What do Atheists believe the Bible as?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hold the fucking phone. There is some special set of circumstances that allows for the ethical sale or purchase of human beings?

Yes,of course there are. Eg to save a person from being killed or starving to death. I can think of a few more based on pragmatism (the basis of morality) .

My position is called 'moral relativism"

You seem to be asserting an absolute, universal moral imperative. I'd be fascinated to learn the base of your moral authority,really. Right now,the only moral authority I recognise is conscience,which varies enormously between people.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you wanted to save a person..why buy them as property? Doesn't wash, but hey, that's just me. I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who can find any reason whatsoever to consider a human being property.

[Judas BentHer]

Has anyone else noticed the trend of Creationists apologizing to atheists for "offending" them whenever they can't handle an argument?

It's a smug sense of self satisfaction, I think. Creationists attempt to insult everyone's intellect by insisting the earth is no older than 6 to at most 10 thousand years old. They promote this absurd notion by then playing the persecution complex card.
Imagining they're being targeted by those prompted by the devil, to remain blind to the truth. As some Creationists have said at other sites, and amazingly in all seriousness, Dinosaur fossils dated to millions of years old by science are just lies planted in the earth by Satan so that, when discovered, they tempt believers from their new earth faith.

Ridiculous of course. However, it's not really all that surprising when one takes into account the whole premise for that smug offending self satisfaction is posited in the notion that everyone on earth is damned, if they don't believe exactly as the Christian creationist does. That it is indeed an us against them paradigm. Us being the creationists who are so insecure in the midst of a secular society they can no longer sway by authority of a united church and crown or as they'd dream a united church and State, so as to dole out judgment and horrific tortuous punishment to them. Those heretics, atheists, non-Christians or free thinkers, so as to destroy the opposition and in the process persuade the doubting onlookers into voluntary compliance through intimidation.

This is what prompts creationism to be retooled so as to be labeled "Intelligent Design Science". A effective subterfuge, they think, to validate mythology so that it stands a chance on equal par with what the creationist see's as a dread rival; evolution. And also, the intent of ID is to bypass the prohibition of creationism being taught in government funded public schools, if ID proponents can argue a science is not a religion and thus is entitled to be included in the curriculum.

And given all that, when confronted with those shallow avenues contrived to interject their religious exclusivism into the secular realm, as their arguments for the credibility of creationism are soundly thrashed by facts and reality, they resort to false humility. Apologizing to atheists for offense they may have committed, as a pretext for what is actually their intolerant nature bolstered through self-righteousness indignation for any and all not in accord with creationism and Christianity.

It's a transparent facade that is as insulting to the Christian who says, they love the sinner but hate the sin.

As if they're able to believe they can love the person who is a sinner, while holding hatred for who they are which is what is responsible for the action judged as a sin. As if love can flourish honestly while hate lives on it's periphery. It's delusion they can live with as is consistent with all of what is the platform of Christianity and creationism.

Those types of creationists and Christians don't offend me. I know what they hold faith in and I know it's irrational because it's in print and easily proven if one reads the lines and even in between. It's not hard. One just has to have faith if there is an intelligent designer he'd have to be smarter than to have authored the creation myth and inspired the whole Bible. Perhaps it's a matter of omnihumor. And the invisible all mighty friend was just kidding.

None the less, the smug satisfaction I share in return to theirs is that Physics tells me nothing really dies. That everything is energy, which can not be destroyed only reformed. And so at the end of the argument between the camps, those of atheists and Christians, it's the Christians that shall be surprised. Because as it stands while living they already hop from foot to foot unsure of the destiny they hope awaits; heaven if they deserve it or hell if they earned it, because nothing is sure and all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. So while I shall die having lived, they shall die having accepted all their life they were unworthy.

And that's OK.

[Faith No More]

I didn't say raping a slave is fine, that's disgusting! I said slavery, IF under the rules outlined in the Bible which I've already mentioned, is fine and beneficial. The Bible doesn't condone slavery like the previous slavery in the U.S.

And as shown to you before with scripture, the rules outlined in the bible only exist in your head.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If you wanted to save a person..why buy them as property?

If there was no other choice.

You have not answered my questions: Are you asserting an absolute moral imperative ?IE Slavery is ALWAYS wrong. If so,what is your moral authority?

That you are suspicious of anyone who does not share your moral values is ad hominem,not an argument and an evasion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do I need some standard for an absolute moral authority regarding slavery? LOL, at the ad hom comment...I'll gladly insult the proponents of slavery under any guise. Just raise your hands so I can fire off an entire volley of ad homs.

When there's no other choice? So when exactly is there only one option, that option being to purchase a human being, and this of course for their own good? Remember, we're talking slavery here, not buying someone and releasing them. That's playing the system to a persons favor, not enslaving them.

You'll have to forgive my confusion here btw, you're asking me to show you an absolute moral authority of some kind when I've never claimed there to be one. In fact I pretty much argue against any form of absolute authority every time I post. That I'm suspicious of anyone who would consider another human being as property has nothing to do with moral authority, and everything to do with my desire to live in a world where I would never be considered as such (or anyone else for that matter, but lets be honest...specifically me). I'm left wondering here if you're playing the devil's advocate, or if you actually feel that the institution of slavery has some saving grace, some merit or benefit to mankind. The only argument from a moral authority that I've heard thusfar regarding slavery is the one that goes "God says it's okay...with provisions", well, I don't agree, what justification do I need other than that I disagree? I can be even clearer, if there were a god, proven beyond all doubt to exist, I would still disagree with slavery, even if that meant disagreeing with the real and absolute cosmic authority. I don't need feel the need to prop my opinions on this matter up with any type of authority whatsoever, beyond my own. Perhaps I cant assert any sort of authority on this matter beyond my own sphere of influence, but it is a sword I'd gladly fall on if the only choice was to perpetuate the institution of slavery or die. Before you accuse me of posturing on this, here from my pc chair, understand that I am already a person who's stood between hostile fire and friendly people. These aren't just words, but part of the core of what makes me who I am. So much for the atheists flexible morality eh?

