

Low esteem it sounds like. It has been said that faith in god is often designed to make up for the lost faith in oneself. Food for thought.

"Thanks for your reply."

You're welcome.

"On morality, first, I noticed that you posted a few sarcastic ad-hominem retorts instead of answering my candy/grenade question. While this approach may seem convincing to you, it is not convincing to those of us who value rational discourse. Are you interested in a rational discourse on this subject, or only in venting sarcastically at people whose views you disagree with?"

Some questions are so ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of the other person as to not warrant an answer. And some of them I already answered and you just ignored my response and played dumb to avoid the issue. "Gee, what would be the negative consequence of a child playing with a hand grenade? Durrr..."

Give me a fucking break.

"Second, when I asked about "the existence of absolute right and wrong that is cross-cultural, cross-generational, and absolutely binding upon everyone", you understood me to be asking about whether morality has situational nuances - e.g. in most cases it might be "right" to tell the truth, but in some other cases when the principle of truth-telling conflicts with the principle of justice/saving innocent lives, can it ever be "right" to lie."

Then you agree that morality is not absolute, and is both relative and situational. This should be the end of the conversation, but it won't be.

"I agree with you about the situational applicability of morality, but that was not what I was asking about. Instead, when variations between people arise within the same situation, is there a moral standard which is "above us all"?"

I already addressed this very thoroughly.

"Examples:Cross-cultural: in some cultures female circumcision is considered fine/moral, but in our culture it is not."

It's female genital mutilation, not circumcision. Female circumcision is, while a painful waste of time, far less destructive.

"In such cases, would you consider their moral opinion on this case equal to yours, or would you consider your standard "better" than theirs?"

Yes.

"Cross-generational: a few generations ago, it was considered proper/moral to treat black people as inferiors, because they were supposedly "less evolved". They were asked to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different drinking fountains, etc, as you know. Would you say that your modern attitude against this racism is morally "better" than the attitude of your forefathers?

Yes.

"Absolutely binding upon everyone - i.e. why should one person's morality ever be assumed to be relevant to judge someone else's morality?"

My morality isn't assumed to be anything, you are acting as if you haven't read a word I've typed. If you want to know why I think racism is idiotic, then ask. But don't act like I need some kind of simplistic one-size-fits-all go-to rule for morality to be valid. As if you follow yours for a second anyway.

Your moral worldview is logically unsound and incredibly hypocritical. I've established both points already. Why cling to it? You don't like uncertainty? I prefer uncertainty and difficulty in examining moral situations to the delusion that morality is simple and absolute.

"You answered my question "Why ought you or I ultimately care about making society function smoothly?" with: "Oh I dunno, concern for your fellow human beings."

Yes. You act as if I, or you, are a sociopath.

"This seems circular. We ought to do what is better for other people because of "concern for fellow human beings."

You asked why should we care about whether society functions smoothly. Not why we should do anything. We of course do things for many reasons. You don't want to understand what morality is, you want to go "nuh uh, that's not good enough" whatever I say and then pretend that that justifies your religious beliefs.

"Why ought we be concerned for fellow human beings? I'm not "playing dumb", I'm asking a legitimate question for which I believe atheism has no satisfactory answer. Here are the answers you provided:"

Atheism is non-belief in a god or gods, not a moral worldview. And yes, you are playing dumb.

"Well setting aside the fact that most of us helplessly are concerned with them, it isn't a huge leap from "stabbing me in the face is fucked up and wrong" (and if you play dumb and ask me why it's bad to stab you in the face I will reach through your computer and smack you)"

["Right and wrong are determined by society, not decided by society.""Something harmful doesn't stop being harmful because of a majority vote or unanimous agreement."]

"Do you mean by this that right and wrong are "out there", and society "researches" and "discovers" what they are? (e.g. this is what Sam Harris teaches)"

"Out there" implies morality is some mystical thing that exists outside of ourselves - that is what you believe, and is the opposite of what I have said. Morality is situational, and half of the situation in any moral dilemma with two or more people is the people themselves, their nature. Morality is very similar across different cultures because half of the moral situation is always identical because of the commonality of the physiology and psychology of the individuals involved, which is more or less the same across cultural and geographical boundaries. As I've already explained. I can't dumb it down any more than that.

"I.e., there are "principles" for how to make society function most smoothly, and when we discover them, we label them "right" and "wrong"...?"

They're just good ideas and bad ideas.

["The reason for the apparent universal quality of morality is simple - the near-universal aspects of human nature."]

"Is this a correct understanding of what you believe: humans hold near-universal moral impulses because humans have near-universal "human nature"?"

As I've stated before, moral impulses are like 1/6th of what you could call morality. We generally have similar moral impulses yes. But what I was explicitly referring to in context was nothing to do with moral impulses. You chop my text up into small pieces and ignore what I'm trying to say. I said "The reason for the apparent universal quality of morality is simple - the near-universal aspects of human nature. What will kill someone in one culture will kill someone in another. Is it any wonder stabbing people is shunned wherever you go? Do we need divine planning to account for it? No, it's just the commonality of human nature."

