pop morality

[Drich]

Substandard to me, which is the only metric that matters in a discussion -with me-.  You have trouble accepting other peoples positions and statements for what they are, though...so I don't expect to see any progress here.  

The last time you asked me ag related questions you didn't like the answers..and retreated into fantasy.  You're still trying to appeal to hypocrisy and I've already told you that I won't take you seriously.

I have 'trouble' accepting other people's positions when they abandon logic and reason to obtain or maintain them. For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position. When YOU abandoned the rules of our spoken language and the very word definitions that give mean to the very words we use, just so you can blindly hold on to your 'morality' means you are the one who has retreated into fantasy, you are the one leaving fact and reality, just so you can maintain your fleeing sense of moral superiority.

Brother I have given you detail specific instances and backed them up with links you can check and read for yourself, and all you respond with is your thoughts and 'feelings' on the subject. Again all of which points back to your super strong blind faith in your 'morality.'

[downbeatplumb]

You have time to spout off on atheist forums, presumably on a computer you purchased with your own money.

What if this is apart of what I have been tasked to do?

Plus educate yourself fool, Slave can indeed be paid. Even chattle slaves of the 19th century were paid trivial amounts.

The important part there is "Trivial amounts", you have a computer, electricity and rather a lot of time off to troll web sites. You have zero idea of what constitutes a state of slavery you utterly gormless prick.

[rexbeccarox]

I don't know about others, but I do extremely little to support your definition of "slavery", Drich, and in fact, I rail against it.

I buy local produce at farmer's markets, where I meet the actual people who grow it.

I wear Saucony brand tennis shoes, which are made in the US. I haven't owned a pair of Nikes or other shitty brands since I began working when I was fourteen.

My last J-O-B was supply-chain manager for a designer shoe company whose practices I was extremely close to and couldn't condone. I planned on quitting that job the actual day I got laid off so I didn't have to quit. We were acquired by a company who owned a few other shitty brands and some of them have now gone under.

For my own business, I only bought American brands and things that were made in the US.

The job I'm about to start is for a not-for-profit to benefit developmentally disabled adults (not retards or mongrels, you slimy fucker) teaching them how to make things with which they can make an income locally.

I actively protest and vote against unfair labor practices.

I will admit it's not perfect, and, yes, we are stuck with brands that don't use fair practices (like most electronics brands), but I always have my finger on the pulse of what's going on in that arena, and use products that are most fair; people like me and others who are actively against these things will eventually change them. The bubble will burst, no doubt in my mind.

I absolutely do not condone slavery, whether it's your dubious definition or the real one, Drich, and the fact that you are so insistent that everyone does condone it says way more about you and your shitty Godwin argument than anyone else.

[Nihilist Virus]

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.

[Angrboda]

For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position.

Oh the irony.

[Jenny A]

Surely, you've been on this site long enough to know what I desire is evidence.

then open your book to leviticus for the law, and then to Romans to reconcile the Law with atonement. The book of romans is the gospel explained. My study on it a few weeks ago is a break down of every precept in that book. In that you have your 'evidence for God's will.'

Leviticus and Romans were written by men and do not in anyway constitute creditable evidence of either god's existence, or should he exist, his will. And you know perfectly well that that is the position of every atheist on this forum.  And further, you have never presented any credible evidence of god's existence yourself.  That you have gone down the faith without evidence rabbit hole, is no reason to follow you.

 It is one such story among many.  All lack confirmation.

confirmation is the wrong word, because if you want to confirm the bible all one has to do is follow it. I think your looking for the word "Vet." To vet is to scrutinize to your or some standard you want the bible to meet. That way you can raise or lower the bar rather than hold all religion to the same standard, because if and when the bible meets your requirements you are free to also shift the goal posts back in the conversation.

Nope.  Confirm is the word I wanted:  "to state or show that (something) is true or correct."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirm

 I freely admit, I think yours is an ugly story.  I don't wish for it to be true.  But whether I or you wish it, there is not evidence of it.

