Honest Conversation Starter for Rich2022

[no one]

Morality, you brain dead moron, is a man made concept, and in actuality, does not exist, much like god.

[Rhythmcs]

As another poster has asked, would you have the courage to tell a god no?  I'd add another question.  Would you feel like a -bad- person if you refused to kill a man or a woman or a child on the whims of some god?

First, this is called a loaded question. Like, have you stopped beating your wife? It is quite obviously a setup, but it touches on the point of what we are talking about. The reason you are concerned with what I'd do is that you believe that killing someone is objectively wrong. I'll redirect the question to gain a more thorough understanding of your meta ethics. Why is robbing people wrong (for example)? I've told you that it is wrong theistically because it isn't imitative of God's nature. Anticipating the obvious atheist response, I should point out that this is a singular example of a larger position, stated thusly: good is a term used to describe God's nature. I've asked two questions now:

- Why is robbing people wrong? 
-What is "good" itself?

That's not actually a loaded question - I think you mean that it's a -psychologically- loaded question..and perhaps it is, for you - but not for me.  

The reason that I think anything is wrong, is down to harm.  You could ask about any number of specific and different things, items of a moral import, but I will always begin a moral calculus with determining whether or not a thing is harmful.  

Well, IDK if that's true.  If it were up to us to decide what's harmful... then..self interested creatures that we are, we'd decide that nothing would be harmful to us.

This is an extremely important point but your response isn't a counterpoint to something I said. I didn't say we decide what harm is. I said we cannot decide that something is bad because it causes harm. That would be an arbitrary definition of bad. We might as well define bad as anything that makes people happy. I define bad as a term used to describe a set of values antithetical to God's nature. How do you define bad?

As above, I always begin by seeing if we can determine harm. You could, ofc, decide to call anything that makes people happy bad..but then..ofc, you and I would not be talking about the same thing, would we? Do you, btw, think that this is what bad is? Anything that makes people happy?

I don't mind that you define bad as whatever is against whatever a gods nature is, it's certainly up to you to do so - but I can point out that such a definition is a metaethically subjective or even noncognitive position. It's also completely arbitrary in ways that defining bad as -either- harmful things or things that make people happy isn't.

As far as principles..there's nothing we can say about anything..logically, without employing principles

I agree. But our belief in these principles must be justified. The first principles you appealed to are without basis atheistically: you cannot appeal to harm as bad without telling us what makes harm bad. You have to give reasons why something is bad.

The good or bad making properties are not accurately reported facts of the properties of x,  but asserted properties of some gods particular nature.

Alright then, tell me what intrinsic fact of rape, murder, theft or any other crimes that make them bad. It is not illogical to assert that actions have moral contingence on things beyond them. That is, in fact, the conventional view rather than yours. It is also simpler and more tenable than yours. Your meta ethics seems to introduce unnecessary complexity to explain away simple things; in the same manner that one could to explain that the sun orbits the earth. In the end you are left with no basis for moral belief and a dangerous arbitrariness. 

Presupposing God's existence we have reason to continue believing all we do. In the absence of that, we do not. A foolish person might ignore that I just said presupposing and ask me to prove that God exists. To be clear, what I am saying is if God exists we have reason to hold first principles for morality. If He doesn't we do not. You believe He doesn't so you will have to provide a basis for morality as I have.

 
...as above..again, whether or not an act is harmful.

Your own position falls into a metaethical camp....and I do have to point out that it's odd to see a person who thinks that morality is subjective, (inaccurately) criticizing metaethics....for being subjective.  Is subjectivism a problem?

I am a moral objectivist so you this doesn't apply to me.

You may be, but you've been arguing as and for moral subjectivism.  Perhaps, if you mean to argue as and for objectivism, you could take an assist from another objectivist, like myself, who's spent some time learning how to accurately and cogently communicate that position to other people?

If we don't think it's good to base our morals off what all moral agents are making up, why would it be any better to base our morals off of what a single moral agent made up?

