Total posts: 2,082
Where do you get the not committing atrocities because of atheism OR communism, but totalitarianism? Yes, totalitarianism is one of the reasons, but why are you eliminating communism as one of the reasons?
Sorry, left this unanswered. The answer is because there's nothing about the economic concept of communism that mandates murdering those that don't agree. That has nothing to do with one farm growing wheat, the other growing corn, and pooling the two resources for communal use. People who live on communes do not, by rule, go out and murder those who live in other communities. Totalitarians co-opt any reason at all to consolidate power and impose their will. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. Communists =/= atheists =/= totalitarians.
Created:
Because of human nature, a bad person will use whatever means they can for personal, or collective gain. A culturally religious person, one who adheres to their national or ethnic religion may use that religion for their personal or collective benefit. A good religious person will practice the humanitarian directives from their religion's teachings. Anatheist who is a bad person may reason that since there is no higher power to judge them, they cannot be doing wrong, and may commit atrocities without any particular remorse. An atheist who is a good person prefers live and let live.
I broadly agree with this. BROADLY. It does demonstrate that religion adds nothing to the proposition: a good person will do as little evil as possible, and a bad person will find excuses to do whatever they want. Thankfully the world is much more full of good people than bad people. This is a much cleaner discussion than your still ill conceived communist charge: a communist is simply someone who thinks that a collective pool of resources doled out according to each individual's needs is a good idea. It has nothing to do with religion at all, so we can leave it by the wayside. You can become someone who thinks that it's a good idea, and still go to church. Whether or not communism is effective and practical (it is demonstrably not) is an entirely different subject.
And again, most churches are below average income that provide charitable services in low income large urban and remote rural areas. So unfortunately if you got your wish it would be a huge disservice for many people of poverty level status.
Churches don't DO anything at all. The people in them do. Are you saying if there weren't a church nearby, you wouldn't have any humanitarian imperatives? I can do a lot more with property tax dollars for those people than I can with a basement where AA meets. That can be done in a thousand places.
Who's trying to educate Christianity as fact to your kids?
How many arguments have we had with your Dover school board thing? Where creation is taught as real? What about prayer in school? These aren't imagined. They happened and continue to happen. Don't be obtuse. How many cases of public schools putting on Nativity Plays at Christmas are there in the last ten years? Plenty. It doesn't look to you like they're trying to teachit as fact, but what they RISK doing, whatever their intent, is putting Chistiianity in a place of preference, not considering the rest of the tax payers. I don't care if a Catholic school has that event, good for them, but they don't get any tax payer dollars. A public school is engendering discrimination using public money this way.
When we're talking about a statue on a ski resort that hardly anyone notices unless they run into it skiing, this is not equivalent to displaying the 10 Commandments on a government building. Do you concede that groups like TFFRF go overboard with their Christian iconography targets?
Is the ski resort supported by tax dollars, or is it privately owned? If it's privately owned, then I don't care about what people put up on their lawns. I really don't have a lot of time to read a case brief about it, so if you're telling me it's a privately owned piece of land with a giant jesus on it, I really don't care if it's there and I don't know why anyone including Freedom From Religion would care either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The contextual definition of a UFO (as relating to the 3 videos released to the public) is"intelligently-controlled airborne objects not apparently made by humans".
No, it isn't, that's YOUR definition. You're adding something that is in no way necessary, again. The definition of UFO is right in the abbreviation: it's merely an unidentified flying object. You add the "not apparently made by humans" without earning it. I know it's tempting to think that, but there isn't any reason to. A UFO can be a drone, it can be a meteor, it can be a reflection or optical illusion. It can be a lot of things, including alien spacecraft, but by adding the "not apparently made by humans," you are adding your own theory and inviting confirmation bias. Next step is a conspiracy theory: because it was hidden it MUST be aliens, when really it could be classified aircraft they don't want to reveal to the public or enemy versions of the same.
a likely possibility would be inter-dimensional travelers.
How is this a "likely possibility"? What other dimension?
Do you think these objects as being described in the provided quote would have to originate from a different planet?
Not even close. They might, but they don't have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In your opinion(s), do you think there's evidence of life on other planets?
Don't confuse 'evidence' with 'theoretical reasons to believe.' And before you bother, the probablility of life on another planet is incalculably higher than the probability of another dimension inhabited by an all powerful undefinable entity. Why? Because we know that (a) planets exist, (b) elements are common throughout the cosmos, (c) the cosmos is unimaginably large, and most importantly (d) life demonstrably exists on one of these planets.
There is no similar demonstration for any extra dimensional entity.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The connection however between communism and atheism is that communist regimes have, and still persecute (including the act of execution) individuals because they believe, and won't deny their belief in God. There's nothing any more needed in accepting that fact alone. What the communist persecutors credit their actions to (like in the name of) is irrelevant.
So, are all communists atheists, and all atheists communists? Rod, this is a particularly poorly thought out position. Clearly the answer to both is no. Theism and atheism ONLY deal with do you believe in gods. Stop dragging economics into them. And by the way, atrocities committed by communist leaders were not committed because of atheism OR communism. They were committed because of totalitarianism. Honestly it's the same reason the Crusades happened: it's a desire to rule over resources without question, no one gave two figs if Muslims went to heaven. Even Jesus didn't care, he'd have done something about it himself.
I think you're mixing up the idea of public mind control with removal of religious iconography. Of course they (or yourself) don't care what we think and practice in our privacy. Nothing remotely honorable about that. They simply want religion out of their sight.
I want religion out of my government. All the way out. I am not asking you to practice in secret in your basement. I'm asking you to pay property taxes on your building like everyone else has to. I'm asking you not to try to educate your mythology as fact to my kids. It's again, very simple, I know it doesn't match with your pre-conceived and apparently worsening persecution complex. No one is out to get you.
This is obvious since groups like TFFRF go after statues of Jesus on public property, but not statues of Buddha on public property.
Tell you what. I'll concede this point if you can find me a SINGLE STORY of a US government courthouse trying to put a Buddha statue on their front steps, and atheists or "militant atheists" "anti theist activists mobs" or "unhinged communist throng raping their way through the streets because they don't have Jesus" standing by and doing nothing about it. Please find ONE. Just one. Because you know as well as I do that more than one courthouse has gotten in lawsuits, and almost always lost, for trying to put Christian iconography on public tax payer owned land. And no, Satanists demanding to put up a statue of the goat headed Satan up next to the same Ten Commandments monument, is not the same, simply because Satanists only want to demonstrate the discrimination inherent in the extant monument.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
By the way, my contention that inspired this thread remains unaddressed: please demonstrate or explain the inherent connection between COMMUNISM and ATHEISM. Atheism is merely a position on the propositions of gods. It has nothing to do with systems of economics. You continue to associate the two in an attempt, as far as I can tell, to imbue revulsion with atheism by blaming it for the atrocities committed by totalitarians, but as usual, you're doing no legwork to connect the two. All I'm asking is why do you think they're associated. As it stands it's yet another straw man argument. Not a single atheist I know has any interest in communism or a utopian society or any restrictions on an individual's rights to be religious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If I found a quote from just one person who proclaims an act of terrorism in the name of atheism, would that render atheism equivalent to Abrahamic religion in terms of war and terrorism?
Do you not recognize scale? One quote from someone attributing some act of terror (that they committed) to atheism does not equal the Crusades, 9/11, plane hijacking, Irish sectarian violence for decades. But have at it, we'll discuss the specifics.
Do you have any quotes from Christians you can give me to explain what you're implying?
I'm not sure what you think I'm implying. I've xplicitly said that the Crusades were mandated using holy orders from the Papacy, whatever the real reasons were, that's what farmers who were conscripted to those wars were told: you have to go because Jesus says he needs your help to kill the non-believer. If you clarify what you think I'm implying, I can address.
Created:
I have never heard any atheist advocating for some society that somehow suppresses people's religions. It's merely a strict separation of church and state, which includes religious iconography on publicly owned lands and mandated prayer at public offices and schools. Beyond that, every atheist I know obviously doesn't care about what you do in your own mind or with your friends. For me the separation should include removal of any special tax considerations, but that's not "you're not allowed to be a Christian and you must live under my rules." This is a well worn straw man argument by Christians with their inexplicable persecution complex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
All I wanted to know is how does the atheist resolve the dissonance between Christianity's unrivaled performance and his poor opinion of it
Link the data on the "performance" of Christianity and we can discuss the potential reasons, as it stands all I see are claims, and no definition, really, of "performance." The trends in Christianity lag behind the growth rate of Islam, as has been pointed out to you already without response. Otherwise, my opinion of Christianity and its popularity are entirely unrelated, there isn't dissonance there at all. It's like asking someone to resolve the "dissonance" between TItanic making all that money while managing to be a movie that person doesn't like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If your question is why is Christianity so popular, the roots are in history, several people have pointed them out. They also take advantage of less advanced societies through mission work, which not every religion does (Hindu missions, for example, don't seem to exist).
And you definitely said this:
*Is it not reasonable to expect the most true religion to be the most universally acceptable?
Here you are saying you didn't say that it's universally acceptable. My point is it's not remotely universally accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So you didn't imply that its success was in part because it's true when you said:
*Is it not reasonable to expect the most true religion to be the most universally acceptable?
This is the crux of my question. It's not remotely universally accepted and non-believers far outnumber believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
*Is it not reasonable to expect the most true religion to be the most universally acceptable? Why would a message from God be hindered by ethnicity or culture?
You recognize that while some measures may show Christianity has more adherents than another religion (this rolls all "Christians" into one bundle, rather than the fractured denominations like Catholics vs. Protestants, both of whom believe firmly the other is wrong and hell bound even though they are categorized under the same umbrella), your claim here is objectively incorrect, because you're now positioning Christians vs. ALL OTHER RELIGIONS combined. There are far more NON Christians in the world than there are Christians ((Hindus + Muslims+Jews) > Christians). That aside, the popularity of a proposition has no bearing on if it's true, nor does something being true affect its popularity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
why is it when a Theist uses common sense it's then always wrong
I didn't say that at all, did I? I said common sense is wrong all the time regardless of who's applying it. It's a way to FORM a hypothesis, not a way to test it. In other words, it's a way to say "Well, common sense would dictate that the sun goes around the earth, as it always comes on on this side of the house and goes down on the other side of the house." What you're doing is stopping right here and saying "Because that's how it seems, and it makes sense to me, it must be right!" The right thing to do is to try to figure out if you're wrong or not (NOT IF YOU'RE CORRECT, this invites confirmation bias), then look at your results, again and again, and make a conclusion that is no longer "common sense," but supported by facts, is testable, reproducible, with instructions for others on how to demonstrate this for themselves if they're curious. You do literally none of this work, you just fold your arms, think you're super smart (way smarter than people who don't share your view, because their common sense isn't as good as yours) and pretend you solved it.
if there's a slight chance I'm right that God exists then what I've said is absolutely true. Everything I said about the processes of the universe appearing as if there was an intelligent factor and inanimate forces acting as if they have awareness is by all means accurate
So if there's ANY chance something is true, it is? Or does this only apply to your current proposition? How does this work? Let me give you an example. If I tell you that aliens seeded life here and it's only common sense that leads me to this conclusion, am I now correct?
or was it just accepted because people believed it and had no other options?
This is how all gods are created, you know. Like the Pantheon. People used common sense (a super race of invisible beings with powers over various parts of nature, that's why natural phenomena with no apparent explanation happen) and had no available way to test the hypothesis. In other words, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Dawkins was merely speculating a potential danger regarding other Abrahamic faiths conducting the same acts of terrorism. While it's possible (in that anything is possible), it's just as possible for communist style atheist terrorism to jump on the scene.
