ConverseAtheist's Comments

Conversational Atheist : Bible: Slavery

Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:19:20 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, Hendrick! You've got the closest thing to a verse that says slavery is wrong. The NRSV quotes it as: 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 "Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God." Pauls says, twice in those 5 verses to remain in whatever condition you were called to Christ. If you're a slave, remain in that condition. Why? The one who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord. In God's eyes, that person is not a slave, but a freed person. Of course every freed person when called is Christ's slave... Two points. 1. This is clearly not a condemnation of slavery as an institution. If God wanted to make this clear, He's a worse communicator than the UN. 2. It seems to me that Paul is writing to not become slaves of human beings in the same sense that Jesus says you can't serve two masters. Sure, be a human slave -- but you are truly a master to God. Remember that, and you a free.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Azeusism has caused every major atrocity in modern history!

Mon, 2 May 2011 16:08:34 +0000

Chill dude. I started the whole argument that you hate with "Find the flaw in the following argument:" You got it right!

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Who Would Die for a Lie?

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:58:43 +0000

A) The moral teaching? Is there a supernatural realm that can interact with us humans? If you answer yes, the full force of the possibility confronts you. If you answer no, you don't believe God has an influence on humanity. B) I'd agree that for natural explanations, "could be" would have varying degrees of believability informed by our everyday experience. We find a coin balanced on its edge -- it could be that I tried to flip it and it landed on it's side. Or, it could be that I balanced it to make a point. You don't have that luxury with supernatural explanations. How do you put even rough odds on one supernatural explanation over another? C) What? I'm granting you for the sake of argument that everyone you want to have been an eyewitness died proclaiming what they saw. I'm saying, one supernatural explanation is that all of them were possessed by trouble-making spirits. Why would people lie about it? They were possessed, and people who are possessed do and say things contrary to what you expect people to do. Dead simple explanation.

Conversational Atheist : Going from Is to Ought

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:45:23 +0000

I've spent some time considering your argument. He's not necessarily saying that we ought to be concerned about the well-being of all conscious creatures -- he's saying that that's what the study of morality concerns itself with. Also, you have an interesting Worst-Case Scenario where some creatures get pleasure from the absolute suffering of the remaining conscious creatures in the universe. I think Harris would split the difference with you and say, "Will you at least admit that the absolute worst suffering for all conscious creatures is bad and cannot be confused with good?" I think the rest of his argument plays out fine as long as you have a starting point that's unequivocally bad. Thanks for commenting, you gave me a lot to think about, sorry for taking to long to respond. I'm going to cross-post my comment.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Mohammad: Sex with 9 year old

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:38:30 +0000

1. WaitingForArgument is not an atheist, he's asking why people didn't respond. He's on your side (from what can tell) and so the insults are misdirected. 2. There is an enormous temptation to think that theist and atheist views are held in the same way, with the same conviction, and for similar reasons. Please resist this temptation. No one has argued that what was technically legal from the laws of California and Delaware in the 1800's is the perfect example of how a person ought to live his life. If a person did argue for this, he's an idiot. I wrote before: "I condemn any modern system that encourages or even accepts 9 year old (or younger) girls being married to and having sex with 40+ year old men. You seem to think that this is allowed somehow in California -- if this is the case, then I condemn it unequivocally. I have no issue criticizing California, or any other system (including Islam, Sharia, etc.). " Islam does teach that they have a perfect model for acting morally -- which people should strive to aim toward -- the way that Mohammad lived his life. Now you come with an interesting argument -- this life which is supposed to be the perfect example of how to lead a moral life is so poorly documented that you can produce conflicting accounts how old the women he married were. Ok, I accept your argument, the Hadith is contradictory on apparently important moral questions concerning Mohammad's life. How does that possibly help the case for basing moral behavior on the collection of contradictory passages about Mohammad's life? You've made my argument stronger. Want to try again?

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Slavery in the Bible

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:25:11 +0000

You're right -- there is a verse that doesn't allow you to sell a free man into slavery. Lest you misconstrue Exodus 21:16 is somehow making a larger point against slavery itself, please note what's written in the same chapter 4 verses later: Exodus 21:20-21 (NRSV) When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. I'm not sure what the point of the rest of your comment. Yes, some atheists use the Bible as some form of written proof (I prefer the word evidence) that religion is evil, and that it is fiction, written by men, and to point out its ironies (I prefer the word contradictions both internal and with modern moral sentiments). Also, yes, when people commit their life to following a terrible book full of falsehoods and dangerous writing, I will point these facts out in an attempt to both fix the believer and warn nonbelievers. The next two sentences have no connection that I can see with your previous comment. Do you think that it is wrong to argue against writing that you find offensive and wrong? (I'd hope not, because I think that's what you're trying to do in your comment). What is it that atheists do that makes you physically ill with shame? Any why?

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:42:19 +0000

Please quote the Bible verses that are against slavery.

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:55:14 +0000

3. "The 1 Timothy 6:1-5 passage ... is a directive of how to live a godly life under the yoke of slavery. Trying to argue against this would be extremely difficult." Almost as difficult as making the case the that the Bible condemns owning slaves as immoral. You know that Article 4 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Looks like the Bible could take a few pointers from the UN on morality -- unless you don't think that owning people as slaves is immoral?

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:47:05 +0000

2. "The point is that any quote from the Bible that attempts to turn the bible against itself..." Ok good -- you'll note that this entry never once tries to do that. (If you think it does, please quote what you're talking about).

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:44:53 +0000

I'm going to separate these out into different comments: 1. The argument -- "if Christianity were true, contradiction X would obtain, therefore, Christianity is not true" -- is valid. The only possible arguments that would contradict this argument is if it concluded "Christianity is true." -- Which, none of my arguments do. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Concluding Christianity is false and arguing that Christianity gets specific questions wrong is perfectly coherent.

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:52:10 +0000

1. I'm curious about how arguments 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. How is the fact that "Christianity is false" negate the fact that Christianity also gets the question "What is immoral?" wrong? 2. "Bible shows it to be remarkable consistent with itself." -- Not sure what you're arguing against here. I didn't argue that the Bible was inconsistent -- I made the opposite point, that its stance throughout the Old and New Testament was consistently against homosexuality, and it's also consistent in its complete failure to condemn the practice of owning people as slaves. 3. "Before you attack Christianity for not conforming to modern cultural norms..." -- You'll note that I did not attack Christianity for not conforming to modern cultural norms. Also, I think your point is a very good precept -- which is why I always recommend asking the person I'm talking with about their own beliefs. I was careful to write questions to both where he thinks he got his morals AND whether he thought slavery was wrong. I've had a preacher bite the bullet before and declare that he didn't have a moral problem with owning people as slaves.

Conversational Atheist : Coffee with Bernie -- Conversation Analysis

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:19:30 +0000

I agree entirely.

Conversational Atheist : Going from Is to Ought

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:24:07 +0000

I have a feeling that Harris would ask that the Christian in your case: "What if serving God completely led to the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures -- and serving God slightly less would guarantee would ensure a heaven-like existence for all conscious creatures? Wouldn't it be moral to give up just the slightest bit of serving God to alleviate the suffering of all conscious creatures? To essentially transform all of creation from an existence in hell to an existence in heaven? They can answer two ways: A) It's moral to give up a little serving for entrance to heaven for all of creation B) It's not moral to give up even a little bit of "serving God" to save all of creation from hell If A -- then you agree that suffering/wellbeing is a more fundamental basis than "serving God" If B -- we can ignore you. I think Harris would argue to Kant that what motivates the intuition that the categorical imperative is a useful or correct way of determining morals and ethics comes from it's consequences -- specifically suffering/wellbeing. As for your restatement of Harris' argument: I think you meant "2" to say the opposite of what you wrote, but making that switch -- he'd agree that avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone is by definition what the moral action would be. Sam's is an interesting argument, and it seems to sweep the problem "is/ought" into the definition of morality -- which he justifies by appealing to the fact that for the word to have meaning we have to agree that all possible states of the universe are not equivalently desirable (in the broadest possible sense of the word).

Conversational Atheist : Archbishop says allowing freedom of religion for teenagers is wrong

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 03:32:51 +0000

I'm not sure you've made an argument. Want to make an argument about how allowing students to opt out of prayer at age 16 is a bad idea?

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Bible: Messiah replaces animal sacrifice?

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:57:16 +0000

Who has hatred? What are you referring to?

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Mohammad: Sex with 9 year old

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:45:45 +0000

If you follow the argument thread that starts with Gregarious (one above Srinivas), I think you'll see that all of S's points are fully addressed. If you feel that they aren't, feel free to add another comment with the specific argument you'd like to see a response to.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Slavery in the Bible

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:16:45 +0000

So my main thesis, bolded for extra emphasis, was: Claim: The Bible never says a word against owning people as property.

You happen to think that this is wrong wrong, etc.�

Could you please copy and paste a single verse that says anything against the idea of owning people as property?

If you cannot, could you tell me what part of my article you found to be wrong?

Conversational Atheist : Into the Lion's Den

Sat, 29 May 2010 21:03:04 +0000

Thanks monkeyface -- yeah I agree that they weren't a typical crowd. It was a nice interaction.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Tough Questions: "Can God do evil?"

Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:25:12 +0000

"So we don't know if something, that could be called evil, is evil. If a child is hit by a car and is confined to a wheel chair for the rest of their life evil?" Interesting. So, can Yahweh do evil? Or are you saying that "Since Yahweh told us that what He does is good, no matter how evil it looks like Yahweh is acting, not even if Yahweh orders his followers to kill children with swords, Yahweh must have a good reason for appearing to act so evil."? If you heard someone use that exact same logic, but instead of Yahweh, they said Lucifer, would you have a problem with their reasoning? If the person said, "Since Lucifer told us that what He does is good, no matter how evil it looks like Lucifer is acting, not even if Lucifer orders his followers to kill children with swords, Lucifer must have a good reason for appearing to act so evil." Are they making a mistake somewhere in their reasoning that you aren't?

Conversational Atheist : Sam Harris Ted Talk

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:17:09 +0000

If Dawkins said what you claim, it would appear that he thinks that science can say something about morals. Whether he would say that there is objective moral truth, I don't know. I also disagree with your argument (on your article about this) that an atheist who is also a moral realist is committing the fallacy of reification.