Obviously because you are equating the agents and I am not. Think of it like class struggle. You assume discrimination on the grounds that both classes are functionally equal but a disparity in result persists. I point out that differences in the classes manifest differences in result. The morals agents in the first part of the sentence are you and I; functional equals. You can't tell a bomber he is wrong because you say so. You aren't the boss of him and you lack moral authority. The moral agent in the second part of the sentence is the tradition concept of God: omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator of all. There is a difference between the agents and an obvious difference between the results.

Well...I -could- tell a bomber that he's wrong because I say so..but I wouldn't.  I would explain to that bomber the harm his actions will cause.  Then..in the likely event that he poo poos all that and says his god wills it - I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head. This, for me, isn't even a hypothetical. It's not just what I would do, it's what I have done.

Is it based on reporting facts about a matter x? Is it based on reporting facts about a society x? Is it based on reporting facts about a subject x? These are the cognitive positions. Objectivism, relativism, subjectivism.

Objectivism is saying that x is always bad. Relativism is saying that the morality of x depends on the context. Subjectivism is saying that morals depend on personal taste.

No, objectivism doesn't say that.  Objetivism is, very simply, the idea that a moral statement reports a fact of a matter.  Facts of matters can change, therefore objective moral statements can change.  

Are you..in light of this, actually a moral objectivist, or do you think there might be a more accurate term for what you're describing?

[quote]I probably wouldn't put christianity and sodomizing little boys in the same sentence..if I was trying to criticize some -other- thing.  

Any rate, I don't think that it would be good if we just made up good and bad as we went along either, and that's why this christian "morality" of yours fails, in point of fact.  It's not based on facts of these matters.  It's based on fairy tales we come up with about what god says or does.  I understand that you really super duper believe in gods, but that won't rescue the ethical system even so.  If we don't think it's good to base our morals off what all moral agents are making up, why would it be any better to base our morals off of what a single moral agent made up?

Why not facts, instead?

This, I believe is the whole point of your post (although I couldn't resist rebutting it entirely, which I'll refrain from in future). What you have is a false dichotomy where information about something is only true when we derive that information intrinsically; failing that it is false. This is an absurd position because we deal with contingence and relativity everyday. Attributes like being tall or fat depend on the heights and weights of others in a similar class (like the species for example). There is nothing intrinsic in 6ft that makes it tall; likewise there is nothing intrinsic in rape that makes it bad. Its morality is contingent on God. Since you don't believe in God, you will have to explain why rape is truly bad without appealing to baseless first principles.

Well, there you have it - you are not an objectivist at all.  You do not believe that there's something -about rape- that makes it bad.  I do.  Harm. Your morality..if it even makes sense to call it a morality... may be contingent upon a god, but mine..as a moral objectivist... is not.

[Dom]

First, this is called a loaded question. Like, have you stopped beating your wife? It is quite obviously a setup, but it touches on the point of what we are talking about. The reason you are concerned with what I'd do is that you believe that killing someone is objectively wrong. I'll redirect the question to gain a more thorough understanding of your meta ethics. Why is robbing people wrong (for example)? I've told you that it is wrong theistically because it isn't imitative of God's nature. Anticipating the obvious atheist response, I should point out that this is a singular example of a larger position, stated thusly: good is a term used to describe God's nature. I've asked two questions now:

- Why is robbing people wrong? 
-What is "good" itself?

That's not actually a loaded question - I think you mean that it's a -psychologically- loaded question..and perhaps it is, for you - but not for me.  

The reason that I think anything is wrong, is down to harm.  You could ask about any number of specific and different things, items of a moral import, but I will always begin a moral calculus with determining whether or not a thing is harmful.  

This is an extremely important point but your response isn't a counterpoint to something I said. I didn't say we decide what harm is. I said we cannot decide that something is bad because it causes harm. That would be an arbitrary definition of bad. We might as well define bad as anything that makes people happy. I define bad as a term used to describe a set of values antithetical to God's nature. How do you define bad?

