Shane Egan:
So, those very Christian people, including many founding fathers, who owned slaves - as endorsed in the Bible - were doing good? Owning people as property forever, is good, being OK to beat them as long as they don't die in a few days, is good?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Why don't you tell us why it is not good and what authority you use to justify that belief?
25 comments
"Why don't you tell us why it is not good..."
Because owning people as property infringes on their rights and is harmful to them in multiple ways.
"...what authority you use to justify that belief?"
My own. And common sense. Empathy for other people. The realization that all people have rights. The desire to not be enslaved myself.
Take your pick. The fact that you need any of this explained to you is very sad.
Are ... are you justifying slavery, Royce? You know that automatically makes you the antagonist, right? I do hope you are at least squeamish about the idea; otherwise, please, please kindly fuck off and go somewhere else.
Religious frummery is worse than mental illness!
I'm mentally ill and I respect those who are mentally ill as people.
Frummery is an even worse mind-disease!
It's bad because it violates the rights of other human beings.
The authority is the Golden Rule and the UN Human Rights Council.
If you're OK with owning people, are you OK with others owning you?
Or, is it only good when you do it?
You don't need "authority". You need empathy. I don't want to be a slave and don't want to be beaten. It isn't a huge jump to realize that other people feel the same.
Just try, Royce, to be a decent human being without looking for a bible reference for that.
Dafuq? Royce, are you really justifying slavery? Wether it's out of malice or just sheer stupidity, if you honestly can't tell slavery is bad without some thousand year old book telling you, there is something seriously wrong with your morals.
And then you people have the audacity to claim we atheists are immoral. Go f*ck yourself.
As many Atheist spokesmen and program hosts have expressed.
Slavery is one of those big issues where societal morals ARE BETTER than Biblical ones. It alone should shut down the bullshit of W,L, Craig, Sye Ten, Hovind or Comforts "where do you get your morals, how would we have a common good belief?" or any claim that the freedoms, rights and general well being of the Western world owes anything to any church or Holy Book.
Honestly. Half of Apologetics boils down to "You just need to ignore much of what the most amazing, truthful book ever says." That's how they do it anyway, missing the point that I or anyone can choose to ignore other parts then, or indeed, the whole damn convoluted mess.
Ah, yes, the classic "You cannot ever justify your morals and unless there's a higher power behind it that agrees with you. Oh, and it has to be my higher power we're talking about, that I can arbitrary redefine at a moment's notice to support whatever I want, and oppose whoever I want."
Ah, no no, dear commentariat. That's not what he was going for. That's bait. He's waiting for you to bring up empathy and the golden rule, etc., so that he can then say, and how is it that you have these things if not for god who has endowed you with them, because obviously all morality stems from god, foolish heathen. This is a classic fundie segue to arguing that their god is why we have rules and rights and civil conduct.
It also serves double-duty to lead one away from the original topic, so that the basic contradiction of god gave us slavery AND moral judgment to oppose slavery is glossed over.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.