(June 26, 2015 at 11:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The fact that Huggy is misrepresenting a prior thread for his own gain shouldn't be surprising, but I'll leave it for you all to decide if it's dishonesty or sheer idiocy that motivates it here.

I have never called a fallacy in one of your posts to my recollection, but this here is an excluded-middle.

(June 26, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

I don't think I've ever seen a more idiotic, transparent, douche-nozzle on this forum. That's saying something since I'm counting spammers, bots and Riketto.

(June 26, 2015 at 11:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, we already know you're a fool, so I don't need to do too much work on this one, especially since the context of the thread you quoted shows the lie in your assertion; how could I be accusing you of attempting to justify rape if the specific claim I'd made was that it was your position that no rape occurred?

Here's how.

Your quote: "Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening."

If it is "clear" that a rape occurred (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties), making an excuse for the act is trying to justify it by definition.

You're still wrong on slavery. The bible pretty clear on it being wrong to force someone into "slavery" against their will. So is it "slavery" if you became a servant of your own volition?

I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense when I get home.

(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You're still wrong on slavery. The bible pretty clear on it being wrong to force someone into "slavery" against  their will. So is it "slavery" if you became a servant of your own volition?

Quote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

But

Quote:If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Quote:When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Going by your avatar, I can only assume a severe case of Stockholm syndrome when you try to defend this.

(June 26, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]
"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

Holy sh*t! It turns out atheists believe in magic wands. What idiots!
Well played...

Well if my Lord Sam said it, then obviously I agree with it 100%, including all strawman interpretations.

(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: [quote pid='975423' dateline='1435376484']


You're still wrong on slavery. The bible pretty clear on it being wrong to force someone into "slavery" against  their will. So is it "slavery" if you became a servant of your own volition?

[/quote]

Yes.

Huggy, the Hebrews had certain rights but foreigners did not. Any slave, Hebrew or not, could be beaten as long as they don't die within a certain time frame.

(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You're still wrong on slavery. The bible pretty clear on it being wrong to force someone into "slavery" against their will. So is it "slavery" if you became a servant of your own volition?

Um. Yes. -_-

Slavery is
1) the state of being a slave
2) the system or practice of owning slaves

And a slave is
1) a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant
2) a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person

'Their own volition' doesn't enter the picture.

(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Here's how.

Your  quote: "Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening."

If it is "clear" that a rape occurred (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties), making an excuse for the act is trying to justify it by definition.

Not within the context of your stated position on the issue. It's clear to me that rape occurred, it's clear contextually that this is occurring, but your position, as you made it, was that no, actually rape wasn't happening, which means that you weren't justifying it. That's something supported by the context of the thread too, by the way, which wasn't that you were willing to justify atrocities, but rather that you were willing to read the bible in a ridiculously overly literal way in order to argue that such atrocities never happened at all.

What you're trying to argue now is essentially that someone saying, for example, "the holocaust never happened," is actually asserting that the holocaust really did happen, but that it was justified. Is that your position? When you say that it's not slavery in the bible, are you actually saying that it is slavery, but that's okay? Or are you actually saying that there isn't slavery? Because those are two different claims, and you can't be attempting to justify something you don't think exists.

Quote:You're still wrong on slavery. The bible pretty clear on it being wrong to force someone into "slavery" against  their will. So is it "slavery" if you became a servant of your own volition?

You're wrong: the bible specifically dictates that you can take slaves from the heathens around you, with no attention paid to the origins of those slaves beyond that.

By the way, Paul disagrees with you: in Philemon he specifically sends a runaway slave back to his master, so this idea that consent is needed to be a slave is bullshit even within the context of your own bible. Are you saying that you know more about this than Paul?