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 17 of 24
 [ 463 posts ] 
Slavery in the bible discussion thread
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: 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:
How can I be wrong when:

[...]

That is divine command in a nutshell. t.


yes that is divine command in a nutshell, so what? what is your point?


What could my point be? If I only wrote it out for you.

leroy wrote:

In addition, divine command is not objective since the morals are based on the subjective whims of the law giver. Unless, the law giver is getting those from outside itself, but that would render the law giver redundan


Oh look, I did write it out for you and you quoted it. If only you read for comprehension...

:facepalm:

leroy wrote:

In addition, divine command is not objective since the morals are based on the subjective whims of the law giver. Unless, the law giver is getting those from outside itself, but that would render the law giver redundan


that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.


:docpalm:

I use the proper definition for "objective" and dandan/leroy accuses me of playing semantics? How pathetic.

As already said in this thread:

Sparhafoc wrote:Errrr.... ironic, LEROY.

That's what you do.

Quick reality check.

Between LEROY and Sparhafoc, who's native language is English?

Oh wait, yes it's me.

As such, you do not get to dictate the meaning of words in my fucking language. Get over yourself already.


Dandan/Leroy, stop projecting your faults onto others. Your mistakes are your alone.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:36 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2521Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

And it would have been a bit more compelling if I hadn't fucking written 'who's' instead of 'whose'!! :? :oops: :oops: :lol:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:11 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Sparhafoc wrote:And it would have been a bit more compelling if I hadn't fucking written 'who's' instead of 'whose'!! :? :oops: :oops: :lol:


You were talking to dandan/leroy, it is not like he would notice.

;)
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:45 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.


:docpalm:

I use the proper definition for "objective" and dandan/leroy accuses me of playing semantics? How pathetic.

So to recap:
- Leroy's ever-expanding "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." are/is not free but constrained and bound.
- Leroy's transcendent" is not transcendent but natural and wordly.
- Leroy's objective moral values" are not objective but subjective.
- Yet Leroy-the-slavery-apologist always complain about semantics despite using words with opposite meanings...

Christian apologists come in different classes but Leroy-the-slavery-apologist may be in a class of his own.
"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
Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:05 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

@MarsCydonia Could you please take a look in your inbox ? Take care !
Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:39 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody wrote:What could my point be? If I only wrote it out for you.


Sure granted, divine command is not what you would personally define as objective.

I have no idea what you personally mean by objective, but sure I trust you and I grant that your own personal understanding would not include divine command.




I use the proper definition for "objective" and dandan/leroy accuses me of playing semantics? How pathetice




To paly semantics means that you are making a big deal out of definitions and words, instead of focusing on the argument.

For example the claim is that OMV exist independently of human opinion, whether if you what to call this Objective morality or give it an other name is irrelevant.

Besides I am not using the term objective in any unusual way, objective in most contexts is defined as independent from human opinion, I am not using any wild definition.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:18 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

To get back on topic:
Have the slavery-apologists given up on making the slavery condoned in the bible different from it actually is?
"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
Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:14 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:To get back on topic:
Have the slavery-apologists given up on making the slavery condoned in the bible different from it actually is?

And now we'll start round 2 of the arguments on how Biblical slavery was not really slavery at all which are exactly the arguments as in round 1.

Really, how hard it is to say that owning another person as property is wrong? Pretty hard it seems. The western world has been clear on this moral question only for what? 150 years or so? Sure that is a short time compared to some other moral scenarios but one would think that it had got to them by now.
Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:07 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:Really, how hard it is to say that owning another person as property is wrong? Pretty hard it seems. The western world has been clear on this moral question only for what? 150 years or so? Sure that is a short time compared to some other moral scenarios but one would think that it had got to them by now.

They don't appear to be able to. They must say slavery is morally acceptable by default because of their beliefs demand it.

Which is kind of obvious as their reason for doing so: if they actually believed slavery as condoned in the bible was morally ok they would simply come out and say it and not try these thousand-and-one excuses to change it from what it actually is into something more palatable to their taste.

Hence thus why you see religious slavery apologist abandon their moral fiber in favor of their beliefs (hence why I use the term "moral degenerate" as their sense of morality as degenerated to accomodate slavery because of their 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
Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:16 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2521Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Remember, it's morally objectively good if God does it or God commands it, whereas it's morally subjectively bad if humans do it or command it.

Simplez, innit?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:47 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: 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:What could my point be? If I only wrote it out for you.


Sure granted, divine command is not what you would personally define as objective.

I have no idea what you personally mean by objective, but sure I trust you and I grant that your own personal understanding would not include divine command.


My personal?

Merrian Webster - Objective wrote:of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality


That is the definition of the word, I did not know I wrote the dictionary too. This is the second definition, because the first one deals with medieval philosophy. As has been pointed out to you before, you can reference of dictionary at any point if you do not know what a word means in English.

leroy wrote:
I use the proper definition for "objective" and dandan/leroy accuses me of playing semantics? How pathetice




To paly semantics means that you are making a big deal out of definitions and words, instead of focusing on the argument.


Your argument is based on semantics. If it were not, you would have looked up the word and seen that you were wrong. However, that would take being honest and caring about making oneself clear in a conversation. Two things you lack.

leroy wrote: For example the claim is that OMV exist independently of human opinion, whether if you what to call this Objective morality or give it an other name is irrelevant.


:lol:

There we have it. Dandan/Leroy accuses me of using a personal definition and goes on to demonstrate that he is in fact using a personal definition of a word. Note as well that his whole argument falls down when using the proper definition and not his personal definition.

leroy wrote:Besides I am not using the term objective in any unusual way, objective in most contexts is defined as independent from human opinion, I am not using any wild definition.


Human is not found in the definition, objective is separate from opinion. The source of that opinion is irrelevant to it. That is why divine command cannot be objective since it is based on the opinion of a deity.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:26 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2521Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

It's also the most inept get-out clause I've ever seen. Why does the chap think that appealing to 'semantics' all the time suffices to establish anything?

Semantics is meaning, and the notion that there's some fallacious activity involved when discussing meaning is just bollocks.

If someone forwards an argument that employs a word that is incorrectly defined, then that argument cannot be valid by default. In honest discourse, defining one's terms, agreeing on meaning is perfectly valid argumentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue. It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.). Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation. In politics, for example, semantic disputes can involve the meaning of words such as liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, progressive, free, welfare or socialist.[1]


If irregular meanings are being employed, then the discussion will ALWAYS shift to talking about the meaning of words. Our resident troll always tries to hide behind the declaration of 'semantics' when he's using a word in a way that is entirely wrong in English. As explained to him a dozen times, he needs to pop his fucking hubris back in his trousers and stop pretending that he gets to define English when it's not his native fucking language. If he can't, then ALL discussions including him will ALWAYS devolve to discussions about semantics, and rightly so!

Can't use the language correctly? Then your argument's bollocks.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:39 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody,

please consider this points

1 It is not my fault, philosophers use the definition of OMV that I am using, I am not the author of the argument. Words are not important as long as the author makes clear what he means by those words.

2 I honestly don't see any meaningful difference between my definition and your definition

3 Whether if you what to call them OMV or give it an other name Is irrelevant, why don't you simply answer this> do you claim that some moral values (or moral truths) exist independently of human opinion?

4 I haven't meat any theist who claims that moral values or moral truths are "Gods subjective opinion" it seems to be an other case where you misunderstood a concept (in this case divine command) but in any case it really doesn't matter, objective realities can have a subjective origin, for example in pokar a royal flush is objectively better than a poker, but this objective truth had a subjective origin (the subjective opinion of the guy who invented the game)

so even if you show that OMV had a subjective origin, (say Gods opinion) that would not disprove the idea that MV are objective
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:53 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody
There we have it. Dandan/Leroy accuses me of using a personal definition and goes on to demonstrate that he is in fact using a personal definition of a word. Note as well that his whole argument falls down when using the proper definition and not his personal definition


I am not accusing you for using personal definitions, in fact I would encourage you to use your own personal definitions if you need to explain a point or a concept that is not accurately explained by current definitions.

I am accusing you for making a big deal out of definitions.

If I ever affirm that there is life in other planets and provide evidence for organic material in Europa, you can ether look at the evidence and start a meaningful conversation, or you can do what you always do, ignore the evidence and simply affirm that Europa is not a planet and make a big deal out of it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:19 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:To get back on topic:
Have the slavery-apologists given up on making the slavery condoned in the bible different from it actually is?



if you define slavery as owning an other person then yes the bible does condone slavery and yes that si something that I personally don't like.

I don't have anything else to add
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:01 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:.

Really, how hard it is to say that owning another person as property is wrong? .



it is very easy to say it, but can you prove it?

wrong according to what? according to your own opinion?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:14 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:
Visaki wrote:.

Really, how hard it is to say that owning another person as property is wrong? .


it is very easy to say it, but can you prove it?

wrong according to what? according to your own opinion?

Could we say according to an ape 's moral values.

Apes moral values are "Leroy's objective" moral values
"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
Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:40 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:[
Could we say according to an ape 's moral values.

yes, you can say whatever you what.

I would say that moral values exist independently of apes
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:02 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:yes, you can say whatever you what.

I would say that moral values exist independently of apes

Apes have objective moral values according to "Leroy's objective"

There's a whole thread discussing objective moral values where Leroy ran.
"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
Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:14 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:yes, you can say whatever you what.

I would say that moral values exist independently of apes

Apes have objective moral values according to "Leroy's objective"

There's a whole thread discussing objective moral values where Leroy ran.


according Leroy's objective, nobody "has" OMV, OMV are just there, nobody "owns them"


Leroy didn't ran from the conversation, he simply got tired of repeating the same things over and over again.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:45 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 24
 [ 463 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests