What makes me maddest about theists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 07:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but I appreciate his words and his actions. I trust a lot of what he wrote as truth, encouragement, and even moral guidance. I've never met Jesus Christ, but ditto. The evidence that both people existed in the past includes documentary evidence. With Lincoln we have added forensic evidence, but Lincoln's exhumed remains wouldn't prove he said what he said and lived as he did.

Biblical slavery isn't the same as the kind of slavery we saw in the Americas. A bondservant or indentured servant isn't the same in the scriptures as the slave who in the Americas was dehumanized and called property and not a person. Regarding morality in general or in the specifics, however, there is a real issue here at TTA. When I hear me talking about slavery, I speak from a conscience informed by the scriptures and by personal experience, and personal choice. When I hear a skeptic say things like "C'mon, we all know slavery is wrong," I know that other humans who are irreligious think slavery is fine. I don't want to godwin this thread nor shift the goalposts, but I do feel like telling you that I can find no perceptible difference between you, me and a Nazi, other than personal choices made. My personal choices are to follow the biblical codes for morality as best I may. If you follow a skeptic's moral code, you may have been influenced by others whom you allowed to exert influence over you, same as I have, but you and me and the Nazi all have that.

This claim of their difference that goes around is utterly meaningless. It's a, OH it wasn't THAT bad defense which is still met with. Does that make it still just or a essence of morally right?

If that was fine, then, why isn't it fine now? There still are strong moral hatreds and legal preventions in many countries against indentured servitude even in less aggressive forms. There were corporations post slavery in the US at the 1900s labor realms that did this for some time, then that was noted for being just as bad. You don't see Pullman towns being morally defended because that is indentured servitude that is as morally corrupt.

Also when you have rights to men and are allowed to beat them and if it doesn't kill them in a week it's an nonpunishable action against you, you aren't on some moral position. Also marking men by piercing their ear to make them marked as your slave. Also you can make nazi analogies all you want, but you're in a dense spot to do so as they also had strong biblical reasons for their actions that influenced them. Their actions don't line up with how you interpret it and sure you think you have it perfect, but break your spell and view things more wisely sometimes. A better example would be the Stalinists.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 07:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but I appreciate his words and his actions. I trust a lot of what he wrote as truth, encouragement, and even moral guidance. I've never met Jesus Christ, but ditto. The evidence that both people existed in the past includes documentary evidence. With Lincoln we have added forensic evidence, but Lincoln's exhumed remains wouldn't prove he said what he said and lived as he did.

Biblical slavery isn't the same as the kind of slavery we saw in the Americas. A bondservant or indentured servant isn't the same in the scriptures as the slave who in the Americas was dehumanized and called property and not a person. Regarding morality in general or in the specifics, however, there is a real issue here at TTA. When I hear me talking about slavery, I speak from a conscience informed by the scriptures and by personal experience, and personal choice. When I hear a skeptic say things like "C'mon, we all know slavery is wrong," I know that other humans who are irreligious think slavery is fine. I don't want to godwin this thread nor shift the goalposts, but I do feel like telling you that I can find no perceptible difference between you, me and a Nazi, other than personal choices made. My personal choices are to follow the biblical codes for morality as best I may. If you follow a skeptic's moral code, you may have been influenced by others whom you allowed to exert influence over you, same as I have, but you and me and the Nazi all have that.

No writings of claims that Lincoln walked on water or rose from his grave, so more credence to him and none to jebus.

The tired old "biblical slavery was not the same" - are you that friggin desperate and mindwarped? Owning another person as property is is not different no matter what the time or setting you jackass. Also throwing in comparisons to Nazis and again taking shots at the moral code of skeptics makes you a dishonest weasel (again). If you really think only bible reading christains have all the scoop on morals then you lie once again.

Sorry, but I tied to talk nice for a while but your stupidity, mental condition and excuses force me to look at you for the asshole you are. This spell christianity has on you causes you to look at certain humans with a warped view, and has highjacked your own critical thinking mechanisms into uncharted terrain.

