Does Atheism make sense?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Yay for our releasing all the Chinese girls from the rape dungeon. anyway, owning people... how does that make sense? what happens when they don't want to do whatever it is they do being owned? do they just get disowned? isn't that the same as quitting a job? the alternative is punishment. that's not very nice. and not very nice leads to uprising.

[Epimethean]

What happens then? Beat 'em, rape 'em, demean 'em, so long as you have a convenient fantasy story to support your actions.

[Cyberman]

owning another human is wrong? damn...

I KNOW! RIGHT?
It's like my entire world view is thrown out of perspective.
Now I'm going to have to release all those women I kidnapped from the rape dungeon...

Hey, that was my rape dungeon you kidnapped them from! And you might at least have let me out while you were there!

[Blam!]

Look at my cited evidence

That "cited" source is nothing but a pathetic excuses.

Please state one of your best argument out of your pathetic "cited" source, so we will start.

[organiccornflake]

this whole debate is pointless.

I agree, this whole debate is pointless, because you refuse to see that owning another human being as property and forcing them to work against their will is totally wrong and never, ever OK under any circumstances, even if you treat them well. Owning another human being is never right and totally immoral, despite what your precious bible scripture says. And if you're going to keep claiming that it's OK to own another human being because God said it's OK, you're beyond help.

No; this debate is pointless because you can't think of slavery 5000 years ago in another part of the world as the same slavery as you are thinking of in modern day. And to think that they are the same thing is just silly.

The slavery that you are thinking of is wrong. The kind where people are kidnapped and forcibly turned into slaves. This idea is condemnedin this verse. Because of the poverty and the way that governments were set up (The wealthy were super rich, the poor super poor, and no significant welfare system to be heard of,) people would sell themselves into slavery as to avoid dying from however many different threats. It was even commanded that "slaves" be given a mandatory day off per week in this verse.
As I said, believe it or not, things are a tad bit different 5000 years ago in the middle east.

Yes; they were forced to work, but only because that is the agreement they settled on, and your word was very important in biblical days. It should also be noted that the hebrew word "Eved" can also mean "Slave" or "servant." My sources are here, and even your website, evilbible dot com.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Forced to work"..yep, sounds like slavery. Only an asshole argues for slavery. Your imaginary god could have done better on this count, and failed hard.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

No; this debate is pointless because you can't think of slavery 5000 years ago in another part of the world as the same slavery as you are thinking of in modern day. And to think that they are the same thing is just silly.

This debate is pointless because you've sugarcoated your bible in order to make slavery - the owning of another human being - acceptable in a moral sense to yourself and you won't cede the point that slavery is immoral because the bible, in your mind, is the ultimate moral authority that does not disown the act of forcing another human into your servitude.

In order to do this, you've made excuses that are not backed up by:
1) The bible (which only prohibits the bad treatment of family and the children of israel)
2) History (You'll find plenty of evil despots from all across history that doesn't necessarily treat their slaves well.)

Because of this, you cannot be taken seriously at all - particularly given the fact that slavery is slavery is slavery whether the slave is treated like a king or treated like a dog.

Look at yourself. Look at what you're arguing. You're arguing that slavery in the bible is okay because some people weren't treated so bad.
If this wasn't in the context of the bible, would you honestly be arguing FOR slavery?

You're defending ithe indefensible just to maintain your pointless facade and it shows to everyone here except yourself. The thing is, it's not even the worst thing the bible finds acceptable (murder, genocide, general misogyny, and rape for example.)

EDIT:
In regard to your bible passages: Exodus 21:16 seems to punish the act of kidnapping a person and selling him into slavery. Doesn't seem indicative of forcing a person into servitude with yourself in any other circumstance, such as war or buying other people's slaves or buying a person into slavery (such as with slave wages) - all of which result in the same thing and is still a common tactic in the modern day. Interestingly, the passage only specifices that this cannot happen to men.
In regards to Exodus 23:12, it seems to punish everyone who works the sabbath, except women. That's not exactly special treatment for slaves who can still be beaten, maimed, or raped at any time and still don't have the freedom to quit or otherwise oppose their master's wishes.

