Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 20 of 24
 [ 463 posts ] 
Slavery in the bible discussion thread
Author Message
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:well pretend that you are a free servant, you earn $1 USD a day + food and shelter. Then pretend that you have an unpayable debt of $365

your employer tells you that he can pay your debt if you sign a contract where you warranty that you will work for him for 365 days for free, you keep your food and shelter, but you wont get that $1 USD. If you take the money and run away from your employer you will face legal problems (obviously)

you can freely decide if you what to accept the offer,

is the employer doing something morally wrong?

in ancient language you would be called a slave

Is this the best that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist can come up with?
"In ancient language you would be called a slave"?

Well pretend this instead:
You are free, you earn $1 US à day. Somehow, for some reason that Leroy-the-slavery-apologis will never include in his scenario, you end up with an unpayable debt of 365$.

Since you're unable to pay, the bank takes possession of your life. You're stripped of your rights, denied your freedom, and loose all capacity to direct your own life, for the rest of your life.

The bank can also legally sell you to another owner, which it does, to a company which can legally beat you to an inch of your life if you do not do as much work as they demand of you, without any punishment because you're property after all, and the company can decide what it does with its property.

Is the bank or the employer doing something morally wrong?

This is what slavery is, this is what is condoned in the bible and this is something that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist will never call wrong.

And of course, you see the dishonesty where Leroy-the-slavery-apologist still has to change what slavery is to make it more acceptable, refusing to deal with what the slavery actually condoned in the bible.


leroy wrote:It isn't getting "a significant amount of money instantly", it's losing everything: your ability to decide your own actions, protection of the law from being physically beaten, your very freedom and that for the rest of your life.

that is not true, in most of the cases (including ancient Israel) slaves had rights.[/quote]
Did they have their freedom? No
Could they act differently from their slavemaster's commands? No
Did the law protect them from being beaten? No
Could they leave from the above at any point in their life by their own will? No

The rights Leroy claimed they have yet does not name did not include freedom, protection from being beaten, etc.

So his "not true" is in fact completely true and the morally-degenerate-Leroy is still lying again, attempting to change the slavery condoned in the bible for something it isn't.

leroy wrote:
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth
Exodus 21:26-27.

in other words, borrowing from last analogy, if your employer strikes you, you can go home and keep your 365USD.

And Leroy-the-slavery-apologists tries to justify slavery again but fails to make an important distinction:
It isn't if "if your employer strikes you", its "if your employer cripples you".

The difference is clear:
"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 survives after a day or two, since the slave is their property".
Exodus 21:20-21
Not to be punished, it isn't clearer than that. At least, it is for the rest of us, Leroy-the-moronic-slavery-apologist:
If your employer strikes you, you do not get to go home and he isn't to be punished as the slave is their property.

Plus, since Leroy-the-lying-slavery-apologist quoted Exodus 21:26-27, let's keep going up to it with 21:22-25:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise".

Let's repeat this:
"life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"

But if you're a slave and you lose your eye or tooth, it isn't "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", it's as Leroy-the-slavery-apologist put it, "you can go home and keep your 365USD":
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of another man, he will lose his own eye
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of his slave, the slave will be freed, the slavemaster's only loss being his monetary investment, not his own eye.
So there we have it, showing once more there was a different set of rule for slaves than for Israëlites. Perhaps we should thank Leroy-the-slavery-apologist for bringing this up.

leroy wrote:what am I suppose to prove,? it is always better to have 2 option that just 1 option. If there where other 100 options you where free to choose from any of those 100 alternatives, selling yourself was just an other option. It is always better to have an additional option.

By this logic, "Living happily" isn't better than "living happily or living horribly as slave" because "it is always better to have an additional option".

That is some completely stupid logic to try to make excuses for slavery but not unexpected from a slavery apologist. So it still fails completely to prove that "being a slave is the better option", even in a fantasy world that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist describe where Israëlites owned people as property because it was their bestest choice.

So pages of comments in, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist is still trying to invent a different slavery than the one condoned in the bible and yet, still cannot demonstrate that his fantasy-version of slavery within his fantasy world is morally acceptable.

There is no depths that a slavery-apologist will not go to once his morality has degenerated so because of his fanatical beliefs.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Last edited by MarsCydonia on Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Sparhafoc wrote:Naahhh, let's stay in the fictional world where Biblical slavery was sugar and spice so our resident troll doesn't ever have to engage in reality.


Of course, the resident troll stonewalls anything that critically undermines his latest set of ridiculous ad hoc rationalizations.

It's always someone else who has to jump hoops as a condition to LEROY playing ball, although of course, it's just a pretense where LEROY gets to keep on stringing people along never having to admit an error.

Who needs a god when you've got an ego the size of the universe?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:17 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

That orbit is not based on anyone's opinion, it is just a simple fact of our universe. Do you have anything equivalent to that with morals?


.


are you implying that moral values are not "true / real" in the same way the earth orbiting the sun is true?


this is an honest question, in previous comments you seemed to believe that moral truths are objectively truth in the same way the earth orbiting the sun is objectively true but know you seem to disagree,


When did I ever imply that morals were objectively true? Do you not remember when I answered with this to that question? Strange, since that answer is in the very post you are quoting. Again, please work on your reading comprehension and answer the question you quoted above. Lately, you have been whining about people quoting questions that they do not answer. Why not lead by example?

leroy wrote:correct Sparhafoc, we are not addressing any of that yet. until Mars grants that at least in some scenarios owning a slave is not necessarily morally wrong (as in the example that I proved in my last post) we can move on to those kind of details.


Wow!
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:19 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Wow!


Yep! First we'll contrive make-believe scenarios where owning someone is not morally wrong.

Only then will we look at the morally-wrong slavery in the Bible which has no similarity whatsoever to any of those contrived make-believe scenarios.

These are not the droids you are looking for! KAZAAAM!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:31 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody wrote:When did I ever imply that morals were objectively true? Do you not remember when I answered with this


yes that is exactly why I am asking the question, the article that you quoted affirms that moral values are real in the same way earths orbit or a hammer are real. they exist independently of any opinion.

but you also seem to deny that OMV are real,

so which one is it?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:02 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Sparhafoc wrote:
It's always someone else who has to jump hoops as a condition to LEROY playing ball, although of course, it's just a pretense where LEROY gets to keep on stringing people along never having to admit an error.



If I where to bet, I would say that I have admitted more errors than anyone from this forum.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:05 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:well pretend that you are a free servant, you earn $1 USD a day + food and shelter. Then pretend that you have an unpayable debt of $365

your employer tells you that he can pay your debt if you sign a contract where you warranty that you will work for him for 365 days for free, you keep your food and shelter, but you wont get that $1 USD. If you take the money and run away from your employer you will face legal problems (obviously)

you can freely decide if you what to accept the offer,

is the employer doing something morally wrong?

in ancient language you would be called a slave

Is this the best that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist can come up with?
"In ancient language you would be called a slave"?

Well pretend this instead:
You are free, you earn $1 US à day. Somehow, for some reason that Leroy-the-slavery-apologis will never include in his scenario, you end up with an unpayable debt of 365$.

Since you're unable to pay, the bank takes possession of your life. You're stripped of your rights, denied your freedom, and loose all capacity to direct your own life, for the rest of your life.

The bank can also legally sell you to another owner, which it does, to a company which can legally beat you to an inch of your life if you do not do as much work as they demand of you, without any punishment because you're property after all, and the company can decide what it does with its property.

Is the bank or the employer doing something morally wrong?

This is what slavery is, this is what is condoned in the bible and this is something that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist will never call wrong.

And of course, you see the dishonesty where Leroy-the-slavery-apologist still has to change what slavery is to make it more acceptable, refusing to deal with what the slavery actually condoned in the bible.


leroy wrote:It isn't getting "a significant amount of money instantly", it's losing everything: your ability to decide your own actions, protection of the law from being physically beaten, your very freedom and that for the rest of your life.

that is not true, in most of the cases (including ancient Israel) slaves had rights.

Did they have their freedom? No
Could they act differently from their slavemaster's commands? No
Did the law protect them from being beaten? No
Could they leave from the above at any point in their life by their own will? No

The rights Leroy claimed they have yet does not name did not include freedom, protection from being beaten, etc.

So his "not true" is in fact completely true and the morally-degenerate-Leroy is still lying again, attempting to change the slavery condoned in the bible for something it isn't.

leroy wrote:
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth
Exodus 21:26-27.

in other words, borrowing from last analogy, if your employer strikes you, you can go home and keep your 365USD.

And Leroy-the-slavery-apologists tries to justify slavery again but fails to make an important distinction:
It isn't if "if your employer strikes you", its "if your employer cripples you".

The difference is clear:
"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 survives after a day or two, since the slave is their property".
Exodus 21:20-21
Not to be punished, it isn't clearer than that. At least, it is for the rest of us, Leroy-the-moronic-slavery-apologist:
If your employer strikes you, you do not get to go home and he isn't to be punished as the slave is their property.

Plus, since Leroy-the-lying-slavery-apologist quoted Exodus 21:26-27, let's keep going up to it with 21:22-25:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise".

Let's repeat this:
"life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"

But if you're a slave and you lose your eye or tooth, it isn't "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", it's as Leroy-the-slavery-apologist put it, "you can go home and keep your 365USD":
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of another man, he will lose his own eye
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of his slave, the slave will be freed, the slavemaster's only loss being his monetary investment, not his own eye.
So there we have it, showing once more there was a different set of rule for slaves than for Israëlites. Perhaps we should thank Leroy-the-slavery-apologist for bringing this up.

leroy wrote:what am I suppose to prove,? it is always better to have 2 option that just 1 option. If there where other 100 options you where free to choose from any of those 100 alternatives, selling yourself was just an other option. It is always better to have an additional option.

By this logic, "Living happily" isn't better than "living happily or living horribly as slave" because "it is always better to have an additional option".

That is some completely stupid logic to try to make excuses for slavery but not unexpected from a slavery apologist. So it still fails completely to prove that "being a slave is the better option", even in a fantasy world that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist describe where Israëlites owned people as property because it was their bestest choice.

So pages of comments in, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist is still trying to invent a different slavery than the one condoned in the bible and yet, still cannot demonstrate that his fantasy-version of slavery within his fantasy world is morally acceptable.

There is no depths that a slavery-apologist will not go to once his morality has degenerated so because of his fanatical beliefs.[/quote]




all that is very interesting, but why did you ignore my question


is the employer doing something morally wrong?

(remember my example where you are a servant who earns $1 a day)

what I am trying to show is that there are at least some possible scenarios where owning someone is not morally wrong. At least in this hypothetical case the master is doing his servant a favor
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:23 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:all that is very interesting, but why did you ignore my question

is the employer doing something morally wrong?

(remember my example where you are a servant who earns $1 a day)

what I am trying to show is that there are at least some possible scenarios where owning someone is not morally wrong. At least in this hypothetical case the master is doing his servant a favor

Well, isn't this typical of Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist? He runs away from everything inconvenient to go back to his game.

Is the not-the-slavery-condoned-in-the-bible-scenario morally wrong?
It isn't morally equivalent.

Hence why Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist ran.

Why can't Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist ask if the actual slavery condoned in the bible is morally wrong?

I can say it is wrong. Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist will not. Hence why he will continue to run.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:30 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:Well, isn't this typical of Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist? He runs away from everything inconvenient to go back to his game.

Is the not-the-slavery-condoned-in-the-bible-scenario morally wrong?
It isn't morally equivalent.

Hence why Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist ran.

Why can't Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist ask if the actual slavery condoned in the bible is morally wrong?

I can say it is wrong. Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist will not. Hence why he will continue to run.


MarsCydonia forgot to answer to my question, what a surprise.

MarsCydonia wrote:hy can't Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist ask if the actual slavery condoned in the bible is morally wrong?.


how many times do I have to repeat this, I admit that I personally believe that slavery as described in the bible is morally wrong, I personally admit that those versas are hard and that I don't like them, I even argue that one should be skeptical about the divinity of the bible because of those verses.


All I am sayin is that there are "what if" scenarios that would rencille the divinity of the bible with those verses.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:44 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:MarsCydonia forgot to answer to my question, what a surprise.
Leroy-the-slavery-apologist pretends that his question wasn't answered because it isn't the type of answer he wants in his little game. Quelle surprise.

I'll repeat my answer here for the Leroy-minded:
Is pretend scenario has nothing to do with the slavery condoned in the bible. When we're not talking about owning people as property and removal of rights as they're now property, we're not even talking about slavery. Why can't Leroy-the-slavery-apologist ask about the slavery condoned in the bible instead of his fantasy unequivalent scenarios?

That was and still is my answer.

leroy wrote:how many times do I have to repeat this, I admit that I personally believe that slavery as described in the bible is morally wrong, I personally admit that those versas are hard and that I don't like them, I even argue that one should be skeptical about the divinity of the bible because of those verses.

Look at that, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist may not realize there is a difference between "I personally do not like the verses about slavery" and "slavery is morally wrong" but he may be getting closer to figuring it out.

Of course, we've had the above argument above and Leroy-the-slavery-apologist never did quite support why someone ought to be skeptical of the divinity of the bible because he personally, in his opinion, does not like some verses.

leroy wrote:All I am sayin is that there are "what if" scenarios that would rencille the divinity of the bible with those verses

Apparently, the nonsensical scenarios and attempts to change what slavery is by Leroy-the-slavery-apologist are attempts to change the verses from something he personally does not like into something he personally does like (since the divinity of the bible is based on Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's opinion).

Too bad his nonsensical scenarios where the Israëlites had no other choice but to be slavemasters are nonsense and his attempt to redefine slavery never change what is actually condoned in the bible.

And they won't make slavery morally right either, they'll just make Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's fanatical devotion to his beliefs all the more obvious
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:44 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:Of course, we've had the above argument above and Leroy-the-slavery-apologist never did quite support why someone ought to be skeptical of the divinity of the bible because he personally, in his opinion, does not like some verses.


No, skepticism is not justified because I personally don't like those verses. An atheist could argue as follows

1 If the bible is divine it wouldn't condone things that are morally wrong

2 slavery is morally wrong

3 the bible condones slavery


therefore the bible is not divine


If an atheist makes this argument I would admit that he is making a valid argument, because the premises seem more likely to be true than false.

the premises are not certainly true, but they are probably true, this is why I have no problem in admitting that this is a valid argument.



but of course, if I where to use MarsCydonian´s tactics I can adopt a position of eternal skepticism, ignore any argument for the truth of the premises and repeat over and over again, that there is no evidence for none of the premises.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:48 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:No, skepticism is not justified because I personally don't like those verses. An atheist could argue as follows

1 If the bible is divine it wouldn't condone things that are morally wrong
2 slavery is morally wrong
3 the bible condones slavery

therefore the bible is not divine

I'd like to point out that P1 is false right of the bat, and I have not seen anyone claim that here. The correct P1 is "If the Bible is the divine will of an omnibenevolent god, it wouldn't condone things that are morally wrong". Conclusion would be (and is) that the Bible can not be the divine will of an omnibenevolent god.
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:52 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:are moral truths, true independently of opinions? that is what I mean.

I do not accept the idea of "moral truths" since I do not accept the idea of superhuman objective moral values. That being said I noted before that we can derive moral values without being limited by personal opinions. Even the opinion of your God. I said that we can derive moral values independently from our opinions with the use of logic and reason.

for example to say that it is wrong to torture a child for fun

is that objectively true? in the same way it is objectively true that 1 x 2 = 2

or is it just an opinion (a nearly universal opinion if you what) like chocolate smells better than trash.

I thought this was about slavery?

Anyways as I have explained things can be shown to be morally wrong with logic and reason when the personal and societal harm outweighs the benefits. In the latter definition of objective moral values I wrote slavery is objectively wrong and not just an opinion. I freely admit that in many questions we might not have a clear answer on this matter, as proved by the need to discuss ethics over millenia.

Now if you can give a basis on how we can logically and rationally derive that chocolate smells better than trash we can have a conversation if smells are objective (in non personal way).
Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:29 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:I thought this was about slavery?



Buy one apologetics for slavery, get tortured kids for free.

And to think - the only thing holding LEROY back from engaging in these is a single book... which happens to contain both slavery and child torture!

I wonder as people depart Christianity whether only the deranged sociopaths will be left.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:23 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Sparhafoc wrote:
Visaki wrote:I thought this was about slavery?

Buy one apologetics for slavery, get tortured kids for free.

Well to be honest Bible does suggest that torturing kids for fun is alright as long as that kid is a slave and as long as you don't put out an eye or knock out a tooth (in which case you need to set the slave kid free).

Come think of it Bible gives clear instructions on how to be a totally good person... as a child kidnapping, enslaving and raping pedophile.
Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:36 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:
leroy wrote:are moral truths, true independently of opinions? that is what I mean.

I do not accept the idea of "moral truths" since I do not accept the idea of superhuman objective moral values. That being said I noted before that we can derive moral values without being limited by personal opinions. Even the opinion of your God. I said that we can derive moral values independently from our opinions with the use of logic and reason.

for example to say that it is wrong to torture a child for fun

is that objectively true? in the same way it is objectively true that 1 x 2 = 2

or is it just an opinion (a nearly universal opinion if you what) like chocolate smells better than trash.

I thought this was about slavery?

Anyways as I have explained things can be shown to be morally wrong with logic and reason when the personal and societal harm outweighs the benefits. In the latter definition of objective moral values I wrote slavery is objectively wrong and not just an opinion. I freely admit that in many questions we might not have a clear answer on this matter, as proved by the need to discuss ethics over millenia.

Now if you can give a basis on how we can logically and rationally derive that chocolate smells better than trash we can have a conversation if smells are objective (in non personal way).




well then granted, if we grant that moral values are objectively real then I admit that you can make a valid argument against the divinity of the bible on the basis of slavery.


the thing is that many atheist don't like to grant OMV because by doing so they have to admit 2 things

1 premise 2 in the moral argument would have to be granted

2 Many atheist claim to be verificationist, but you cant prove the existence of OMV empirically, so by granting OMV you are granting that at least sometimes you accept things without empirical evidence. Therefore by granting OMV you are rejecting verificationism

Verificationism,

also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behavior, but not in terms of truth value, information or factual content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:Come think of it Bible gives clear instructions on how to be a totally good person... as a child kidnapping, enslaving and raping pedophile.



Good old objective morality - where inhuman depravity is good for all eternity.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:45 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 203Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

LEROY, you do understand that saying; "Moral values are objectively real" is not the same as saying; "Objective moral values are real", right?
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:10 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:When did I ever imply that morals were objectively true? Do you not remember when I answered with this


yes that is exactly why I am asking the question, the article that you quoted affirms that moral values are real in the same way earths orbit or a hammer are real. they exist independently of any opinion.

but you also seem to deny that OMV are real,

so which one is it?


My mistake.

Richard Carrier wrote:Once you decide on a goal, which is a subjective decision about what matters (what you want to accomplish), then what will best accomplish that goal becomes an objective true fact of the universe. Likewise what does so merely better than something else; since rarely do we discover the best way to do something right out of the gate. Progress objectively exists, as we come up with better and better tools for achieving our chosen goals. But the tools we are inventing to achieve our goals, are still just stuff we are making up. They didn’t actually exist until we invented them.


I do agree with this.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:31 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Hey HWIN I dont think you ever answered this question; What would have happened to slaves in this region if they were not allowed to be slaves anymore?

Does anyone want to answer this?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:42 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 20 of 24
 [ 463 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests