Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Slaving Gallery

Slaving Gallery
(Today, 02:32 AM)Dom Wrote: I keep reading the title of this thread as "slaving galley"
I came close to doing that but couldn't find good images of long oars to post as a thread avatar.  In any case research has revealed that slaves were never used to propel galleys because the skill level and coordination necessary made using slaves impractical so galley oarsmen were paid professionals.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Dom
Reply

Slaving Gallery
Fuck me drunk... I think poor old Percie has a few roos loose in the top paddock.     Panic

Percie Wrote:Read Proverbs 31

Nope.  This passage is simply part of the unsupported mythology of your holy book
and has no relevance to a considered debate.  We want facts—not fantasy.

Quote:I don't understand how you can both accept the Bible for the sake of a particular argument, but at the same time wipe out that argument by impugning the Bible.

We don't "accept" the bible.  This is yet another of the reasons it's obvious you don't
really understand what the single tenet of atheism is.  We only use the bible as a
limited means of communicating with you—on your own terms, not ours.

Quote:Can you not read, or are you not aware that this thread references another thread?

Ad hominems only indicate desperation.  Play the ball, not the man.

Quote:The problem is that you accept the bible as a source for attacks, but then reject it as a source for defense. The problem is the inconsistency.

You've said this half a dozen times.  It's nonsensical, and repeating it doesn't make it relevant.

Quote:I think they really don't understand the point, which makes continued discussion kind of...pointless.

If you truly thought this discussion was "pointless", then in all honesty you should leave this thread
to those who are interested in the topic.  Your inflammatory one-liners are a waste of our time.

Quote:I'm not going to address unrelated alleged factual errors.

Why not?  Afraid of the possibility they may actually indicate the truth?

Quote:Atheists are fine with Biblical references that they think point to immorality in God, but when other Scripture is used in defense.

Oh... this tired old turkey again? The bible does accept immoral acts EG: killing homosexual males,
condoning slavery, the Levite genocide, plagues and floods and pestilence etc.

Quote:An omnipotent God could allow evil to exist for reasons other than malevolence.

Reasons such as?  This is a feeble excuse for your purported god's evilness.

Quote:I debate at an atheist forum.

Well, that's framing your content generously.  It's more than apparent that you're such a one-eyed
Christian zealot that you're totally unprepared to even rationally consider the points we raise for a
moment.  You simply dismiss them out of hand, and fall back on your battle-cry that the bible is
inerrant and that we're too stupid to know what we're talking about.  Your attitude is invariably
hostile, arrogant, and condescending.  You actually typify a lot of what atheists find both offensive
and laughable with rabid Christianity.

Quote:God allows evil and suffering so that he can make a fuller revelation of himself to those who are saved.

Unintelligible, illogical, unevidenced, and a major non sequitur.

Quote:God can allow evil for his own purposes.

Your god is allegedly omnibenevolent.  And what exactly would that "purpose" be?

Quote:...atheists don't actually read to determine what the gods desire.

We do—although ultimately we don't need to.  Your mythical "gods" can't "desire" anything.  BTW, I
thought you claimed there was only one god?  Are you finally agreeing that there are thousands?

Quote:That god does not do something doesn't reply [imply] that he could not do that thing.

How, as a mere mortal, can you know this?  And you're admitting your god is often capricious, impulsive,
or unpredictable?  Not the most favourable qualities for your boss.

Quote:God is still omnipotent.

Apparently he's not.  He frequently lets women and babies and husbands and mates die in their thousands
in fires, floods, famines and wars—every day, every year.  He allowed the Coronavirus to kill millions of
people in one fell swoop in a single year, and he can't stop it—or even worse, chooses not to.

—Your "god" is evil personified.    Angry
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Szuchow, Dancefortwo
Reply

Slaving Gallery
(Yesterday, 03:36 AM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(Yesterday, 02:36 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(Yesterday, 01:02 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: It was never part of the issue to determine that the bible has factual errors and is therefore not a reliable source. 

It's not a question whether the Bible has claims that are factually wrong. It does.

Impugning a source for an opposing argument is a good way to wipe out the opposing argument. If a source is incorrect, that inherently weakens any argument based upon that source -- particularly when said source is alleged to be the inspired product of a perfect being. It impugns his perfection, and thereby impugns the "source".

Were it not for the claim of Godly perfection, your objection would carry some water. But because this god who in his perfect inspiration made this bible to be written, errors are fair game: they show that clearly the inspiration is not perfect, and that therefore the source is suspect.

Percie clearly thinks the Bible is a reliable source for his argument. Attacking it is therefore fair game.

Yes.  He brought up "the flood" as though it was a factual event and I corrected him.   What Percie really wants to do is post Bible quotes and argue over them.  This becomes a clusterfuck of semantics and interpretations.  I've seen pages and pages of arguments and debates over the meaning of particular phrases in the bible.....even among Christians.   It's a rabbit hole I refuse to go down.  My contention is that the very concept of a god who condones slavery has broader problems than just slavery.

Probably you two should have worked out the details of what exactly you are debating before beginning.  I think Percie can't be blamed for assuming the topic was whether what the bible says about slavery condones and defends slavery, or not.  In which case of course he would be using semantics and interpretations of bible quotes.  It's dealing from the bottom of the deck to start the debate that way and then claim Percie's analysis of what the bible says about slavery doesn't matter because the bible itself is factually and historically incorrect, is a paradoxically flawed book with no two people agreeing on its meaning, with botched languages, obviously not written by an omniscient god, etc. 

It seems like a very bottom-layer unspoken agreement in a debate about what the bible says about slavery would be the inclusion of what the bible says about slavery. Dunno
Reply

Slaving Gallery
(8 hours ago)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... Percie's analysis of what the bible says about slavery ...

Again, Percie did NOT provide analysis of biblical verses on slavery, he made assertions NOT found in the bible.  He claims his assertions are biblical but has repeatedly refused to disclose the verses themselves.  Percie's assertions, that his god(s) tolerated slavery as concession to social mores at the time, and threw people into slavery as punishment, do not exist in any biblical verses.  Claiming that these assertions constitute some kind of biblical analysis is FALSE.

Attempting to find out Percie's own beliefs about slavery have no relevance anyway.  Percie's highest moral priority is doing god's will.  If he believes his god has commanded him to set a school full of children ablaze he WILL do all in his power to fulfill that command.  Otherwise he'd be forced to tell his god No.  Percie has given no indication in any post that he possesses the desire, let alone the courage, to tell his god No.

So whatever he may personally think he believes about slavery is irrelevant.  He'll behave in whatever manner he thinks his god wants, not what he might think is right.
The following 2 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Dom, Deesse23
Reply

Slaving Gallery
(6 hours ago)airportkid Wrote:
(8 hours ago)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... Percie's analysis of what the bible says about slavery ...

Again, Percie did NOT provide analysis of biblical verses on slavery, he made assertions NOT found in the bible.  He claims his assertions are biblical but has repeatedly refused to disclose the verses themselves.  Percie's assertions, that his god(s) tolerated slavery as concession to social mores at the time, and threw people into slavery as punishment, do not exist in any biblical verses.  Claiming that these assertions constitute some kind of biblical analysis is FALSE.

Attempting to find out Percie's own beliefs about slavery have no relevance anyway.  Percie's highest moral priority is doing god's will.  If he believes his god has commanded him to set a school full of children ablaze he WILL do all in his power to fulfill that command.  Otherwise he'd be forced to tell his god No.  Percie has given no indication in any post that he possesses the desire, let alone the courage, to tell his god No.

So whatever he may personally think he believes about slavery is irrelevant.  He'll behave in whatever manner he thinks his god wants, not what he might think is right.

Why do you keep saying that when it's demonstrably wrong?  He provided analysis of biblical verses on slavery.  It is the raw material that has led him to his assertions about what the bible is saying about slavery.  You may not like or agree with that analysis, but let's not be dishonest and say he's not providing analysis of biblical verses on slavery.  He is debating the issue (or was) in what looks like a fair and square manner, i.e., using the quotes about slavery in the bible to discuss slavery/interpret what the bible is saying about slavery.

He is rightly refusing to cater to idiotic behavior (yours) demanding he go back to the actual debate thread and copy and paste the quotes for your satisfaction (not that, of course, you will be satisfied).  The quotes are there, go look at his exchange with DF2 that is the actual "Verbal Duel," it's not hard to find and is only about eight posts long.  You're either being lazy or sneaky.
Reply

Slaving Gallery
(6 hours ago)airportkid Wrote:
(8 hours ago)jerry mcmasters Wrote: ... Percie's analysis of what the bible says about slavery ...

Again, Percie did NOT provide analysis of biblical verses on slavery, he made assertions NOT found in the bible.  He claims his assertions are biblical but has repeatedly refused to disclose the verses themselves.  Percie's assertions, that his god(s) tolerated slavery as concession to social mores at the time, and threw people into slavery as punishment, do not exist in any biblical verses.  Claiming that these assertions constitute some kind of biblical analysis is FALSE.

Attempting to find out Percie's own beliefs about slavery have no relevance anyway.  Percie's highest moral priority is doing god's will.  If he believes his god has commanded him to set a school full of children ablaze he WILL do all in his power to fulfill that command.  Otherwise he'd be forced to tell his god No.  Percie has given no indication in any post that he possesses the desire, let alone the courage, to tell his god No.
 
So whatever he may personally think he believes about slavery is irrelevant.  He'll behave in whatever manner he thinks his god wants, not what he might think is right.

Surrounding his justification of slavery is the notion that there's a magical man is up in the sky who supports it.  Slavery in the bible is directly connected to it's god.  You can't make slavery righteous in the sight of a god without discussing the other atrocities  associated with this god or even question whether this monster exists.  The bible is toxic from many angles and it's all inspired by a god.

So yeah, when he brought up the Biblical flood as though it was a commonly known historical fact and that I was supposed to accept it without comment......well, I was not going to ignore it.    Sorry about that but it was just to ridiculous.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)