To doubt the authenticity of Christ is to doubt every single other figure in ancient history before him period, and after him for 1500 years, as Christ alone has more manuscript documentation than any other figure dominating those time periods..

See that is proof... In providing proof all one need do is count the manuscripts that mention or talk about Christ and compare that with the next most popular historical figure. to which their can be no arguement, as it is a matter of documentation.

However, Vetting allows you to place an artificial standard on Jesus that you do not have to place on any other figure. you could in the process of 'vetting' claim that all documentation concerning Christ is religious and religious texts don't count for some arbitrary reason. Then make the claim that their are no secular text that concern Christ knowing full well (or in your case not) that if a text did mention Christ in detail it would be considered to be a religious text, and dismissed.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too.

Hardly.  There are no sources for the historical Jesus beyond Paul (who saw him in a vision but claims to have talked to his brother) and the gospels (really two sources as the synoptics are obviously drawn from the same source and John).  Nether is sufficient to prove the miracle working Jesus let alone the risen one, or the god.  I don't much care if there was a historical Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammad.  The question is whether what they preached was correct.  There's no corroborating evidence for what Jesus preached. Actually, given the how long after him the gospels were written and how little attention Paul paid to what Jesus said, it's hard to know even what he said.

God, according to you has planned a world in which people suffer randomly, and in which he punishes people for not obeying a law "purposely" (your word) designed to be impossible to obey.  If you find that admirable and worthy of worship, there's no arguing with you.  I, however do not.

Not according to me, because according to me/The bible we are all meant to suffer no one escapes it. Therefore while suffering is not a pleasant thing it is apart of our spiritual maturity and a needed part of a well balanced life.

Getting back to why I think the myth you follow is immoral. . .    It accurately describes a world in which men suffer.  But if we suffer because of nature, that's amoral.  If we suffer because someone designed it that way, that's immoral.

Seriously?  You can't see the value in the consensus that keeps us all from each others throats (to the extent we aren't at each other's throats), the consensus that makes civilization possible.  If you throw out moral consensus, life is in the words of Thomas Hobbs, "nasty, brutish, and short."  

But can't you also see that a 'moral consensus' makes provisions for infanticide? Death marches, Death camps, slavery? why do you think I was referencing the Nazis? Again do you think they thought they were 'immoral?' of course they didn't! they thought it was their moral obligation to kill all Jews!

Why yes I can see that.  But I also see that there would be no society at all without it. And that failing to discuss what it should be (as opposed to blindly following a 2000 or so year old book) is perhaps not the way to go.

We have this moral consensus, because it works.  Evolution has given us empathy, a sense of fairness, and reason.  These three are sufficient to create societies that work.  They worked where Jesus and Yahweh were never  heard of and work where there have never been heard of.  Morality exists in every society because without it, there is no society.  But the moral consensus changes with society.  The needs of illiterate agrarians who live in multi-generational family units differs from that needed by industrialized nations.  Travel between nations and across the globe, adds complications.  As does mass communication, birth control, excess food (a rather new thing), the ability of people to destroy the planet, and so on.

all this statement says is you have deluded yourself with the propaganda society floats out there to deem itself better than all other societies.. The type of person who mindless accepts that their society is the best, is the very type of person Germany used to march Jews into gas chambers. I have shown at least 4 major examples of heinous acts/war criminal acts that current western society has adopted and deems 'moral.' You/people like you, don't even question societal values because society has changed the status of the people involved and like the jews ceased being human, if one is not human then it is ok to suck their brains out via vacuum tube inserted at the base of their skull. Again My point is current soceity's morality is not if any different than that of the Nazis. We simply don't know any better because we/YOU believe the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No, you are not paying attention.  It works.  We know it works because we actually have societies, families, nations, and other cooperative human groups.  Without morality, none of those could exist.  Does it produce heaven on earth, or a perfect world?  No.  Humanity is far from perfect.

To live apart From God's law means Christian's are not judged by it. The Law's purpose is to show we all fall short and will never be able to live by the perfect standard God set. For the honest person this means we have to seek another way to Righteousness. for the self righteous this perfect standard sets them up with an opportunity to invent their own 'morality'/moral consensus in that they never have to admit sin, they just keep lowering the bar to fit the evil they want to live with, into their lives.

For the Honest the gospel gives them the opportunity they need to redeem their sins and find the righteousness they seek, not in of their own works, but a gift from God so none of us can boast.

Ah, I see you miss the third way, and the way actually followed by most people, to try to do the right thing as best we can figure out what that is.

OOOOkay.  That's new and different.  You spent several posts arguing that slavery in the U.S. South was good because of Hitler (can't really follow your argument there but you really did make the argument).  You also said that slavery and genocide are morally neutral under god's law.  

Oh, my goodness... seriously?!?!

I said We currently use slaves period. Meaning right now. The food in your fridge was grown and cultivated by slaves if you yourself did not grow it. Check those little stickers on your out of season apples or celery (Product of central/south America= 19th century style plantations) The people of the world could not afford to eat what it does if not for slave labor.

We need slave labor, ALL society was built and is maintain on slave labor. we have never created a society/money based economy that is not built on slave labor.

But, the problem is we are not willing to admit it. that allows companies who own/use slaves free reign to do what they will, because their is no mandated over site, just so you can pretend all slavery is bad and people who advocate it in one form or another are less than you. that is a mighty high price for someone to pay, just so you can pretend you are evolved beyond the need of slaves.

I used this example to show you how this society has adopted slavery on one hand, while still pretends to hold the high moral ground. Just because it changes the defination of slavery. For example when you say the word you actually means by definition Chattle slavery. Chattle slaves are what most of you picture black americans in the south had to endure. This is only one form. Even The most loose definition of the word identifies a slave as one who works disproportionately hard and long hours for very little pay. (People who don't make a living wage, but can have their incomes subsidized with housing food or services.) That was the idea of slavery in the bible., and could be the way modern slavery works today, but doesn't because we value our pride/idea that our soceity has evolved beyond all aspects of slavery.

That is what I said.

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

This is the hypocrisy in modern slavery. You all are doing more harm pretending to hate all slavery, yet benefiting from it, but if you were to just admit your dependence and enforce basic human rights, we could truly live in a better world, but again you all are so evolved that you will never admit your own evil practices. because you have a 'moral consensus' and everything you do is 'good.'

Again the purpose to all of that is to show hypocrisy, to show you your 'moral consensus' is no different that the moral consensus of the Nazis or ISIS. it simply befits you where they other two may not.

I see, so if we are doing wrong, that makes it right for god to condone wrong 2000 odd years ago.  

Any justification for slavery and genocide (absent an unchanging god's law) can be fought as immoral, and arguments (not to mention) used to stop that behavior.  But if we just say, oh god's law says it's okay, then we will never end it. And god's law certainly allows it, if that law is the law of the Bible.  Or are you really just suggesting that employment is slavery, in which case, I suggest your understanding of all of what slavery entails is rather limited.

Wow... just wow.. My defination of slavery is "limited" because it includes aspects and broadens the defination beyond your narrow scope... yeah, maybe while your looking up the word slave you should also look up the word 'limited.'

Your definition of slavery is indeed limited.  You fail to understand what real slavery is.  It goes far beyond wage slavery in rights of the master over the enslaved.  

As far as the rest goes, what do you think it will take to ever stop abortion?

Nothing right? why??? "because it is all perfectly moral.."

Now what if I ask what would it take to stop Killing babies?

Ending unthinking multi-celled organisms, even if the cells are human, is not killing babies.  But even if it were, it's a step better than the solution in Biblical times which was exposure of infants or strangling them at birth.  But, like many atheists, I'm puzzled by why you think your god didn't condone abortion.  He suggested it for potential bastards.

The first thing your mind will have to do is reassure itself that what you are killing is not a person/baby (Remember like the Nazis you have to strip these children from their humanity/human rights then you can do whatever you want) You are killing a fetus, and killing a fetus is not killing a baby, but what if science re-identifies a fetus as a baby? So then I ask how long before we stop killing babies?

If science shows the humanity of a baby, I'll rethink.  Actually, I don't condone late abortions except where it's the mother's versus the fetutus' life simply because the fetus is developed enough in brain to be human in my eyes.  



Now, let me be clear, because you appear unwilling to hear what I actually think instead of what you want to argue against.

1) There is no god or god's law.
2) The laws proposed in Leviticus are evil.
3) In the absence of god's law human law formed by consensus is better than nothing.
4) Rather than discuss the law of 2000 years ago, or pretend we will be forgiven, we should strive to make the best human law possible.
5) Human law is greatly flawed.
6) To pretend god forgives you is to forgive yourself.

[Drich]

What if this is apart of what I have been tasked to do?

Plus educate yourself fool, Slave can indeed be paid. Even chattle slaves of the 19th century were paid trivial amounts.

The important part there is "Trivial amounts", you have a computer, electricity and rather a lot of time off to troll web sites. You have zero idea of what constitutes a state of slavery you utterly gormless prick.

Maybe it is you who does not know the meaning of the term.
You like Mario seem to only think Chattel Slavery is the only definition to the word slave or slavery. Chattel slavery is only one type of slavery:
http://fightslaverynow.org/why-fight-the...l-slavery/

This is the definition of the word slave:

1. a person who is owned by another person and is forced to work for them.
   
2. 2a person who is so strongly influenced by something that they cannot live without it, or cannot make their own decisions
   

Again you are working on a stereotype and not the actual definition. You believe (Wrongly) that ALL Slaves are treated poorly. You believe as the first website suggests that chattel slaves represent all examples of slavery. But if you look at the Oxford English dictionary definition, The task that has to be performed, nor treatment of a slave is what defines slavery. Even if you look at the meaning of the word slave labor you get:

1. work that is done by slaves; the slaves who do the work.
   
2. work that is very hard and very badly paid.
   

Again, work conditions, beatings, the type of work being done (picking cotton/Research and arguing with atheists) has nothing to do with the definition.

slavery is about below minimal to no monetary compensation, and giving one's personal (illusion) of control over to someone else.

That is what defines a slave. Again all of this is true for chattel slavery, but not all of the qualifiers of chattel slavery are present in the basic definition of the word, meaning not all slaves are chattel slaves. To say all slavery is chattel slavery is a false equivocation.

This is why I point out that while corporations do not own chattel slaves to the degree of 19th century USA, they do 'lease' people. and rather than pay them less for a 70+ hour work week than what you would make working 1 hour @ minimum wage. Or they are made to do quota work (they work till they hit a certain production number) This could mean days for a fix amount, or for just 'living expenses.' And most of the time to get that job putting your Nikes together they have to sign a 6month or year(s) long contract if their is any skill involved in their work.

Again just because I do not pick cotton or assemble shoes does not mean I get to do what I want when I want. This on line stuff, between the writing and off site research is a 40+ hour a week job, on top of my actual work ( I manage two separate companies), on top of all my other responsibilities, and family.

I don't get paid to do any of this work, yet the one who bought and paid for me has indeed tasked me with what I do here. so I do it and take all of this very seriously, and my work and time investment here these past several years show this. Which if you were honest with the definitions provided by The Oxford Dictionary, does indeed qualify me as a slave.

[Drich]

For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position.

Oh the irony.

see above post

[Drich]

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.


Where does it say a owner can beat a slave for amusement?

[Nihilist Virus]

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.


Where does it say a owner can beat a slave for amusement?

You remove the part where I call you a retard only to ask a retarded question which you also place in the wrong quote block.

We may have differing views on rape and slavery but I think I have sufficiently demonstrated my case on your intelligence.

As for your question, we are to presume from the text the beating is typically administered if the slave is not working to the master's satisfaction. Is that any less abusive?