05 Oct 10
Stewart's guest was an atheist who had written a book about how scirnce can deduce morality and ethis better than religion. I wasn't watching the show for the guest (it's usually the most boring part of the show), but when discussing why he was so anti-Scriptures (aka The Bible), his main point was the fact that an omniscient God would get such a basic moral tenet wrong (that being slavery). I haven't had time to research it yet, and I know some religious scholars will find that God di not condone nor approve of slavery, but I admit, it made me think. There's no danger of my changing sides, mind you--I'm a WASP and ever shall be a WASP. But I found his point discomforting.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydUgh, that whole conversation was horrible. Just one conceptual confusion and bad inference after another.
Stewart's guest was an atheist who had written a book about how scirnce can deduce morality and ethis better than religion. I wasn't watching the show for the guest (it's usually the most boring part of the show), but when discussing why he was so anti-Scriptures (aka The Bible), his main point was the fact that an omniscient God would get such a basic mo ...[text shortened]... ides, mind you--I'm a WASP and ever shall be a WASP. But I found his point discomforting.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydForgive my dimness, but whats WASP?
Stewart's guest was an atheist who had written a book about how scirnce can deduce morality and ethis better than religion. I wasn't watching the show for the guest (it's usually the most boring part of the show), but when discussing why he was so anti-Scriptures (aka The Bible), his main point was the fact that an omniscient God would get such a basic mo ...[text shortened]... ides, mind you--I'm a WASP and ever shall be a WASP. But I found his point discomforting.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydI believe it is in Deuteronomy where the great god of the Jews says it is okay to own slaves, but they must be from neighboring countries. And since that god is the same yesterday, today and always, he is a pathetic piece of crap. And some fools actually worship this clown.
Stewart's guest was an atheist who had written a book about how scirnce can deduce morality and ethis better than religion. I wasn't watching the show for the guest (it's usually the most boring part of the show), but when discussing why he was so anti-Scriptures (aka The Bible), his main point was the fact that an omniscient God would get such a basic mo ...[text shortened]... ides, mind you--I'm a WASP and ever shall be a WASP. But I found his point discomforting.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by caissad4the greater context is that slaves were not kept for a lifetime, they were set free every seven years. here is also guidelines regarding the treatment of slaves that were far more advanced in thought than neighboring countries.
I believe it is in Deuteronomy where the great god of the Jews says it is okay to own slaves, but they must be from neighboring countries. And since that god is the same yesterday, today and always, he is a pathetic piece of crap. And some fools actually worship this clown.
05 Oct 10
3 edits
Originally posted by caissad4actually there were specific laws for the treatment of slaves, perhaps you can find any other 3,000 year old law with a moral code built in to it, with regard to slavery. The Israelites themselves could become slaves, but they were to be freed after a period of seven years. If they wanted too, they could go into perpetual servitude. The act was sanctioned by the prospective servant having his ear pierced through with an awl, a rather painful experience i should imagine. Indeed i find many aspects of the Mosaic law to be superior to the legal system with its emphasis on incarceration that we have today.
I believe it is in Deuteronomy where the great god of the Jews says it is okay to own slaves, but they must be from neighboring countries. And since that god is the same yesterday, today and always, he is a pathetic piece of crap. And some fools actually worship this clown.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd are there any worshippers of this god here who will condemn this evil act which is endorsed by their god??
actually there were specific laws for the treatment of slaves, perhaps you can find any other 3,000 year old law with a moral code built in to it, with regard to slavery. The Israelites themselves could become slaves, but they were to be freed after a period of seven years. If they wanted too, they could go into perpetual servitude. The act was sa ...[text shortened]... ic law to be superior to the legal system with its emphasis on incarceration that we have today.
Come on!! Rebuke your god!
05 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by caissad4Lol, you sound like Jobs wife,
And are there any worshippers of this god here who will condemn this evil act which is endorsed by their god??
Come on!! Rebuke your god!
(Job 2:9-10) . . .Finally his wife said to him: “Are you yet holding fast your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he said to her: “As one of the senseless women speaks, you speak also. Shall we accept merely what is good from the true God and not accept also what is bad?” . . .
i of course don't mean you are senseless, just the curse God bit 🙂
rebuke him for what, providing safeguards for the well treatment of servants, never may that be! i suggest you compare it to the pagan Romans and their treatment of slaves!
05 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere we go!
Lol, you sound like Jobs wife,
(Job 2:9-10) . . .Finally his wife said to him: “Are you yet holding fast your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he said to her: “As one of the senseless women speaks, you speak also. Shall we accept merely what is good from the true God and not accept also what is bad?” . . .
i of course don't mean you are senseless, just the curse God bit 🙂
Another follower of this god failing to condemn slavery simply because their god has endorsed it.
Do any of these followers of this god dare to say that their god is WRONG and that god endorses something which is evil?
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by bbarrMy philosophical reading is, as always, impoverished—but wasn’t she a major scholar in virtue ethics? [Just checking my minimal knowledge before I look up the answer…]
...and in news actually relevant to the original topic, Philippa Foot died yesterday. The religious here will not have heard of her, because she was a profound and important moral philosopher. There is no need to read when you've figured it all out.
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by vistesdYeah, she was. She, along with Elizabeth Anscombe and a few others are primarily responsible for the resurgence of interest in virtue ethics. Foot championed the neo-Aristotelian naturalist strain of virtue ethics, but was also very important for her work in applied ethics and meta-ethics. She, along with Bernard Williams, was also a philosophical hero of mine.
My philosophical reading is, as always, impoverished—but wasn’t she a major scholar in virtue ethics? [Just checking my minimal knowledge before I look up the answer…]
06 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI have Williams’ Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, but it’s been awhile since I read it. More recently, I have been trying to claw back years of lost ground in economics (my MA degree, 28 years ago!)—I have a prodigious skill for forgetting completely what I do not consistently use! (I find that I even have some difficulty reading my own thesis! I moved to other things over the intervening years.) I wonder about replacing the classical/neoclassical economic notion of utility with some idea of eudaimonia—which I might, at the risk of redundancy, render as “flourishing well-being”?—maybe tied in with Epicurus’ hedone/algedon calculus—well-being as opposed to ill-being? With the idea that such well-being implies considerations of sustainability, as opposed to short-term utility maximization. I'd have to dive more deeply than I have into the Nicomachean Ethics, of course, and would likely draw a lot on Avraam Koen for the Epicurus angle: any suggestions (remember that I'm not working on your level, but am also looking at a long-term project)?
Yeah, she was. She, along with Elizabeth Anscombe and a few others are primarily responsible for the resurgence of interest in virtue ethics. Foot championed the neo-Aristotelian naturalist strain of virtue ethics, but was also very important for her work in applied ethics and meta-ethics. She, along with Bernard Williams, was also a philosophical hero of mine.
I’m really just playing about, laying the whetstone to my mind… But that is how I like to play about…
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRight, i'm driving up to Scotland Rob to pick you up this afternoon, i could do with a slave. Tell your family you'll see them in 2017.
actually there were specific laws for the treatment of slaves, perhaps you can find any other 3,000 year old law with a moral code built in to it, with regard to slavery. The Israelites themselves could become slaves, but they were to be freed after a period of seven years. If they wanted too, they could go into perpetual servitude. The act was sa ...[text shortened]... ic law to be superior to the legal system with its emphasis on incarceration that we have today.
I'll feed you and water you, although you won't be eating what i'll be eating. I'll erect a little ramshackle bivvy wack in the garden for you to stay in. I won't do you any harm, but it's gonna be a long, uncomfortable 7 years.