(May 2, 2015 at 11:34 pm)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: There is no Christian nation, and there never has been, but in the U.S. the religious idiots rule the roost because they have the majority in a democratic society that doesn't work. The atheist concern in the West is political and social. Not a supernatural or scientific issue.
There is no Christian nation, but many nations belonged to Christendom nominally under the Pope. U.S. religious idiots enjoy undue political influence despite being a minority, not a majority. Madalyn O'Hair's truck was indeed mainly political, in 1963 prayer in public schools, although I wouldn't imagine atheists ignoring science or neglecting to deny credibility to the supernatural. Human failing can be found anywhere; O'Hair for instance disowned her son for converting to Christianity, but on the other hand tried to help an ex-offender who later murdered her along with two of her other relatives. See, the same person can be "good" and "bad" at different times!
(May 2, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Exian Wrote: It's a common tactic in these parts for theists to claim they used to be atheists.
Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. I admit I have no idea what kind of "-ist" I am most of the time.
(May 3, 2015 at 2:08 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:(May 2, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: [...]the Mosaic law simply protected slaves.
It allowed them to be beaten to within an inch of their lives. It allowed them to be bought and sold as property. You're not the first theist here to defend Biblical slavery...
The Mosaic law was probably better than nothing, though hardly anyone would defend it today. Curiously, it did call for the release of slaves at the jubilee, which traditionally came every 7 years. What we don't know about is actual practice at the time. There's no reason to suppose the letter of the law was honored too reliably. In general, slaves who came from high-status backgrounds or developed personal connections to powerful people had the best chances to win eventual freedom.
(May 3, 2015 at 2:43 am)Aractus Wrote: The Slavery practises in Egypt were far fairer ... Women could own property, and ... get divorces.
Labor for the state in Egypt was hardly voluntary, consider the xnrt wr "Great Enclosure (of restraint)" for those attempting to dodge conscription and their families as well (Eyre, Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, pp. 72-74) and tributary bAkw labor in the fields (Eyre, pp. 208-212). Slaves were probably more like serfs, "immovable" and tied to whatever parcel of land they were on (Eyre, p. 105). Temporary labor conscription applied to all free persons, at least all who couldn't afford to buy the services of a stand-in. Egypt was unusually progressive for women, c.f. adoption, manumission of slave, and disinheritance of family branch by a woman in Pap. Ashmolean Mus. 1945.96. And of course, Hatshepsut herself on the throne.
