(November 19, 2013 at 2:45 am)Rigor Mortis Wrote: Also, who the fuck does this guy think he is to openly insult ALL atheists?

I'm still looking for the part where he does this.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 2:45 am)Rigor Mortis Wrote: Also, who the fuck does this guy think he is to openly insult ALL atheists?

I'm still looking for the part where he does this.

Go to 1:27.

Quote:If there's any atheists in the house, let me say, you stupid motherfuckers.

I don't care what god you believe in, you gotta be a special kind of retarded to be too stupid to make up a god if there wasn't one.

This quote makes no sense; it's so stupid, I almost thought it was from a poe. But to be honest, I really don't care if some random comedian makes fun of science and atheists. I'm not perturbed in the slightest.

If it makes you feel better, Rigor Mortis, you could just pretend they were laughing at how dumb he was.

Well, Katt Williams was the same guy that said he wanted to beat up Quentin Tarantino because he's a white man that wrote a movie with a lot of n-words in it, Django Unchained. Never mind that the movie is about slavery, and it was very relevant for the characters to be using that kind of langauge.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The one made in the video.

Atheists like this guy, "The Amazing Atheist", like half the atheists making youtube videos just seem so profoundly ignorant about the subject they are discussing you simply cannot take them seriously as intelligent people.

The fact is, Judaism is a rich religious tradition with both lots of cultural and theological features, as well as historical data that help us understand the Old Testament and views on slavery at the time.

First of all, any serious student of slavery in the Bible would go back to the Hebrew text not the English translation in determining precisely what it was.

If you've taken the time to study history at all, you find indentured servanthood very common in cultures prior to a certain era. Our stereotypes make us believe that the "old days" was like ancient Athens or Rome- wealthy, powerful, cultured and cosmopolitan. But it wasn't, and a lot of people chose indentured servanthood willingly (though many didn't).

The features of this cultural practice are so drastically different from American slavery that any comparison is laughably ignorant. Historians don't make these arguments. Anthropologists don't. Textual critics and serious academics don't.

Only youtube atheists do. Honestly it's kind of depressing.

I'm really confused. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

I'm just as quick to call bull shit on someone as the next but from what I can tell, this videographer, Dusty, was reading the Bible word for word and pointing out that it seems odd that black people would worship jesus. Your argument appears to be that of an apologist's, claiming context and translation arguments rather than reading the book that everyone actually lives by.

I can't find any fault with what this video is saying. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?
He's not making claims that he can't back up correct?
As far as I can tell, his history about slavery in America seems accurate?

I guess I'm just still confused about the argument you're trying to make.
You claim that this Dusty character is an "idiot." I guess I just don't see why?

Okay. Let me start by asking you this:

If the facts come out against the position you hold, ought you to hold to your view or accede to the facts?

(November 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Okay. Let me start by asking you this:

If the facts come out against the position you hold, ought you to hold to your view or accede to the facts?

Of course I would change my position to the supported evidence. However, your question does not answer my three key questions.
I will list them again:

1. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?"
2. Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????
3. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?

(November 20, 2013 at 9:11 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, Katt Williams was the same guy that said he wanted to beat up Quentin Tarantino because he's a white man that wrote a movie with a lot of n-words in it, Django Unchained. Never mind that the movie is about slavery, and it was very relevant for the characters to be using that kind of langauge.

apparently he has a 163 IQ. LMFAO!!! http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_tug2jsme/

Who the fuck tested this guy?

(November 21, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Rigor Mortis Wrote: apparently he has a 163 IQ. LMFAO!!! http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_tug2jsme/

Who the fuck tested this guy?

How one presents one's self to the world is not dependent upon I.Q.

Besides, there seems to be too much emphasis placed on intelligence in relation to I.Q.

A quotient is no more accurately attributed to intelligence than faith can be attributed to knowledge.

A person with a high I.Q. can still be stupid.

(November 21, 2013 at 4:29 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Rigor Mortis Wrote: apparently he has a 163 IQ. LMFAO!!! http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_tug2jsme/

Who the fuck tested this guy?

How one presents one's self to the world is not dependent upon I.Q.

Besides, there seems to be too much emphasis placed on intelligence in relation to I.Q.

A quotient is no more accurately attributed to intelligence than faith can be attributed to knowledge.

A person with a high I.Q. can still be stupid.

Agreed. I've always thought IQ tests were biased anyways.

(November 21, 2013 at 4:29 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: A person with a high I.Q. can still be stupid.

Case in point.

Apparently, Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, a man with a working knowledge in just about anything that could potentially be used in his films, had an IQ in the double digits.

By contrast, Joachim van Ribbentropp, the Nazi who other Nazis hated for being an absolute idiot, the man who pretty much completely alienated Britain from Nazi Germany was tested at Nuremberg to have an IQ of 129.

(November 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Okay. Let me start by asking you this:

If the facts come out against the position you hold, ought you to hold to your view or accede to the facts?

Of course I would change my position to the supported evidence. However, your question does not answer my three key questions.
I will list them again:

1. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?"
2. Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????
3. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?

I'm not ignoring your questions, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Here I'll respond:

When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be "What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery:

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16)
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35)
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15)
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9)
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11)

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.