It may be that I'm completely off base, that there are indeed circumstances which allow for the ethical trade and ownership of human beings. I haven't seen a convincing argument to that effect. Until such time as I come across a convincing argument FOR slavery, I'm going to aggressively ridicule those who hold a pro-slavery opinion.

I believe there is a thread on the subject of the bible and slavery particularly, and lest someone get the idea that I've singled this issue out......

If at any point the bible promotes or condones actions which we, as human beings, have decided are less than ideal, I take issue. Whatever one might think of the text, and whatever usefulness it has in any area absolutely ends when it comes to morality. There is nothing that is right or wrong based solely upon the verses in the bible. That we live under a divine dictatorship, with no hope of appeal or escape, that one race of people is chosen over others and as such has divine right to a piece of land or in fact all of the world, that atrocities can be committed in his name, and by that proclamation found to be righteous, that the rules and structure of the human experience are forever etched in stone and cannot be altered, that we should place a higher value on the next world than this..forsaking our earthly concerns for a kingdom in the heavens ruled over by the aforementioned tyrant, that I have a debt for a service or good I did not wish to partake of, and that this debt has been, or even could be paid by torture and suffering, that the highest vocation for a human being is that of a servant to this very ideal, and finally that the world will one day end in yet more suffering and torture..that this day is one to be wished for..and that at the end of this day all of those who stood against this tyranny will be forever cast into a lake of fire. This is what I see when I read the bible. That platitudes and homilies are interspersed within the text does nothing to soften the abject horror of the core narrative, to me.

Notice that I don't even touch upon the wall of ignorance that those who believed the bible to be the literal word of god and factually inerrant erected between ourselves and progress. I don't have to, even if every word were true, it would still be terrible.

[krazedkat]

Where in the Bible does it say pi is 3 and rape is perfectly fine? I've already addressed the slavery thing and how it can benefit people.

Not satisfactorily. Saying you can rape a slave is saying it is perfectly fine. That is not beneficial. That is fucking terrible.

I didn't say raping a slave is fine, that's disgusting! I said slavery, IF under the rules outlined in the Bible which I've already mentioned, is fine and beneficial. The Bible doesn't condone slavery like the previous slavery in the U.S.

Did you read the wonderful clause where if you beat a slave and they survive for two or so days and THEN die then you are completely justified? If you believe that slavery is fine in any magnitude I feel sorry for you as you are clearly morally inferior to most atheists.

[Minimalist]

You do know that the OT was written in ancient Hebrew,

Allegedly written in ancient Hebrew, D-P. The earliest fragments we have of it are written in Greek.

It may have been an oral tale handed down from priest to priest for a while, which would explain some of the obvious fuckups in it that literate Greeks later wrote down.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Why do I need some standard for an absolute moral authority regarding slavery


First:I do not support slavery in principle. However, I'm also a moral relativists,and avoid moral absolutes. Science does not deal in absolutes,nor in my opinion can morality. If you are claiming a moral absolute,it seems to me you have the burden of proof to support your claim.

From what I can understand,your argument seem to be something like "slavery is nasty,and cruel,and I can't imagine any condition(s) under which it would be acceptable" That seems like an absolute position to me, and one which is built on a logical fallacy;" argument from incredulity."

Further,ad hominem attacks are a form of argument from ignorance,and do not support a position.


I hate slavery too,however. I also dislike absolute positions, especially when based on sloppy thinking.

I have nothing further to say on this topic. I guess we will need to agree to differ.

PS what a bunch of illiterate bronze age goat herders have to say on the topic is irrelevant to me.

[Minimalist]

Well, here's an example of what Pad is talking about.

Generally, mass slavery as an institution did not begin in Rome until the Punic Wars. The Romans weren't too big on enslaving fellow Italians but the Carthaginians brought lots of Spanish, Libyan and Gallic soldiers into the mix. If you win a battle and take a shitload of prisoners your options are somewhat limited.

You can,

A) Pardon them (which is generally what the Romans did when expanding in Italy but obviously did not feel the same confidence in barbarians.)

B) Release them... (not a great idea in the middle of a war.)

C) Imprison them... useful for the nobility, especially if you want to ransom them back. No one would give a shit about the common soldiers. Expensive solution.

D) Enslave them and make some money on the deal.

E.) Exterminate them.

In this sequence, enslaving them is a morally superior solution to the problem than mass murder.

And, before anyone says "who would do that?"

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/historian...otami.html

The The Battle of Aegospotami (405 B.C.), a great naval victory of Sparta over Athens, effectively ended the Peloponnesian War. The fleets of the two Greek rival powers faced each other in the Hellespont for four days without battle, until on the fifth day the Spartans under Lysander surprised the Athenians in their anchorage off Aegospotami. Conon, the Athenian commander, escaped with only 20 of his 180 ships, and the 3,000-4,000 Athenians who were captured were put to death.