As above, I always begin by seeing if we can determine harm.  You could, ofc, decide to call anything that makes people happy bad..but then..ofc, you and I would not be talking about the same thing, would we?  Do you, btw, think that this is what bad is?  Anything that makes people happy?

As far as principles..there's nothing we can say about anything..logically, without employing principles

I agree. But our belief in these principles must be justified. The first principles you appealed to are without basis atheistically: you cannot appeal to harm as bad without telling us what makes harm bad. You have to give reasons why something is bad.

The good or bad making properties are not accurately reported facts of the properties of x,  but asserted properties of some gods particular nature.

Alright then, tell me what intrinsic fact of rape, murder, theft or any other crimes that make them bad. It is not illogical to assert that actions have moral contingence on things beyond them. That is, in fact, the conventional view rather than yours. It is also simpler and more tenable than yours. Your meta ethics seems to introduce unnecessary complexity to explain away simple things; in the same manner that one could to explain that the sun orbits the earth. In the end you are left with no basis for moral belief and a dangerous arbitrariness. 

Presupposing God's existence we have reason to continue believing all we do. In the absence of that, we do not. A foolish person might ignore that I just said presupposing and ask me to prove that God exists. To be clear, what I am saying is if God exists we have reason to hold first principles for morality. If He doesn't we do not. You believe He doesn't so you will have to provide a basis for morality as I have.

 
...as above..again, whether or not an act is harmful.

Your own position falls into a metaethical camp....and I do have to point out that it's odd to see a person who thinks that morality is subjective, (inaccurately) criticizing metaethics....for being subjective.  Is subjectivism a problem?

I am a moral objectivist so you this doesn't apply to me.
[/quote]
You may be, but you've been arguing as and for moral subjectivism.  Perhaps, if you mean to argue as and for objectivism, you could take an assist from another objectivist, like myself, who's spent some time learning how to accurately and cogently communicate that position to other people?

Obviously because you are equating the agents and I am not. Think of it like class struggle. You assume discrimination on the grounds that both classes are functionally equal but a disparity in result persists. I point out that differences in the classes manifest differences in result. The morals agents in the first part of the sentence are you and I; functional equals. You can't tell a bomber he is wrong because you say so. You aren't the boss of him and you lack moral authority. The moral agent in the second part of the sentence is the tradition concept of God: omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator of all. There is a difference between the agents and an obvious difference between the results.

Well...I -could- tell a bomber that he's wrong because I say so..but I wouldn't.  I would explain to that bomber the harm his actions will cause.  Then..in the likely event that he poo poos all that and says his god wills it - I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head.

Objectivism is saying that x is always bad. Relativism is saying that the morality of x depends on the context. Subjectivism is saying that morals depend on personal taste.

No, objectivism doesn't say that.  Objetivism is, very simply, the idea that a moral statement reports a fact of a matter.  Facts of matters can change, therefore objective moral statements can change.  

Are you..in light of this, actually a moral objectivist, or do you think there might be a more accurate term for what you're describing?

This, I believe is the whole point of your post (although I couldn't resist rebutting it entirely, which I'll refrain from in future). What you have is a false dichotomy where information about something is only true when we derive that information intrinsically; failing that it is false. This is an absurd position because we deal with contingence and relativity everyday. Attributes like being tall or fat depend on the heights and weights of others in a similar class (like the species for example). There is nothing intrinsic in 6ft that makes it tall; likewise there is nothing intrinsic in rape that makes it bad. Its morality is contingent on God. Since you don't believe in God, you will have to explain why rape is truly bad without appealing to baseless first principles.

Well, there you have it - you are not an objectivist at all.  You do not believe that there's something -about rape- that makes it bad.  I do.  Harm.

So, you think you can't see what causes harm? You need someone to tell you?

[Bucky Ball]

likewise there is nothing intrinsic in rape that makes it bad. Its morality is contingent on God. Since you don't believe in God, you will have to explain why rape is truly bad without appealing to baseless first principles.

Still waiting for your premises and logical argument for why morality is unwarranted without the gods.
What ? You don't actually have any ?

I see you also would hold, that if someone held you down and shit in your mouth, without a god, it's not bad.
What a fucking (angry antisocial) moron.
Have you always been a sociopath ?

[Rhythmcs]

Its a moot point, really, he doesn't think that objective morality is unwarranted without a god, he appears to believe that objective morality is unwarranted even with a god.

That there is no fact about rape, or any other x, that makes it bad. Rather, the badmaking property of rape or any x is some (purported) fact about a gods nature, instead.

[Deesse23]

There you have it:

Two morons who have no clue about basic terminology in the field of ethics (objective morality vs subjective morality). They dont even know what their own morality (their invisible friends´) is classified as*. They cant even say "owning another human being as property is bad". Yet they smugly point out their overt racism, while claiming to have some sort of moral superiority over other cultures.

They think they can school us. On what? How to be a shitty human being? They have the chutzpah to tell us we are "borrowing" from their morality. If that were the case, if i had only part of their ignorance and bigotry, i would put a bullet through my temple. At least i wouldnt go to an online forum just to humiliate myself so embarrassingly like they did

* Personally, i think their position is amoral. They are no moral actors at all. They have no moral compass of their own at all. They claim to follow the moral compass of someone else, a compass that hardly points toward a certain direction itself, as killing is bad while genocide is ordered nevertheless.

[Rhythmcs]

I agree. It's not a moral system at all. It's a deep seated belief in and desire for a self interested transaction. They're describing a way of seeking favor with an entity they believe is powerful that might either give them something, or destroy them.

You don't actually have to appeal to a god for something like that, there are plenty of flesh and blood people who dangle that offer. As a moral person, my general reaction to that sort of person or relationship..is that you might want to keep an eye and an ironsight trained at all times, just in case. We would be morally and practically responsible for any loss of life down to our not believing them or sitting idle when they told us exactly who they were, and what they were capable of.

[Deesse23]

Don’t you truly believe that your moral values are superior to those of others (homosexual predators for instance)?

Racist pig and homophobic piece of shit. Verily a true christian.

Anything else you wanna inform us about yourself?

[Bucky Ball]

Its a moot point, really, he doesn't think that objective morality is unwarranted without a god, he appears to believe that objective morality is unwarranted even with a god.

That there is no fact about rape, or any other x, that makes it bad.  Rather, the badmaking property of rape or any x is some (purported) fact about a gods nature, instead.

God's can't have "natures", or any other limiting specific attribute or quality.
A god which exists can't have a "nature" and not (another) "nature".
A real god would exist timelessly and would be the creator of Reality.
It can't be the creator of that in which it "found itself", (with a "nature").
It can't be the creator of (a limited) Reality in which it is required to participate only partially, by definition.
There is and cannot be a coherent definition of a god which possesses attributes or natures.
It's all just anthropomorphic projection as humans want a big daddy.
Anyone who speaks of the gods is blowing hot air out their ass.

[Dānu]

Don’t you truly believe that your moral values are superior to those of others (homosexual predators for instance)?

Racist pig and homophobic piece of shit. Verily a true christian.

Anything else you wanna inform us about yourself?

That's twice he's brought up homosexuality as a supposed defect. Methinks a bit of cultural blindness is at play.

[Bucky Ball]

Racist pig and homophobic piece of shit. Verily a true christian.

Anything else you wanna inform us about yourself?

That's twice he's brought up homosexuality as a supposed defect.  Methinks a bit of cultural blindness is at play.

Blindness is giving too much credit.
But it (your point) does explain a lot.

[Deesse23]

Racist pig and homophobic piece of shit. Verily a true christian.

Anything else you wanna inform us about yourself?

That's twice he's brought up homosexuality as a supposed defect.  Methinks a bit of cultural blindness is at play.

10$ this piece of work is also "pro life" and "the slut was asking for it".

[Rhythmcs]

God's can't have "natures", or any other limiting specific attribute or quality.

All of that is moot with respect to whether or not this morality they're talking about is objective or subjective, too.  We can assume that there's a real god, and that this god has a real nature, and that they've got that real nature absolutely right.

-still subjectivism or noncognitivism...explicitly, and by definition.

We can even assume, for sake of conversation..that this really is the only warranted moral system.

-still subjectivism or noncognitivism...explicitly, and by definition.

I think that they may have wanted to have that argument, instead.  Not some doomed horseshit about how there can only be facts if a god exists.  Me..I'd point out the irony in how these two come to us, as members of a society at a point in time that stressed descriptive relativism and subjectivism academically in order to decrease the pressures of bigotry and exclusion, and particularly so in (seeming) contradiction to religious beliefs.  They still believe in the god, still want "objective" morals..but they've swallowed the secular koolaid meant to curb their own excess all the same.

God..if it existed..would weep.....

[Dānu]

It's interesting how obsessed with intrinsic behaviors Christianity is. We have souls, so we, too, have a nature. And according to the bible, right and wrong are "written in our hearts." Is our heart different from our soul? Do we have not one but two intrinsic natures, each warring with each other? And yet we are also cursed with original sin. Does that mean our nature is inherently bad, or only that we start off hobbled in the race to be good by an inherited burden? I'm reminded of Buddhist culture which posits that certain people, having reached a certain point in their karmic development, are fated never to regress prior to that point. This strikes me as being doubly blessed, i.e. getting twice the mileage on the same karma that in crossing that line, they not only have accrued karma due, but that karma accrued is then used also as insurance against backsliding in addition to functioning just as an advancement toward nibbana. It seems there's a bit of double-dipping in the metaphysics of both Christianity and Buddhism.

[Rhythmcs]

Probably expresses human frustration at the notion of wasted or unrewarded effort. You can actually se that play out right down to lootbox and ranking events in video games today. People would not be so motivated to grind for a shiny title or an access reward if, should they lose a few games out of a hundred, they could lose it. If you can lock achievements or ranks in, then you will always trend upwards (more or less slowly) as a consequence of the setup.

Alternative are described with terms like "full loss" or "pain point" or "treadmilling" - and generally seen to be a way to compel players to pay physical cash for progression....here again not entirely unlike the many profit seeking schemes that the worlds prophet based religions have come up with.

[Sefan]

I bet that Bible does not contain that He commands that every 7 years a person in bonds must be free and his debt (liability) cancelled.

That was a rule for Hebrew slaves only. And in verse 17, god tells you how to trick fellow hebrews into permanent slavery. Want to read verse 17 for us?
It did, of course escape you, that not only slavery was permissible for your god, no, there was even injustice within the system of gods slavery: Heathen slaves had less rights than hebrew slaves.

Do you deny that your god commanded, in Leviticus (Deuteronomy and Exodus), humans to own another human as property?
Do you hold this as being morally permissible?

You cant, your religious programming is blocking your brain, by becoming rather dishonest and evasive, than admitting what is painfully obvious. Thats what you allowed religion to do to your mind. It made you an ignorant liar. How do i know you are a liar?

Leviticus 25 is one the origins of Labour Laws and Contracts. Contract dictates that all debts must be paid, therefore, following a persons inability to satisfy a debt, therefore people offered themselves to the service of the creditor.

Which is immoral too!

Evidence for lying #1: Lying by omission

Therefore, Leviticus 25 is setting down what must happen in this case specially verse 43 even declares God being against any and every form of oppression

Is owning another human being as property a form of oppression? ...as described in the very next verse, which you left conveniently out, you slimy liar.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves

Evidence for lying #2:

So, I have to be in your debt first before I can become your slave or servant.

Wasnt it "bondsmen" a day ago!?

But to answer just a short and quick one, first change your Bible to KJV and see that Leviticus 25 deliberately said "bondsmen and bondsmaid" AND NOT SLAVES.

And in that Leviticus 25 is very beautiful for me or anyone as many of us have already seen worse. My own aunt deprived me of food when I worked with her because my mom (breadwinner) retired and went abroad for greener pastures and left me in her care. My day started from 5am and ended at 11:30 to 12 midnight. 

You had long, hard working days. Booo hooo.
How about your aunt beats you so hard that you die within 4 days!? Because thats totally aok, according to your bible.

You know, i dont mind your immorality, your evasions, your willful ignorance. All of this is condoned by your god.
But.please.stop.lying
Because, liars go to hell  

Which Verse 17?

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

[Sefan]

I bet that Bible does not contain that He commands that every 7 years a person in bonds must be free and his debt (liability) cancelled.

That was a rule for Hebrew slaves only. And in verse 17, god tells you how to trick fellow hebrews into permanent slavery. Want to read verse 17 for us?
It did, of course escape you, that not only slavery was permissible for your god, no, there was even injustice within the system of gods slavery: Heathen slaves had less rights than hebrew slaves.

Do you deny that your god commanded, in Leviticus (Deuteronomy and Exodus), humans to own another human as property?
Do you hold this as being morally permissible?

I denied it and you saw I told you to blame "your" evil bible for that. 

Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Answer: Providing Law to control and regulate the labour relationship.


You call paying off of debts owed in a contract immoral?

That clearly proves how deficient your moral meter is!

If not, you would have seen how people are willingly offering themselves up to serve other human beings. No force or duress.

Thanks for the comment about my aunt

If she had killed me then, I'll be dead and my problems over. So, you have nothing.

[Bucky Ball]

Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Wrong.
If he even "permitted it" (and being an almighty god), the reasonable question is, what the fuck is wrong with Him ?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus


BTW, your English is very poor.
You don't know how to use a grammar checker ?
(And you claim to be in college ???)

[Deesse23]

That was a rule for Hebrew slaves only. And in verse 17, god tells you how to trick fellow hebrews into permanent slavery. Want to read verse 17 for us?
It did, of course escape you, that not only slavery was permissible for your god, no, there was even injustice within the system of gods slavery: Heathen slaves had less rights than hebrew slaves.

Do you deny that your god commanded, in Leviticus (Deuteronomy and Exodus), humans to own another human as property?
Do you hold this as being morally permissible?

You cant, your religious programming is blocking your brain, by becoming rather dishonest and evasive, than admitting what is painfully obvious. Thats what you allowed religion to do to your mind. It made you an ignorant liar. How do i know you are a liar?


Which is immoral too!

Evidence for lying #1: Lying by omission
Is owning another human being as property a form of oppression? ...as described in the very next verse, which you left conveniently out, you slimy liar.

Evidence for lying #2:
Wasnt it "bondsmen" a day ago!?

You had long, hard working days. Booo hooo.
How about your aunt beats you so hard that you die within 4 days!? Because thats totally aok, according to your bible.

You know, i dont mind your immorality, your evasions, your willful ignorance. All of this is condoned by your god.
But.please.stop.lying
Because, liars go to hell  

Which Verse 17?

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

Thats all you have to say?

Still not decided if owning another human being as property is immoral, as well as passing it down to your children as inheritance and keeping it for life?
No explanation why you "forgot" to add Leviticus 25:44 to 43? "Forgot" that 43 only applies to Hebrews (and still you can trick them into permanent slavery!), and all other people can be enslaved?
Still no correction that only Hebrew slaves have to be set free after 7 years, and even they can be tricked into permanent slavery?
Still think you had it bad with long working days, while your god would have allowed your aunt to beat you to death, as long as you survive the first three days? Still think this is "beautiful"?

What is your next excuse going to be, not having to embarrass yourself by actually responding to me?