Do you ever, I mean EVER think as to why folks claim to not respect you and have so much anger towards things you say - DO YOU?!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Timber1025's post
12-05-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
Q is now exhibiting another irritating trait: self-deception.

He KNOWS the position that his religion takes is morally abhorrent. But he has to justify it in some way, so he starts by deluding himself into thinking "that can't possibly be what that means." I'm going to be blunt, yes, the text ACTUALLY MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. Don't try to justify it away, truly examine it. I've heard these same apologetics before, and am not impressed.

Adding to this the self-deception of "documentary evidence" I just get sad. What documentary evidence exists for Jesus? None really. Nothing reliable anyway. The case for his mere existence is shaky at best and I'm one of those who think he might have existed (granted not in the form found in the gospels).

Behaviours that are actively disruptive and destructive make me angry. But this stagnation just makes me sad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
13-05-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 08:17 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Moot per the scriptures. Everyone has the Spirit in some degree or they would be dead. I don't need to select 100 persons off the street, because I've worked/lived with/discipled etc. Christians and non-Christians. Christians have the fruit to a greater degree.

I'm surprised by that answer. My church's teaching would be that the holy spirit descended upon the disciples at pentecost and has been with us ever since, and that being a Christian was more or less synonymous with being filled with the holy spirit.

So the fruits of the spirit if I remember correct are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. And whenever anyone exhibits these traits whether Christian or not they are doing so under the direction of the holy spirit or are being caused in some sense to do so by the holy spirit?

Puzzle me this. My goodness, my kindness, my gentleness won't allow me to accept the god whose actions are recorded in the Bible. Nor will my fruits of the spirit allow me to accept a salvation that is closed to all but a few and is eternal torture to the remainder.

Is it the holy spirit that is preventing me from accepting God, or is it the devil whispering in my ear? Are my fruits from the holy spirit that fills everyone or are the counterfeit? How can we tell the difference?

As for the hypothesis that Christians have these fruits to a greater degree, how could we go about testing that proposition?

I've already tested that proposition. I first was intrigued about Christianity as a skeptic because of the fruit in others. I've been testing it ever since. I recommend, however, that you use a born again group and then non-born again persons as your control group.

The Bible teaches part of what your church had taught: that the Spirit since Pentecost indwells each born again believer. However, Paul adds the recommendation to be Spirit-filled daily, indicating that we need to be in prayer and in the Word, etc. and also that certain actions can quench the Spirit.

As for your objection to Hell, I think it is a reasonable, rational, honest objection and I would fault any person who is loving and kind who didn't have that objection, Christian or no. However, a reading of Luke 16 and other scriptures indicates certain things about eternal punishment:

* It doesn't resemble the medieval depiction of devils torturing sinners with pitchforks and fire (indeed, the demons are separated from humans in Hell after judgment day)

* People are able to carry on conversations and speak in normal tones of voice (they're simply not constantly screaming and wailing - Jesus said the wailing doesn't end, which means to me that the situation doesn't end whether one wails or not)

* People of both camps, heavenly and hellish, get new, imperishable bodies that last for eternity that respond differently to discomfort

* The man in Luke 16 says "gee, I'd give anything for some water, it's warm here" but is not dipped in flame, screaming, etc. - he says so as an aside while carrying on a theological conversation with Abraham!

* I conclude Hell is a place where one thirst and craves not only water in a place that is very humid, warm, and lonely - it's a dark place where one is alone

19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell[d] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 08:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 07:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but I appreciate his words and his actions. I trust a lot of what he wrote as truth, encouragement, and even moral guidance. I've never met Jesus Christ, but ditto. The evidence that both people existed in the past includes documentary evidence. With Lincoln we have added forensic evidence, but Lincoln's exhumed remains wouldn't prove he said what he said and lived as he did.