Well, and also pointing out many examples of each one of these faiths leveraging the holy mandate that certain followers felt they'd had bestowed on them from on high, to actually do pretty terrible things (mainly Islam and Christianity). Can you give me the "communist style atheist terrorism" that's analogous to say the Islam-inspired 9/11 attacks? Or the atheist version of honor killings? What would the communist atheist version of the Spanish Inquisition have been? Do yourself a favor and disassociate communism from atheism. They're not inherently linked any more than capitalism and Christianity are. Stick to atheism vs theism, it's cleaner. What's the act of terror done specifically in the name of atheism, the last one you remember?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Demonstrate it for yourself, it is commonsense. It doesn't need to be demonstrated for you, that's how logic works.
Common sense is wrong literally all the time, and this is not in any way how logic works. It's a simple assertion with nothing behind it. It's not an argument, it's a story you tell yourself and want everyone else to believe. All I'm asking is why I should believe it, and you say "it's common sense, believe it." Well at one time it was common sense the earth was the center of the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
f Christians don't realize what's in the Bible, then they couldn't have read it. So you're stuck with the same problem in trying to suggest Christians don't read the Bible. And that somehow atheists are the only people who actually read the Bible, and are being gracious by enlightening all of us Christians about verses they don't think we've ever read.
So you think anyone who's read any part of the bible definitely understands it, and they all agree on it after having read it? Didn't you tell me that I don't have a background in ancient Hebrew as translated to Greek, so I can't possible understand what the bible really says or meant?
Who's the source of your quote, by the way? Is it you? Is there a verse in the bible that says "Slaves obey your masters," is there instructions in the bible on how to buy slaves from foreign lands, and is there a quote from anyone in the bible that says "All previous laws about slavery are void, definitely don't ever do that" or something clearly to that effect? Does god send Hebrews to murder Amalekites?
My point is this stuff is IN THE BIBLE, but Christians seem to ignore them because they're so ridiculous or uncomfortable. I don't really bother much with engaging on these any more because the arguments are basically "No it isn't in the bible / that's not what it means," but the fact remains the words are in the bible. Christians like yourself just say they're not there, so what's the point of arguing over it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The universe exists through a succession of processes that bring about intended results
Start by demonstrating this to be the case, then we can look at what follows as it relates to the demonstration.
processes are associated with intelligence
While you're at it, do the same with this one. I think it's the arrogant surety with which you (and others) make these unfounded claims that serves as the impetus to post here. A little humility and I probably wouldn't be bothered!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
A lot of atheists are atheists because they read your bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Or, most Christians don't read their Bible.
Couldn't this also be phrased as "most Christians don't realize what's in the bible?" Stuff like how women should be subservient, slavery's cool, the genocides, etc. Most Christians seem to get the lion's share of their biblical knowledge from the pulpit, not from the book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
By definition, wrong intuition would be a contradiction no matter the source (if any). So the question might arise, was the wrong decision a result of wrong intuition, or succumbing to bias, prejudice, subjective preference, etc.?
How is "wrong intuition" a contradiction? Intuition is wrong all the time, it's when it's RIGHT it stands out.
As far as the Abrahamic reference, I certainly don't have a problem with it in historic context. Do you feel I should?
Okay, great, if I told you that entire story in MODERN context, would you think "Wow, this dude has a great relationship with Jesus, if Jesus" or "I hope that guy's on medication" or "I should probably alert the authorities to protect his kid."
What do you think the source of intuition is?
Am I missing a different definition of intuition? Intuition is just your brain making a prediction based on pre-existing data, it's pretty simple. Can you give me an example where this ISN'T the most likely explanation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Everyone has experienced intuition. And everyone's intuition has turned out to be both right and wrong. If the source of intuition is all knowing, intuition would never be wrong. And if someone told you the story of Abraham and Isaac in modern context, you'd think they should be in a mental institution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you have, I'm not saying this was God. And whether or not you found out your intuition was correct is not significant to the question (although it could certainly be significant as far as a possible connection with God).
How do you distinguish the standard intuition from communication from god then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So whether or not the wall is evidence of a higher power depends on how much information we have?What kind of additional information would render consideration for evidence?
