Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Bango Skank]

Is there anything that would convince you that God exists?

I don't know, but it has to be personal & from the source itself for minimum. I can narrow it down a bit by excluding what wouldn't convince me: philosophical arguments, anecdotes, written records...so basically human sources.

If you watch a miracle with your own eyes, and other witnesses confirm your observation, would you accept that God exists.?

No, because:

1. Supernatural events don't require God.
2. I don't know if the source was God.
3. How do i know it was really a miracle?

if not, is there any other possible event that would convince you that God exists?

I honestly don't know. I think the major problem is that i have no capability to determine if some being calling itself a God is actually telling me the truth. This is of course if we go by the common attributes of God.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Is there anything that would convince you that God exists?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]I think these two videos cover it the best, at least the evidence that everyone would accept.

​

However, for me personally, I agree with this video whole heartily.

​

That should look familiar.

 

[Sparhafoc]

*fucktarded blather*

Do they really, Leroy? Is that actually what they say, Leroy?

Or are you just making stuff up again.
Perhaps regurgitating some inane idiocy presented by intellectually dishonest theists?
Perhaps failing - as you usually do - to actually grasp what the other person is actually saying?


...

The abject dishonesty of people like LEROY never ceases to bemuse me.

He's on a site with a group of people who subscribe to the label of atheism, and he sits there telling them what they think.

As if someone so prejudicially hostile to a group ever gets to define that group.

Utter fucking idiocy, just as we've all come to expect. Repetitive displays of public prejudice by someone incapable of rational thought.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The same question can be pointed back at the drooling fundie: what would it take you to believe that <god other than their own> exists.

Incidentally, isn't this thread 'slavery in the Bible'?

I could've sworn it wasn't "LEROY's list of prejudice against the heathen".

 

[Visaki]

Incidentally, isn't this thread 'slavery in the Bible'?

It is. Sorry (in a general sense, not to you particularry) for part taking into the derailment.

Slavery in the Bible is a hard and deeply emotional topic

Some take horrendous human rights violations and people who advocate for them emotionally. I usually don't, specially because we are talking about these in the past tense.

but when atheist try to formulate a rational argument based on slavery on the bible, against the existence of God or against the divinity of the bible they always end up proposing a "not so strong argument"

Arguments about the Biblical slavery have to do with the proposed omnibenevolence of the Biblical God, or the inerrancy of the Bible, rarely about the existence of God.

God may exist and Bible might be divinely inspired even when, not if, slavery is condoned in the Bible, but that suggests some very unpleasant things about the deity you worship and thus you argue against it.

and they usually end up admitting something that atheist are not suppose to admit (objective morality, free will, etc.)

Objective morality doesn't come into it, and free will is also irrelevant to the specific discussion about Biblical slavery. In other words, Non Sequitur.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Objective morality doesn't come into it, and free will is also irrelevant to the specific discussion about Biblical slavery. In other words, Non Sequitur.

Indeed!

It's the typical 'I prepared a response to a completely different argument, so let's talk about that instead'.

That he's polluted dozens of threads with this bullshit, and ignored all the responses seems to make him think that resurrecting the horse to beat to death again will somehow result in a different discussion.

Because, as you note, non-sequitur.

 

[leroy]

No, I cannot provide an analogous example. Your example of something what would convince you, is so poor that it would require me to compromise my own standards of evidence to such a degree that it would render them worthless.

If the above is an example of YOUR standards of evidence, then we are going to have an up-hill struggle when it comes to agreeing on what constitutes independently verifiable empirical evidence.

.

well I think you summarize the main issue of this forum.

In my opinion Atheists raise the bar unrealistically too high,

sure kitchen drawers opening and closing would be strong evidence for ghosts, I am honestly perplexed to see you seem to disagree.

 

[leroy]

Is there anything that would convince you that God exists?

I don't know, but it has to be personal & from the source itself for minimum. I can narrow it down a bit by excluding what wouldn't convince me: philosophical arguments, anecdotes, written records...so basically human sources.

If you watch a miracle with your own eyes, and other witnesses confirm your observation, would you accept that God exists.?

No, because:

1. Supernatural events don't require God.
2. I don't know if the source was God.
3. How do i know it was really a miracle?

if not, is there any other possible event that would convince you that God exists?

I honestly don't know. I think the major problem is that i have no capability to determine if some being calling itself a God is actually telling me the truth. This is of course if we go by the common attributes of God.

that is my point, some atheists wont grant the existence of good even if they see a miracle with their own eyes. "because maybe there is an other explanation"


this is no different form theist that wont reject the doctrinaire of biblical inherency even if they see a contradiction with there own eyes "because maybe there is an explanation for it"


this is why atheism is in a way comparable to religions,

 

[leroy]

The same question can be pointed back at the drooling fundie: what would it take you to believe that <god other than their own> exists.

Incidentally, isn't this thread 'slavery in the Bible'?

I could've sworn it wasn't "LEROY's list of prejudice against the heathen".

yes that is my point, atheism and "religious fundies" are comparable, both would ether answer "nothing" to the question or would dance around the question without providing a clear and direct answer

 

[leroy]

Incidentally, isn't this thread 'slavery in the Bible'?

It is. Sorry (in a general sense, not to you particularry) for part taking into the derailment.

Slavery in the Bible is a hard and deeply emotional topic

Some take horrendous human rights violations and people who advocate for them emotionally. I usually don't, specially because we are talking about these in the past tense.

but when atheist try to formulate a rational argument based on slavery on the bible, against the existence of God or against the divinity of the bible they always end up proposing a "not so strong argument"

Arguments about the Biblical slavery have to do with the proposed omnibenevolence of the Biblical God, or the inerrancy of the Bible, rarely about the existence of God.

God may exist and Bible might be divinely inspired even when, not if, slavery is condoned in the Bible, but that suggests some very unpleasant things about the deity you worship and thus you argue against it.

and they usually end up admitting something that atheist are not suppose to admit (objective morality, free will, etc.)

Objective morality doesn't come into it, and free will is also irrelevant to the specific discussion about Biblical slavery. In other words, Non Sequitur.

well, my point is that when you remove the "emotional sound" from slavery, and atheists try to formulate an argument against "God" using slavery, they tend to formulate a not so strong argument.

I am not labeling nobody in this forum in particular,


you can always prove me wrong by providing a strong argument

 

[leroy]

Objective morality doesn't come into it, and free will is also irrelevant to the specific discussion about Biblical slavery. In other words, Non Sequitur.

Indeed!

It's the typical 'I prepared a response to a completely different argument, so let's talk about that instead'.

That he's polluted dozens of threads with this bullshit, and ignored all the responses seems to make him think that resurrecting the horse to beat to death again will somehow result in a different discussion.

Because, as you note, non-sequitur.

well, can you provide a strong argument against God or the bible using slavery without granting objective morality?


it seems to be that slavery in the bible is just something that we don't like, but is hard to think about an objective argument against God or the bible, or some other doctrine. Specially if you don't grant objective morality.


I am not labeling you, I have no idea if you think that slavery disproves God or some doctrine,

 

[Steelmage99]

The same question can be pointed back at the drooling fundie: what would it take you to believe that <god other than their own> exists.

Incidentally, isn't this thread 'slavery in the Bible'?

I could've sworn it wasn't "LEROY's list of prejudice against the heathen".

yes that is my point, atheism and "religious fundies" are comparable, both would ether answer "nothing" to the question or would dance around the question without providing a clear and direct answer

Please point to an atheist saying; "Nothing!" to the question of; "What would convince you?"

Fuck off with your claims of them being comparable.

And you won't get a more clear, direct, open and charitable answer than; "Independently verifiable empirical evidence".

 

[Bango Skank]

that is my point, some atheists wont grant the existence of good even if they see a miracle with their own eyes. "because maybe there is an other explanation.

You sound very close minded, you should be more open that even if it's a genuine miracle, it's source can be something not qualifying as a God.

sure kitchen drawers opening and closing would be strong evidence for ghosts, I am honestly perplexed to see you seem to disagree.

Oh, now you assume it's ghosts. Why not God that is causing that?

You have clear bias here.

 

[leroy]

Please point to an atheist saying; "Nothing!" to the question of; "What would convince you?"

Fuck off with your claims of them being comparable.

And you won't get a more clear, direct, open and charitable answer than; "Independently verifiable empirical evidence".

Bango Skank for example.


As he seems to be pointing out no matter what evidencie or what events take place, there will be always other explanations rather than God


of course Bango Skank can always correct me if he thinks I am misrepresenting his view.

 

[leroy]

sure kitchen drawers opening and closing would be strong evidence for ghosts, I am honestly perplexed to see you seem to disagree.

Oh, now you assume it's ghosts. Why not God that is causing that?

You have clear bias here.

well obviously it depends on the context in which the event takes place,

If I pray and say to God, If you listen please open a draw, and the draw opens, I would certainly attribute that event to God. (wouldn't you?)

If this events takes place at 2:00am, I would atribute the event to my imagination or a dream (it is easy to imagine stuff at 2,00am)

If the draws open and close in some aggressive way and with evil laughs as an echo, I would atribute the event to Ghosts.



In none of the cases I would claim 100% certainty but in my opinion those would be the most likely explanations.

 

[leroy]

that is my point, some atheists wont grant the existence of good even if they see a miracle with their own eyes. "because maybe there is an other explanation.

You sound very close minded, you should be more open that even if it's a genuine miracle, it's source can be something not qualifying as a God.
.

I am not being close minded, I am just appealing to the best explanation, at least in some contexts God would be a better explanation than any other supernatural (or natural) entity, no one is saying that God is the only possible explanation

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You sound very close minded, you should be more open that even if it's a genuine miracle, it's source can be something not qualifying as a God.
.

I am not being close minded, I am just appealing to the best explanation, at least in some contexts God would be a better explanation than any other supernatural (or natural) entity,

How would a deity be a better explanation for a magical event than any other supernatural thing? If one is appealing to magic, how can one tell which magical explanation is better than the last?

 

[leroy]

How would a deity be a better explanation for a magical event than any other supernatural thing? If one is appealing to magic, how can one tell which magical explanation is better than the last?

again it depends on the context.


the third video that you quoted and that you claim to agree with provided an example of a context in which the magic would be attributed to God (remember the guy claiming to be God, the talking flower, or water converted in to wine, etc.)


If you agree with the video (you claim you did) you have to agree with me, on that depending on the context God may or may not be a better explanation than any other supernatural entity.

 

[Bango Skank]

Bango Skank for example.

As he seems to be pointing out no matter what evidencie or what events take place, there will be always other explanations rather than God

of course Bango Skank can always correct me if he thinks I am misrepresenting his view.

There could be other explanations. That doesn't mean that nothing will convince me. At minimum i have to be in contact with the source personally aka with being that claims to be God, two way communication with words and interaction. That's the starting point where i can even begin to try to determine if that being is indeed a God. But as i said my capability is very limited, so it would be inconclusive. A being that claims to be God would need to persuade and gain my trust, but of course there is a possibility that it lies to me and has some hidden motive. There would always be a some form of doubt.

well obviously it depends on the context in which the event takes place,

If I pray and say to God, If you listen please open a draw, and the draw opens, I would certainly attribute that event to God. (wouldn't you?)

Ghosts could be making fun of you. "Oh look, he's asking God to show a miracle, let's have some fun with him."

If this events takes place at 2:00am, I would atribute the event to my imagination or a dream (it is easy to imagine stuff at 2,00am)

Could still be ghosts, you'd just try to rationalize this with natural explanation.

If the draws open and close in some aggressive way and with evil laughs as an echo, I would atribute the event to Ghosts.

Or it could be Satan or some other supernatural being. Or maybe God is bored and is having some fun at yours expense.

 

[thenexttodie]

it is best to crack the desired nut.

:lol: Ok. cool.

No miracle is needed here to stop slavery - all that was needed was a commandment, as with all the other commandments unless they are equally to be considered 'miracles'.

First, I think your premise here is a bit over-optimistic. The Israelites, throughout the Bible, seemed to be often not that interested in doing anything God told them or wanted them to do. Just like most of us are today.

Given that 4 of the commandments are basically rules of worship (2 just iterating the same notion of not worshiping other gods), it is difficult to understand how these supersede the horror of slavery.

I understand where you are coming from.

But consider this, how many people are alive today who would say it would be a horror to be deprived of their cell phone? How many people would commit suicide if they were no longer allowed access to social media? I was locked in the same place where a juvenile was locked at for killing his parents because they took his PlayStation away from him. I actually spoke to him and asked him "Did you really kill your mom and dad because they took your video games away from you?" and he said Yes!

Now go back 3000 years to a time where even mere day to day survival was not ensured. Every aspect of your life would be a horror to you. There was not even universal heath care back then. Or homeless shelters. Or free money.

I know I didn't answer everything in your post but this is all I have time for right now.