Biblical slavery isn't the same as the kind of slavery we saw in the Americas. A bondservant or indentured servant isn't the same in the scriptures as the slave who in the Americas was dehumanized and called property and not a person. Regarding morality in general or in the specifics, however, there is a real issue here at TTA. When I hear me talking about slavery, I speak from a conscience informed by the scriptures and by personal experience, and personal choice. When I hear a skeptic say things like "C'mon, we all know slavery is wrong," I know that other humans who are irreligious think slavery is fine. I don't want to godwin this thread nor shift the goalposts, but I do feel like telling you that I can find no perceptible difference between you, me and a Nazi, other than personal choices made. My personal choices are to follow the biblical codes for morality as best I may. If you follow a skeptic's moral code, you may have been influenced by others whom you allowed to exert influence over you, same as I have, but you and me and the Nazi all have that.

This claim of their difference that goes around is utterly meaningless. It's a, OH it wasn't THAT bad defense which is still met with. Does that make it still just or a essence of morally right?

If that was fine, then, why isn't it fine now? There still are strong moral hatreds and legal preventions in many countries against indentured servitude even in less aggressive forms. There were corporations post slavery in the US at the 1900s labor realms that did this for some time, then that was noted for being just as bad. You don't see Pullman towns being morally defended because that is indentured servitude that is as morally corrupt.

Also when you have rights to men and are allowed to beat them and if it doesn't kill them in a week it's an nonpunishable action against you, you aren't on some moral position. Also marking men by piercing their ear to make them marked as your slave. Also you can make nazi analogies all you want, but you're in a dense spot to do so as they also had strong biblical reasons for their actions that influenced them. Their actions don't line up with how you interpret it and sure you think you have it perfect, but break your spell and view things more wisely sometimes. A better example would be the Stalinists.

I've been concerned in the past about the slave-beating-if-they-live thing. The property owner was losing income by beating an indentured servant, they'd be stupid to do it. However, they could do it, sure. Of course, since this is indentured servitude we're talking about the slave could beat the master to a pulp, too - it would depend on which person jumped the other from behind. Smile There are no whips, no chains, no ships taking people from Africa to the Americas, etc.

Someone did a table of Bible laws demonstrating that there were more laws set against the servants' master than others. In other words, the laws in the Bible were tougher on the masters than the servants.

Also do understand the definition. When you tell your children, "You can't go to the movies until you've cleaned your room," you are setting up conditions of employment and then releasing them from indentured labor. In the Bible, so much different than slavery in the Americas, it says specifically things like "if a servant gets married, when he is freed from the term of his labor, the wife goes with him and his children and etc." A lot of people, Christians included, are "down" on the Bible laws, but if you think of them more like a bill of rights, the differences between biblical servitude agreements and American slavery are made more clear.

Did Paul tell servants to obey their masters in the context of not only Jewish bondservants but Roman slavery? Sure. I can go with that. Would you prefer he said, "rise up and kill them all"? A simple thought process informs us that he was telling slaves to behave in a Christian manner as a witness to their masters. And with so many in Roman slavery and the prevailing conditions, even Roman slavery wasn't the American/British variety. Remember, an indentured servant in a feudal land system had mutual responsibilities. Serfs and masters did commerce/trade/protection, etc.

The apostles didn't run for office, buy offices or protest gay marriage, abortion, slavery, etc. The social gospel wasn't their calling.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 08:44 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 07:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but I appreciate his words and his actions. I trust a lot of what he wrote as truth, encouragement, and even moral guidance. I've never met Jesus Christ, but ditto. The evidence that both people existed in the past includes documentary evidence. With Lincoln we have added forensic evidence, but Lincoln's exhumed remains wouldn't prove he said what he said and lived as he did.

Biblical slavery isn't the same as the kind of slavery we saw in the Americas. A bondservant or indentured servant isn't the same in the scriptures as the slave who in the Americas was dehumanized and called property and not a person. Regarding morality in general or in the specifics, however, there is a real issue here at TTA. When I hear me talking about slavery, I speak from a conscience informed by the scriptures and by personal experience, and personal choice. When I hear a skeptic say things like "C'mon, we all know slavery is wrong," I know that other humans who are irreligious think slavery is fine. I don't want to godwin this thread nor shift the goalposts, but I do feel like telling you that I can find no perceptible difference between you, me and a Nazi, other than personal choices made. My personal choices are to follow the biblical codes for morality as best I may. If you follow a skeptic's moral code, you may have been influenced by others whom you allowed to exert influence over you, same as I have, but you and me and the Nazi all have that.

No writings of claims that Lincoln walked on water or rose from his grave, so more credence to him and none to jebus.

The tired old "biblical slavery was not the same" - are you that friggin desperate and mindwarped? Owning another person as property is is not different no matter what the time or setting you jackass. Also throwing in comparisons to Nazis and again taking shots at the moral code of skeptics makes you a dishonest weasel (again). If you really think only bible reading christains have all the scoop on morals then you lie once again.

Sorry, but I tied to talk nice for a while but your stupidity, mental condition and excuses force me to look at you for the asshole you are. This spell christianity has on you causes you to look at certain humans with a warped view, and has highjacked your own critical thinking mechanisms into uncharted terrain.

Do you ever, I mean EVER think as to why folks claim to not respect you and have so much anger towards things you say - DO YOU?!

But indentured servitude is not owning a person. It is a mutual agreement for mutual benefit. A number of commentators have noted that a servant in Israel could even end their contract early and just walk out the door--and then they were looking for a farm to work or land and etc.

Understand that when you say you want to give further credence to Lincoln for not performing miracles, you are strengthening my position - that past figures are regarded as authentic because of documentary evidence.

And, I'm not looking to upset you further, you've already been clear that you feel I'm upsetting you, but I may I point out respectfully your contradiction? When you mention the absence of miracles, I'd respond that miracles are uncommon, but how would you know that they can never have occurred unless you already know that naturalism/atheism is true? Share with me your proof for naturalism. Without that, your rejection of miracles is totally circular.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(12-05-2015 08:27 PM)natachan Wrote:  Q is now exhibiting another irritating trait: self-deception.

He KNOWS the position that his religion takes is morally abhorrent. But he has to justify it in some way, so he starts by deluding himself into thinking "that can't possibly be what that means." I'm going to be blunt, yes, the text ACTUALLY MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. Don't try to justify it away, truly examine it. I've heard these same apologetics before, and am not impressed.

Adding to this the self-deception of "documentary evidence" I just get sad. What documentary evidence exists for Jesus? None really. Nothing reliable anyway. The case for his mere existence is shaky at best and I'm one of those who think he might have existed (granted not in the form found in the gospels).

Behaviours that are actively disruptive and destructive make me angry. But this stagnation just makes me sad.

I don't know that I have such a confirmatory bias that every time I see something objectionable in the scripture I think "That can't be right." I say that because my bias is more like "God, I know your character and love, help me understand this better." Smile

Having said that, I usually hit Google and elsewhere pretty hard to see what's what. Today, I spent an hour revisiting the issues of C14 and radiometric dating, looking at Christian objections and creationist sites, and then also reading pages like "Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating" from a site "dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution and climate science": http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creat...-14-dating

I care deeply about slavery, still, since while having been abolished in the U.S. it is in force in many places. I have Christian friends and acquaintances who took degrees in subjects like international law to fight against white slavery and the sex trade overseas for a living...

...The Bible says more than "have slaves". It has rules for indentured servitude. An American can have servants today, a butler, a maid, a farmhand. There were people living and dying including helpers and partial families and they had real Bible rules for maids and farmhands and midwives and etc. They are good, decent rules.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 09:56 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2015 06:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
The utter lack of any semblance to original thought and the ensuing tedium.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-05-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(13-05-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But indentured servitude is not owning a person. It is a mutual agreement for mutual benefit.