[Szuchow]

There you have it:

Two morons who have no clue about basic terminology in the field of ethics (objective morality vs subjective morality). They dont even know what their own morality (their invisible friends´) is classified as*. They cant even say "owning another human being as property is bad". Yet they smugly point out their overt racism, while claiming to have some sort of moral superiority over other cultures.

They think they can school us. On what? How to be a shitty human being?    They have the chutzpah to tell us we are "borrowing" from their morality. If that were the case, if i had only part of their ignorance and bigotry, i would put a bullet through my temple. At least i wouldnt go to an online forum just to humiliate myself so embarrassingly like they did

* Personally, i think their position is amoral. They are no moral actors at all. They have no moral compass of their own at all. They claim to follow the moral compass of someone else, a compass that hardly points toward a certain direction itself, as killing is bad while genocide is ordered nevertheless.

They're trolls so it's given that they spout dumb shit. Smart troll is in the same category of beings as morally upstanding fascist. 

As for morality - people who worships genocidal deity can't be moral by definition. Obedient is all they can be.

[rocinantexyz]

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

History isn't one of my strong suits, but I'm like 99% certain that is false.

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

• Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
  
• Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
  
• Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
  
• Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
  
• Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
  
• Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
  
• Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
  
• Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
  
• Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
  
• Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
  
• Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
  
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)
  

Can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans?

[Rhythmcs]

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

That's what you think it -should- be.....but...you may not be quite as ethnocentric in your pronouncements as those authors were.

Let's explore that.  Why do you think it should be your interpretation of that verse, rather than sociopolitical reality of that verse, or some possibility where god itself said it and meant it in explicitly ethnocentric terms?

Why, further down, should we not oppress each other -or- anyone else? Is there something wrong with oppressing people, any people? What?

[Bucky Ball]

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

Assertion.
Sefan is no scholar.
No references, no support.
Dismissed as the BS it obviously is.
(He still thinks all he has to do is say something. That's not how it works.)

If it really were from any real god, it would be for everyone on the planet.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ this guy is an ignoramus.

[Deesse23]

That was a rule for Hebrew slaves only. And in verse 17, god tells you how to trick fellow hebrews into permanent slavery. Want to read verse 17 for us?
It did, of course escape you, that not only slavery was permissible for your god, no, there was even injustice within the system of gods slavery: Heathen slaves had less rights than hebrew slaves.

Do you deny that your god commanded, in Leviticus (Deuteronomy and Exodus), humans to own another human as property?
Do you hold this as being morally permissible?

I denied it and you saw I told you to blame "your" evil bible for that. 

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.
So we are finished, you deny what the bible clearly and plainly states: That you can own another human being as property, and pass it down to your children.
You are a liar. Your god doesnt like liars.
Want to post your beloved KJV rules for slavery? ...you know the part where it says how "they shall be your possession" or "be your bondmen forever"? Have you even read your BS KJV bible? Or maybe Exodus 21, where is explains in painful detail how to enslave your fellow Hebrews, forever?

Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Do you english?

Answer: Providing Law to control and regulate the labour relationship.

Ah, now its not slavery, its a "labor relationship". Want to be my "employee", so i can beat the shit out of you and pass you down to my children, as condoned by your bible?
So that i can have your daughter as a sex slave?

Why is it that your god could order "thou shalt not eat shellfish", but was impotent to say "dont own other human beings as property"?

You call paying off of debts owed in a contract immoral?

I call owning a human being as property immoral
You dont
and you deny its in the Bible
That makes you not only a liar but an immoral thug.

That clearly proves how deficient your moral meter is!

I am not defending slavery, you are.
I am not denying my holy book condones it, you are.
But i have another meter, that just went crazy when i read your dishonest BS

If not, you would have seen how people are willingly offering themselves up to serve other human beings. No force or duress.

You dont even know why you are an immoral thug, right? Just as you dont have the faintest clue about (objective) morality.
What are you doing here, parading your ignorance and dishonesty around? Is that a kink of yours?

[Rhythmcs]

If it really were from any real god, it would be for everyone on the planet.

It's strange that we think that.