Nothing about moral impulses, I was talking about common utility and interests. You might want to read the whole comment in one go before you respond.

"Do you believe that humans are strictly material (no spirit/soul)?"

What we call a "soul" is just an aspect of our mind, and while abstract things like emotions and sensations and concepts "exist", they are ultimately manifestations of a physical mind, yes. This is very obviously the case, since we can produce, alter and destroy all of them physically. If we had an indestructible, immaterial soul controlling say our emotions, it would not be affected by drugs or a lobotomy.

"If so, by "human nature" you are referring only to biology and psychology, yes? You are saying that humans hold near-universal moral impulses because humans have similar neurobiology. Yes?"

That is one small part of it and I wasn't saying that in that instance, but yes.

["Is it any wonder stabbing people is shunned wherever you go? Do we need divine planning to account for it? No, it's just the commonality of human nature. And most of what humans have in common in terms of psychology and morality are not even exclusively human traits, they are found in some form in most social mammals."]

"Again, it sounds like you are saying that our moral impuses merely come from our neurobiology. I.e., our "morality" is nothing more than chemistry and physics."

I said nothing about "nothing more than", you are attempting to devalue reality to promote an alternative in your own mind. Whatever morality, love etc are, they must have a mechanism. Understanding the mechanism may make it seem less magical and appealing to you, but, as douglas adams once said, I will take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

"When someone says "That man (A) ought not to have murdered that other man (B)", please walk me through the logical atheistic morality of the statement. Is it, for example, something like: "my altruism and morality neurons happen to have evolved to be currently firing in such a way that I feel good about being nice to other people, and my empathy neurons are currently noticing that man (B) was caused pain by man (A), and these neurons are currently firing together in a way that causes my speech areas to compose a sentiment that seeks to reduce the likelihood of this happening to me or other humans in the future."?"

Here you're just being an asshole. As I've stated before, there are many kinds of morality. Yes, some of them are built-in biological impulses. You are focusing on what you find to be the least warm and fuzzy one and dickishly insisting it is the sum total of morality if there is no god, once again ignoring basically everything I have said to you. And conflating biological impulses with moral philosophy is also a dickish strawman, and like most of this response makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to reply to you.

"If otherwise, feel free to correct."

I can only repeat myself and explain how morality works so many times.

["Many different things can be called "morality". I define morality as anything that guides or inhibits human behavior. This can include biological impulses to do "good", capacities for sympathy and empathy, societal norms, peer pressure, religious ethics, selfish impulse, and philosophical morality, just to name a few. Most people have a combination of most of these at some point, but I think philosophical morality is the best."]

"Thanks for your definition. While I can see how each of those things you named has moral implications, my definition of morality would be narrower. I would define morality as the pattern of what things we "ought" to do, versus "ought" not to do. "

You're just regurgitating lame theological arguments.

This debate summed up:

You: What is your basis for morality?

Me: Sympathy, empathy, concern for my fellow man, a philosophical understanding of the complexities of people and societies and a series of social rules arrived at by consensus with my fellow human beings.

You: But why don't you stab someone.

Me: Because it would hurt them and leave a scar, possibly kill them and cause various other unarguably bad things.

You: So morality is just atoms and chemicals then huh!

Me: Well, everything including us is made of atoms and chemicals so yeah, on some ridiculously basic level it's got to do with atoms and chemicals.

You: Yeah, but you can't tell me why you "ought not" stab someone.

Me: I just did, you weren't listening.

Etc, etc, etc.

"For example, let's say a girl is considering getting an abortion,"

Yes, lets use a simple moral issue that a religious person and an atheist are likely to reach a consensus on, like abortion.

"and almost all of the above factors are pointing her to do so: her biological impulses (let's say she feels emotions of hatred toward the fetus), her capacities for sympathy and empathy (she considers the fetus to be 'just a blob of tissue'), societal norms (abortion is ok), peer pressure (her friends encourage her to get it), religious ethics (let's say she's an atheist), selfish impulse (it would make her life easier), and philosophical morality (let's say she thinks that it's a perfectly acceptable thing by Kant's categorical imperative and all other secular philosophy that she's aware of). All of those things, while influencing her behavior, would not be what I consider to be in the realm of morality. Rather, morality deals with the question of not just what one WANTS to do or is BEING PRESSURED to do but rather what one OUGHT to do. I.e. is there some standard of what is "right" and "wrong" beyond my own desires and feelings and neurological impulses and beyond what my peers or parents or society tells me I must do?"

When I defined morality as anything which guides or inhibits human behavior, I did not mean it as in only "good" morality. I am including moral frameworks I disagree with and think are bankrupt. I do not have to think shariah law is good to call it islamic moral law. I am not using the term "moral" in that sense.

That being said I have no idea what your point is with the above example.

"Above you asked: "Do we need divine planning to account for it?" There exists a crucial difference between "accounting for" our moral impulses, versus "grounding" our morality/moral impulses."

Our morality is "grounded" in many things. But you seem to be splitting hairs. What you are talking about is not a foundation for morality, but the belief that divine authority is the only valid basis for morality. A position I refuted in an earlier comment, followed by you saying you don't believe morality is based on authority but "god's character". Which we see now is basically just an appeal to authority or a desire for a role model. By the way I refuted the god's character thing too by reductio ad absurdum, which you just ignored.

"They are not the same. Suppose I feel a moral impulse. Neuroscience can "account for" it, saying that we humans have evolved to produce such impulses. But neuroscience alone does not give a reason why we "ought" to obey the impulse."

Remember that whole "here are the many forms of morality I can think of off the top of my head" portion of the original comment? The part you ceaselessly ignore and pretend I only mentioned one thing? Remember that? Might want to go back and read it again. Or basically anything in any of my comments.

"Atheist Richard Dawkins speaks in "The God Delusion" about secular/atheistic morality. Middle writes about this - "As Douglas Wilson argues, Dawkins’ argument only explains the existence of moral values without explaining why we should obey them. Wilson asks, "What authority does the genetic residue of ancient village life actually have? It may have explanatory power with regard to my moral feelings, but it can have no imperatival value."

That is ridiculous. It's theologeans playing dumb to put down secular morality which by the way is vaaaaastly superior to the biblical morality they are disingenuously proposing that we follow instead.

"Where does the imperatival value come from, in your belief system?"

THE UNALTERABLE FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE. LEARN TO FUCKING READ.

"On slavery, there were still some crucial differences between OT and western chattel slavery. http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html OT slaves who ran away were immediately considered legally free, making all slavery essentially voluntary (whether foreign or domestic). This was not the case in western chattel slavery."

That isn't remotely what the text says. It prohibits someone who finds a freed slave from returning them to their masters, it does not prohibit their master from reclaiming them. It's also worth mentioning that this passage is vague and the context is very "us and them" and it might be referring to enemy slaves fleeing in wartime, which were freed by executive order during the civil war years before slavery was abolished. In war you always deprive the enemy of any property or resources you can, and heathen or foreign slaves were explicitly considered property not worthy of basic human considerations in the bible.

"Regarding war captives, Israel was prohibited from seizing land outside its borders (so any battles outside would only be self-defense),"

Are you kidding me? Israel wiped out most of it's neighbors according to scripture. Or did the ammonites and various other bordering nations invade israel with every single man, woman and child and force the poor, reluctant and holy israelites to kill them all?

Stop making things up.

"but any individual who wanted to become part of Israel could easily do so, and would obviously then no longer be a "foreigner" with regard to the slavery laws."

They say you can take heathens and foreigners and keep them and their descendants as slaves forever and you're forbidden from punishment for beating them short of killing them. Stop being dishonest.

"By contrast, in western chattel slavery negros were considered lower on the evolutionary scale and thus less-than-human."

The concept of darwinian evolution was unheard of until On The Origin Of Species was published in 1859, less than 6 years before the formal abolition of slavery in the US which had been going on since the 1500s. To suppose that american slavery was based on evolution is patently false and is morally akin to holocaust denial. And in actuality it was explicitly based on the bible for century after century.

"A black in that culture could obviously not "convert to whiteness" like an Egyptian or Babylonian could convert to Judaism."

Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion, even today most "jews" are not "jews". This is a non-point.

"There were certainly differences between the way Israelites were to treat their countrymen (with special rights, such as being set free automatically every 7 years) and everyone else (with normal rights)."

So you were forbidden from being punished for beating a jew half to death? Again you're just delusionally refusing to see what is in front of you.

"The protections of a slave against abuse were equivalent to the protection of a free person."

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

The practice of considering foreign and/or heathen slaves less than human was modeled directly after scripture.

"Thus, regarding Ex. 21, Deut. 25, etc, as Glenn Miller writes, "It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a day or so."The normal, default mode of treatment for everyone was not taught by the "punishment in worst-case scenario" passages like Ex. 21 and Deut. 25, but rather normative passages like "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) and "you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt" (Deut. 10:19)."

This is insane. Forbidding someone from being punished for beating their slave is by definition "authorizing" them to do so. You are splitting hairs here, just as you are with that "ought" bullshit.

@tim223 - 

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy if it is used to score points in a debate to give the illusion of winning an argument. My remarks were just good honest me being pissed off.

I don't enjoy people who enter into debates and then don't deal with a single thing the other person says. It's dishonest.

But at least you follow the golden rule - you lie to me like you lie to yourself.