Yuo still don't really have much of a case in terms of justifying slavery in the bible.

EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo

Here's a fun one for you:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I love how all these things are lumped together as a part of your neighbor's possessions - house, wife, slaves (I'm sorry - "servants"), ox, ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.

[organiccornflake]

This debate is pointless because you've sugarcoated your bible in order to make slavery - the owning of another human being - acceptable in a moral sense to yourself and you won't cede the point that slavery is immoral because the bible, in your mind, is the ultimate moral authority that does not disown the act of forcing another human into your servitude.

I am not argueing the point that slavery is immoral. In the sense you are thinking of; it is. I am arguing the point that your perception of slavery 5000 years ago isn't what you think it is.

In order to do this, you've made excuses that are not backed up by:
1) The bible (which only prohibits the bad treatment of family and the children of israel)

The verses i have provided in my previous post were universal, and not just that pertaining to Israelites.

2) History (You'll find plenty of evil despots from all across history that doesn't necessarily treat their slaves well.)

None of which are as ancient as much of the OT, and those that do are not following the scripture of the bible. The debate here is not that slaves were never treated bad thousands of years ago; its that if everyone were to follow the rules set forth by the bible, it never would be.

Because of this, you cannot be taken seriously at all - particularly given the fact that slavery is slavery is slavery whether the slave is treated like a king or treated like a dog.

Unless you bring it upon yourself. If you were deeply impoverished, and someone offered you an up-front deal that would allow you to support yourself (or recieve money) in exchange for servitude (excuse me; "slavery") would it then not be okay for them to hold you to your agreement? Or is it cool to just flake out and not do any work?

Look at yourself. Look at what you're arguing. You're arguing that slavery in the bible is okay because some people weren't treated so bad.
If this wasn't in the context of the bible, would you honestly be arguing FOR slavery?

I'm arguing slavery in the bible is okay because of context within the bible itself.

You're defending ithe indefensible just to maintain your pointless facade and it shows to everyone here except yourself. The thing is, it's not even the worst thing the bible finds acceptable (murder, genocide, general misogyny, and rape for example.)

The common ideal of slavery is indefensible. The biblical ideal is not.
When was there an un-provoked killing ordained by god? Or genocide? Or misogyny? Or rape? I was un-aware of these stories.

EDIT:
In regard to your bible passages: Exodus 21:16 seems to punish the act of kidnapping a person and selling him into slavery.

You accuse me of using sugar-coated words? "seems to punish"? The bible very clearly said that this deserved the capitol punishment.

Doesn't seem indicative of forcing a person into servitude with yourself in any other circumstance, such as war or buying other people's slaves or buying a person into slavery (such as with slave wages)

And I suppose that the bible mentions nothing too specific about violent child pornography, that it is A-OK too? Or cocaine? It is reasonable to assume through individual verses and bible stories (the coat of many colors, Joshua's crusade) that your idea of slavery is immoral, and condemned.

In regards to Exodus 23:12, it seems to punish everyone who works the sabbath, except women. That's not exactly special treatment for slaves who can still be beaten, maimed, or raped at any time and still don't have the freedom to quit or otherwise oppose their master's wishes.

Where does it say "except women"? It says even the slaves born in your household are excused on the sabbath. What the verse is trying to imply is that all of your slaves are to be excused.

Yuo still don't really have much of a case in terms of justifying slavery in the bible.

Dido on the opposite.

EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo

Here's a fun one for you:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I love how all these things are lumped together as a part of your neighbor's possessions - house, wife, slaves (I'm sorry - "servants"), ox, ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.

Thats because the slaves do belong to him, as a part of an agreement made. I wish I could get money and not work too. The bible frowns on this though.

[Cyberman]

Thats because the slaves do belong to him, as a part of an agreement made.

Between whom? The owner and the slaves? What's the incentive?

[frankiej]

people would sell themselves into slavery as to avoid dying from however many different threats. It was even commanded that "slaves" be given a mandatory day off per week

That isn't slavery... That is called getting a job.