Oh. Oh, are you really going to make me do this? Are you seriously going to stick to this line, knowing it takes maybe a minute to prove wrong? Okay...

Leviticus 25: 44-46 Wrote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.

Honestly Q, I can't believe you thought that claim would stand. Are you really that stupid?

I think you might actually be, because you lie again in an earlier post in an even more breathtaking way, by actually misquoting your own bible:

Quote:Also do understand the definition. When you tell your children, "You can't go to the movies until you've cleaned your room," you are setting up conditions of employment and then releasing them from indentured labor. In the Bible, so much different than slavery in the Americas, it says specifically things like "if a servant gets married, when he is freed from the term of his labor, the wife goes with him and his children and etc." A lot of people, Christians included, are "down" on the Bible laws, but if you think of them more like a bill of rights, the differences between biblical servitude agreements and American slavery are made more clear.

The bolded part is particularly funny, since actually the bible "specifically says" literally the exact opposite of what you claimed it says.

Exodus 21: 2-6 Wrote:But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

If a slave gets married, his wife and children do not go with him, they "belong" to his master, which is an odd choice of wording, given your earlier claim that slaves totally did not belong to their masters. So your quote is one hundred percent wrong, but more importantly, this verse is part of a larger passage detailing how to trick one of these "indentured servants" (the real kind, the slaves of Israel, rather than the for realsies actual slaves that one could procure of other tribes) into being a slave forever by giving him emotional attachments that must stay with his master once his time in servitude was up, ending in "after that, the slave will belong to his master forever."

Seriously, your entire apologetic is lazy, dishonest deflection that literally has to misrepresent the unambiguous, black and white words of the text. It's lies. Nothing but lies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
13-05-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(13-05-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 08:44 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  No writings of claims that Lincoln walked on water or rose from his grave, so more credence to him and none to jebus.

The tired old "biblical slavery was not the same" - are you that friggin desperate and mindwarped? Owning another person as property is is not different no matter what the time or setting you jackass. Also throwing in comparisons to Nazis and again taking shots at the moral code of skeptics makes you a dishonest weasel (again). If you really think only bible reading christains have all the scoop on morals then you lie once again.

Sorry, but I tied to talk nice for a while but your stupidity, mental condition and excuses force me to look at you for the asshole you are. This spell christianity has on you causes you to look at certain humans with a warped view, and has highjacked your own critical thinking mechanisms into uncharted terrain.

Do you ever, I mean EVER think as to why folks claim to not respect you and have so much anger towards things you say - DO YOU?!

But indentured servitude is not owning a person. It is a mutual agreement for mutual benefit. A number of commentators have noted that a servant in Israel could even end their contract early and just walk out the door--and then they were looking for a farm to work or land and etc.

Understand that when you say you want to give further credence to Lincoln for not performing miracles, you are strengthening my position - that past figures are regarded as authentic because of documentary evidence.

And, I'm not looking to upset you further, you've already been clear that you feel I'm upsetting you, but I may I point out respectfully your contradiction? When you mention the absence of miracles, I'd respond that miracles are uncommon, but how would you know that they can never have occurred unless you already know that naturalism/atheism is true? Share with me your proof for naturalism. Without that, your rejection of miracles is totally circular.

Indentured servitude is your attempt at dodging the issue. "Slaves" and "property" are mentioned throughout scriptures, not "servitude" you poor deluded liar.

Documentary evidence is not what I am stressing here. The fact that a jesus person could have existed does not matter since the claims about his divinty and miracles make the whole thing suspect. Only gullibility and wishfull thinking cause a person to accept this.

And yes, miracles are uncommon because they do not happen. We all know that miraculous claims (past or present) require evidence or observable precedents in order to entertain whether they could have happened. You are a big boy, so understand that humans cannot do those things, and they must be discounted as true.

Once again Q, why is it so damn hard to just admit what is in your holy scriptures? You can still believe all the magic you want, but show some honesty and concede what is in black and white. Using reason will not hurt I promise. Servitude - you can do better Q!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: