Dear Atheists,
If you are so smart? How ‘come you are so dumb? And racist?
Two atheist groups now believe they made a mistake with a controversial billboard attacking the Bible.The Pennsylvania sign, which was first vandalized and then taken down, bore a verse from Colossians 3:22: “Slaves, obey your masters.”
While intended as a message against Keystone State legislators who designated 2012 as the “Year of the Bible,” many felt the sign — which also featured a shackled black man — were racist.
The billboard, created and financed by the American Atheists and the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, went up on Tuesday.
The vandals attacked the sign a day later, and it was gone from an intersection in Harrisburg, Pa., about 24 hours after first appearing.
“I want to say that I’m truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard,” said Pennsylvania Nonbelievers president Brian Fields.
Sorry we misunderstood it? How about sorry you completely misunderstand the bible and in your rush to show how smart you are, all you proved is how dumb you are. But no worries, I am sure natural selection and birth control will rid us of your ilk soon enough.
March 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm
"An all-powerful God is not logically consistent."
So you would agree that if you had the power to make instant coffee, you were always making instant coffee or if you have the power to throw a baseball, then you are always throwing a baseball?
How do you differentiate capacity from action? Do you believe in free will at all? If so, why?
You don't believe the 13th amendment allows criminal bondage?
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…"
You realize the drafters realized prison inmates were technically slaves and that is why they drafted the amendment thusly. To argue otherwise is simply playing semantic games. Incarceration is simply criminal bondage and it is practiced in the US more than any other country in the world.
"Of course not. Owning another human being as property is morally reprehensible."
Why? So far you have made only a naked assertion and an appeal to your conscious. There are about 7 billion consciouses in the world. Why is yours better than everyone else's conscious that might differ? (and millions, if not billions, currently do)
"I suppose, but I'd want to see the scholarly research on the topic. I also fail to see how that's relevant, given that I was asking about taking slaves as spoils of war."
I'm glad you admit Biblical slavery could potentially improve the lives of millions. It's relevant because you asked "So there exist circumstances under which slavery is okay?" Since you agree there may be incidents in which it may be okay, I am not sure why you asked that question in the first place. The "spoils of war" aspect comes from the fact that the edicts were written in the midst of heavy tribal fighting for Israel's survival as a nation and a people. To hold a group of sworn enemies to your people within your midst causes a necessary security hazard. The most obvious options were to 1) kill them; 2) indefinite internment in some sort of concentration camp; or 3) use as slaves under specific moral guidelines. These conditions were hardly property as you described and slaves received much better treatment than most likely any other neighboring tribe would have offered.
"I didn't claim there was no good or evil. I fail to see how slavery is justifiable under any circumstances."
Ah, then what if my conscious or my culture says chattel slavery is ok? At some point, nearly all cultures have said slavery of various strains was justifiable. Do you oppose their view just because your conscious is different? Why does your conscious have the right to supercede another's conscious or what another culture believes to be right? The only metric of good and evil you have proposed is your conscious. Unless we have access to your conscious at all times, how is society to know good from evil?
March 14, 2012 at 8:33 pm
"So you would agree that if you had the power to make instant coffee, you were always making instant coffee or if you have the power to throw a baseball, then you are always throwing a baseball?"
What does that have to do with God ordering his followers to take slaves?
"You realize the drafters realized prison inmates were technically slaves and that is why they drafted the amendment thusly."
Seriously? You're comparing people being taken as spoils of war with criminals being punished for their crimes? That position implies that the latter is as acceptable as the former, which is pretty disgusting.
"There are about 7 billion consciouses in the world. Why is yours better than everyone else's conscious that might differ? "
You're suggesting that there's disagreement about the moral bankruptcy of slavery among the world's population?
"I'm glad you admit Biblical slavery could potentially improve the lives of millions"
I never said that. I said I wanted to see the scholarly research. Until you can cite a reliable source, I don't believe you at all.
"Since you agree there may be incidents in which it may be okay, I am not sure why you asked that question in the first place"
Again, I do not agree with your position on the benefits of being a slave.
"These conditions were hardly property as you described and slaves received much better treatment than most likely any other neighboring tribe would have offered"
Could they leave voluntarily? No? Then they were property.
"Ah, then what if my conscious or my culture says chattel slavery is ok?"
Your conscience clearly does say that, since you're continuing to defend the practice. I would say that you're a horrible human being and that the ideology that you espouse is morally reprehensible.
I have had this conversation many times, and in every single case, Christians say slavery was okay under the circumstances. Thank you for adding your voice to the chorus. I'll be sure and cite your view the next time some tries to convince me of the superiority of the Bible's "absolute morality."
March 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm
"What does that have to do with God ordering his followers to take slaves?"
Do you have an answer for my question? You asked "So slavery was okay at the time because God couldn't talk humanity out of it? So much for all-powerful." If you now admit that wasn't a very good question or shows ignorance for an orthodox Christian concept of God, then I agree with you.
"Seriously? You're comparing people being taken as spoils of war with criminals being punished for their crimes? That position implies that the latter is as acceptable as the former, which is pretty disgusting."
You realize you just stated "Could they leave voluntarily? No? Then they were property." Can those in criminal bondage leave voluntarily? Are they then property under your definition? What about POWs in modern warfare? Are they free to leave? You realize many of the slaves taken from pagan countries practiced child sacrifice. Is that not criminal?
"You're suggesting that there's disagreement about the moral bankruptcy of slavery among the world's population?"
According to the UN, there is 27 millions slaves in the world today. Apparently someone disagrees with your views on slavery. http://www.smfcdn.com/assets/pubs/un_chronicle.pdf Again, other that your conscious, why is slavery wrong? If it solely based on your conscious, why does your conscious beat out the counsciouses of the slaveholders of 27 million people? This is a serious question, think about it.
"I never said that. I said I wanted to see the scholarly research. Until you can cite a reliable source, I don't believe you at all."
I said "Could debt slavery as practiced in the Old Testament provide a marked improvement in the quality of life for millions living in the 3rd world?" To which you responded, "I suppose, but I'd want to see the scholarly research on the topic." I understand the first part of your answer, the second part was a cop-out. It's like saying "could a humanitarian supply of food assist earthquake victims?" and your response was "I suppose, but I'd want to see the scholarly research on it." Really?
"Your conscience clearly does say that, since you're continuing to defend the practice. I would say that you're a horrible human being and that the ideology that you espouse is morally reprehensible."
Oh dear, more histrionics. I said only that the practice of slavery, as practiced under the moral guidelines provided in the Old Testament, was a reasonable stopgap measure for that place and time. Again, why is my ideology morally reprehensible? Are you going to provide any basis other than your subjective conscious for this statement?
"I have had this conversation many times, and in every single case, Christians say slavery was okay under the circumstances. Thank you for adding your voice to the chorus. I'll be sure and cite your view the next time some tries to convince me of the superiority of the Bible's "absolute morality.""
Yes, slavery as practiced by Israel in that time and place was moral. Slavery under all its manifestations is not moral and slavery as practiced under Old Testament morality would probably not be moral if practiced in the modern Western world. As you "supposed", it may be beneficial to those living under abject poverty in 3rd World countries, if practiced with the moral precepts handed down.
You clearly agree that slavery, per your definition, ("Could they leave voluntarily?") is practiced in some form in every country in the world today. You also supposedly agree that under certain circumstances it could be beneficial ("Could debt slavery as practiced in the Old Testament provide a marked improvement in the quality of life for millions living in the 3rd world? I suppose, but I'd want to see the scholarly research on the topic.")