You'd need to know more properties of "the wall," which as you describe it is of course not a wall, nor is it a barrier. As you describe it it is simply a point past which the space craft cannot go. Adding anything, including descriptions like wall or barrier, beyond that without further experimentation or even information like "What happened when the spacecraft got there, some 30 years ago (as that's AT LEAST how long it would take for the information that it stopped moving inexplicably to return to earth for interpretation)?" would be helpful.
HIgher power is an ill defined term, too. It could be evidence that you've hit a forcefield surrounding a system of planets put there by a civilization much more techologically advanced than ours...would they fall under the description higher power?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
All true, except this barrier proposed is only evidence that there's a point that some spacecraft can't pass. To figure out how to get closer to the true root cause you need another point of information, so you can begin to narrow something down. Let's not get pedantic, I didn't, for example, point out that the time from spacecraft "A" somehow exceeding the distance currently logged by Voyager 1, then hitting a barrier and transmitting that information back to earth, to spacecraft "B" being constructed, launched and reaching that exact "same" point (it isn't really the exact same, is it, as the entire universe is moving all the time collectively) would be somewhere around 25 years conservatively, which would render this whole idea impractical as it would take decades and decades.
Without the "invisible barrier has properties X Y Z" as well as "is an invisible barrier" or "we recoverd DATA ABC", the only evidently supported conclusion you can reach is "this specific spacecraft design cannot exceed this point in space and time for some unknown reason." You need more information before you say "This was constructed by higher intelligence, obviously!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If I change the question to could it be evidence of a higher intelligence, would that make a difference?
I suppose it COULD, but you would only have to add that possibility to a pile of other guesses as to what it was. Without any other information, the only conclusion you can make is "we have not been able to send a spacecraft past a certain point."
Created:
Posted in:
Why would an invisible barrier of unknown composition imply a higher intelligence? All it's evidence of is that two spacecraft couldn't go past a certain point as you have described it. Saying "there must be some higher intelligence behind this" when you literally know nothing at all about why the craft stopped. Maybe you can describe how you concluded it's a wall, and not something like what's called a langrangian point: the point where the pull of gravity on one side of an object is equal to the pull on the other side.
Created:
Posted in:
His point was that Christianity and Islam both have mandates in their holy texts to convert non-believers and that certain sects of both religions can take these interpretations to their extremes (I come not to bring peace but the sword is something Jesus said, and Islam prescribes death for apostasy, to use a couple of examples) to the great detriment of society. You can disagree with the interpretations those people use to undergird their violence and see it, as I do, as simply an excuse for violent reprehensible people to do violent, reprehensible things and feel like they're in the right, but cannot deny that all religions have used their religions to sanctify violence.
Misuse of the word religion would be like "atheism is a religion!" or "science is also a religion." Just because you don't like the way a word is being used doesn't mean it's incorrect usage. I'm not for lumping all of any group into any one category, but me saying "Some police officers are racists" is not a misuse of either the word racists or cops because you don't like what I'm saying.
Created:
-->
@DeusVult
I don't know what solution the clergy is supposed to have
Isn't the answer to just pray for the money, and stop with the taking it from the people? Or, to pray that all the people's problems go away miraculously, and then they'd have the money?
Created:
Several articles around the web today are discussing the hit that the Covid pandemic has delivered to the parochial schools across the country, some believing that more than 100 of these institutions are going to close permanently by the time kids are allowed to go back to school. Here in NJ, one diocese announced five closures alone! Fundraising events were canceled, financially strapped parents who suddenly have questions about their familial necessities are unenrolling, weekly donations at the parishes are done 80% in some places (this funding often supports a school at least in part: about 80% of a school's costs are covered by tuition typically, the rest by donation, that number is now about 50% and falling). Isn't the solution to this problem obvious, if you're a member of the clergy?
Created:
With all the restrictions in place on large group gatherings, many churches including those in my state are using "live streaming" to get their adherents at least virtually together to worship, As a believer, do you think this "counts" if your faith mandates that you gather together on a regular basis to worship? Let's say you are unfortunate enough to pass away during this pandemic. When youget to your place of judgement, the arbiter of your preference says "Almost everything in here looks in order, but let's talk about the last couple of weeks of church services. Easter, specifically." (For Christians). Do you think you get in, or are you out?
Obviously the follow on question: if virtual services count, what do we need the buildings for exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
OK. The words are clear and have been clear for centuries. The militant neo anti-theists just popping onto the scene do not change that.
Totally agree, brother. You're right, the words are clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay, okay, relax, there's no need to froth at the mouth about it. You want to believe it says indentured servants and whatever else, great, you're right, obviously, the bible definitely doesn't include very clear words about buying foreigners, okay? You are going to burst a vessel, take a deep breath. My position on slavery isn't hinging on the bible, so it's really not a huge deal to me. It's clearly a huge deal to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You are trying to shoehorn a meaning into the word. The meaning of words change over time.
Boy, some dumb ass god then, making a book the guidebook without being able to update it for modern times then. Maybe they should change the bible text, huh? Because I'm not trying to interpret it at all. I'm looking at the words and saying, okay, they mean what they mean. You're the one interpreting it. Where does the bible tell you to interpret it that way, anyway? Where does the bible mention purchasing debt? Which annotated version of the bible is that in? Why is that version the right version? Why should I believe some mortal scholar trying to inject hteir own meaning into the holiest words of holiness?
I have to say, amazing level of projection there, though. I'm just reading the words that are there. Take it up with Jesus.
If the Israelite was purchasing people, why would he be punished if he hurt the person? You can't answer.
Maybe because they were trying to curb abject cruelty to slaves, I don't know, this is a question for Jesus. Maybe "two or three days" actually means two weeks or months, I mean if you interpret it a certain way.
If the Israelite could own a human being, why was the punishment for slavery death? You can't answer.
It isn't. At least not in the whole bible. Maybe in some obscure passage from Timothy.
You want to pretend that the verses showing that indentured servitude was a voluntary contract between the "slave" and the "master".
That's not me, that's you. You may purchase slaves both male and female from foreigners around you. There's no mention of debt. There's no mention of voluntary indentured servitude. There's no mention of penalty for doing so. It's there. Sorry man. Again, take it up with Jesus, maybe they should revise the book.
ETA: What's six thousand years ago, exactly? The bible isn't six thousand years old. What's that number refer to?
ETA one more time:
Exo 21:16 - And he that steals a man, and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
This might be interpreted as a prohibition on stealing someone else's slave, too: don't steal a slave and sell him because he already belongs to someone else. I'm sure there's a good reason you have for not interpreting it that way, but the words as they are leave that option available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Exo 21:16 - And he that steals a man, and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.1Ti 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, slave traders, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
So's this verse:
"However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you." Leviticus 25:44-45. Yours might be able to be intpreted to some anti-slavery stance, but this one is stark and very clear. You absolutely MAY PURCHASE people. Just not Israelites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
My thought was that you have come to the conclusion that the Bible promotes (or condones) slavery....without question or need for further inquiry/study/research.
My position is the bible does not prohibit chattel slavery. It does not require research outside of the bible to demonstrate that nowhere in it does it say "thou shalt not own another human being as you do a farm animal," and to demonstrate the rules the bible lays out specifically for purchase of non-Israelite slaves from other nations, or for taking them as the spoils of war. It's all right there in the book.
And on a side note, if the ancients were just half as stupid as you seem to think, I don't think we'd be here today. Or is it just the Israelites that were so ignorant?
In general, the Israelite culture is not known for far-reaching contributions to science, architecture, mathematics, art, literature or anything else we'd measure a culture's generic intellect by. That's simply objective fact.
The rest of your post, we can sum up this way. If I grant that the flexibility in the one or two days was somehow NOT a rule about beating your slaves (you focus on the ambiguous timeframe, I focus on the not ambiguous 'slave'), do you grant hat slaves from other nations were completely fine by the bible? Not slaves you paid for their services. Not voluntary servitude. Not slaves because they owed you money. Foreign slaves. Spoils of war slaves. Sex slaves.
You stated earlier (correct me if I'm wrong) that some parts of the bible condemn slavery whereas others promote it.
No. First of all, there's no place in the bible that explicitly condemns slavery. Unless you want to point me at the verse that says without qualification that you shall not do so, the bible is just fine with at the very least foreign slaves. I also don't say the bible PROMOTES slavery. Just that it's allowed because the book is at best unclear about the prohibition.
Are you okay with voluntary servitude as practiced amongst the Israelites?
Owning another person like you would a goat is not and never has been moral under any circumstance. False equivalences like "well, the draft!" is nonsense. The military draft is not slavery nor is it owning another human being. It's a limited contract. You can't, for example, have an officer beat an enlisted man and have no repercussions provided he doesn't die in 2 days. The US Army can't sell you to anyone or to a competing army or allied nation. At least this comparison wasn't as daft as "well, football players sign contracts, that means they're like slaves."
Please answer. Which one of the below verses is not in the bible?
A: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.B: Thou shalt not own another human being as property.C: You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.D: However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you
Created:
Posted in:
Evolutionary biologists look further and further back in time at life ad its development. Evolution and big bang cosmology may make the religious uncomfortable by varying degrees, but they are in no way related
Created:
Posted in:
Could Adam have chosen differently without departing from God's plan? Yes or no.
If god's plan including both eating and not eating options, then god didn't know which would happen. THat makes him less than omniscient. If god made only one plan, and that plan was eat the fruit, then there is only the illusion of free will, like a maze with only one exit. This is not that hard to figure out, unless you're insisting that only man is responsible for sin and god had nothing to do with that....oh wait, that's why you're having a hard time, sorry. :)
Created:
Posted in:
<br>Why do you think Newtonian laws are not processes? How do you define "process?"
Newtonian laws are observations. There is not a step 1 in "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest." It's just observed. A process would be like "An object of incredible mass once struck the earth and sheared off a gigantic hunk of rock, turning it into pebbles and dust (step 1) that settled into an accretion disk around the remainder of the planet (step 2) and following the laws of physics and gravity eventually coalesced (step 3) into a relatively constant orbit." That's a process.
If you can wade through the various personal jibes and attacks and time wasters, you should check out the "Does Prayer Work" thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
there have always been, and always will be moons, and suns, and earths, and stars in the whole bloody universe, and they will all follow processes...
You and I are having a different argument than EtrnlView and I are. The above is an assertion that implies you do not think Big Bang Cosmology is correct, and asserts something you have no way of knowing, "always."
You cannot think of the universe as a singular creation at one point in time, and then God rested forever. He woke up, and is still creating elsewhere, planting a garden here, and there, and way over there... an eternal process of creation, and resting, and...
I don't see any god doing any of that, it just looks like people doing it. As ever, I remain interested in evidence to the contrary, but evidence, not assertion. I wish you'd taken part in an older thread, one dealing with how you decided to go from "Creator god" to "God that I specifically believe in." I'm sure it would have been a lively back and forth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's how. Sure, you're going to tell me that prayer doesn't work. No, it doesn't if you don't follow the process. Damn, there's that word again. Everything. EVERYTHING is a process, my friend. parse it as you will, everything from being born to going to the grave, and beyond, is process. Step 1, step 2, step 3. If you don't following the process exactly as defined, how do you ever expect to achieve what was planned?
Efficacy of prayer is a different question, but if you have a process you follow and it's always effective, I'd love to hear it. Newtonian laws aren't processes.
I don't understand your last question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So if evolution doesn't deal with origins then any claim that we were originally apelike creatures is invalid, as would be any claim about where we originated from.
It doesn't deal with the ORIGIN OF LIFE. It deals with why life is so diverse, how and why it diversifies and why development continues. But yeah, sure, you're right, okay, got it, evolution is a total sham and it's all magic words and whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Okay, if you want to call it a process, but it's not eternal. The moon wasn't always there, and it won't always be there. If you're talking about the immutability of the Newtonian principal, that's a different story, but that's not a process (process = step 1, step 2, step 3). It's an observation (phenomenon X behaves in Y way).I call that a process. An eternal process.
You cannot just assert that it does.
I didn't assert anything. I'm asking someone who said "nothing exists without a process" to explain how those two things exist, according to him, without a process. The natural follow on question is "how can we know."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
1. Would you agree that the ancient Hebrew language and history is difficult to understand?
I don't know why it would be more or less difficult to understand than any other ancient culture, and it would depend on who's trying to understand it, what exectly they're trying to understand about it, and in what context. If you'd like to be more specific, I can make a better answer. Is it required that anyone who reads the bible have some qualification in ancient Hebrew language and history?
2. Or are you an expert on ancient Hebrew language and history?
No. Why is this important?
3. In one of the most often used suggestions by atheist activists that the bible supports slavery, Exodus 21:20-21, there's a statement made that if the slave who had been beaten by their master recovers after 1 or 2 days he will not be punished. Why do you think it says 1 or 2 days instead of a definite time period? This question really bothered the atheist I was referring to. Yes, atheist activists have a lot of 'splaining' to do.
I have no idea. I just know that's what it says. If I had to make a guess, it's because their medical knowledge was so far behind what we know today that they thought a death on day three might not be directly tied to the injuries related to their beating. Why do atheists have to explain why it does?
To put a better perspective on the question, let's place you in the master's position. You beat your slave, he's under doctor's care, and you've been told that if the slave lives you won't be punished (as opposed to being put to death). Since you assume the law favors you, and the justice system is bent on setting you (as a proud Israelite) free, you ask them how long do you have? They simply tell you 1 or 2 days. So this means that (officially) either you have 24 hours or 48 hours to know if you can go free. Now, on something as important as your life, wouldn't you want to know which? As of now you don't know if you'll be executed if the slave dies after 26 hours or not.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It seems a little like you're saying "because the time frame isn't exact, the master is being treated unfairly"? THat can't be right. Can you clarify why this paragraph is here?
And maybe's will not cut it if you still insist the bible condones slavery.
So is this to say that you ARE an expert on ancient hebrew history and language and therefore your assertion that all the rules in the bible about slave purchases, treatment, terms of service, etc., is thereby correct? Those rules are there, aren't they? I'll ask you a version of a question I had in probably a different thread. Which one of the below is NOT in the bible?
A: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
B: Thou shalt not own another human being as property.
C: You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.
D: However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So god planned for adam to eat it, then got mad at him for eating it, and as adam cannot go against god's plan, how did he have a choice and not just the illusion of choice?Did god's plan include Adam eating it?Sure. He knew Adam would eat it but He never forced Adam to eat it. Adam chose to eat it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm saying only awareness
Ah, right, special pleading, got it. Nothing exists without a process, except this thing, which exists without a process.
both energy and awareness are the only "things" that can exist eternally without beginning or ending.
So it is "thingS," which is strange since you started your post by saying:
No not thingS, I'm saying only awareness,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
God neither popped into existence or started to exist, the definition of eternal is "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning."
So there are things that seem to exist without any process, you're saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
when do things just pop into existence without a process?
How did god start to exist, exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Evolution doesn't deal with origin. It deals with development. And you're leaving out an awful lot of steps in between, either way. In any case, if you think evolution and abiogenesis are answers to the same question, there isn't a lot of point in our discussion. You're simply wrong. What you believe about the diversity of life on the planet doesn't necessarily intertwine with how the original form of life arose in the first place. I still don't know why a theist would think god used evolution, at least the christian version of god, because the book doesn't mention anything along those lines. This view, 'theistic evolutionist', is just trying to dress up the classic god of the gaps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Evolution doesn't deal in any way with abiogenesis. That's what it looks like your real question is. Where did it all come from? You say it's god, but I would ask you why should anyone believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You should look into the difference between scientific THEORY and scientific HYPOTHESIS. They're not interchangeable, but people often think they are.
Created: