Evidence of the Non-Physical

[DNB]

Another inane, time wasting one-liner.

What is, and according to who exactly?

The conversation that we're having.

 

[DNB]

So that's a no then.

No, it's a 'know' then.

 

[DNB]

Precisely what I said? Who was that post meant to be talking to, and What is the point being made?

I can't even find it now. It was in response to your remark about my post, where I said that homosexuality was an abomination, and that those who endorse its practice are vile.
I meant to reply to your post, not sure why the quote didn't copy over?

 

[DNB]

No I repeated my question since you ignored it?
Is there any context in which it is morally acceptable for one human to buy or own another human?
Repeating the question would be pretty bizarre if that were the case, though I have little expectation of any kind of candid response from you.

Slaves were often handed over to owners due to payment of debts, for example. It was a form of payment or collateral for delinquency in fulfilling one's obligation to another.
You're stubborn Sheldon, and extremely biased. You can't seem to get over the word slave. This started due to the Bible's usage of it, and I clearly showed you that it does not have the connotation or functionality that the notorious slave trade has. Even Joseph, who was sold in slavery lived a life much more luxurious and privileged than many commoners of his time.

You're not seeking the truth Sheldon, you're just parroting yourself over and over again until you hear what you want to hear.
There is a God, and all the shrines, altars, temples and holy places built all over the world since the beginning of time, is an unequivocal testimony to that fact. God's image is inside every single one of us.

 

[ratiocinator]

The conversation that we're having.

Another meaningless one-liner. The conversation we're having is axiomatic; yeah, right. When you have something sensible to say, do get back to me.

 

[joelr]

You didn't once bring up the myriad, and prevalent amount of verses that speak of His love, patience and mercy. Nor, how many times man defied God to His face and showed nothing but contempt for Him,. You either have absolutely no perception into the deeper meaning of certain situations or contexts, or you chose to be in denial.

Let's talk about denial.
You think because a God talks about some nice concepts a bunch of times that somehow means he wants you to IGNORE literal laws to:
-you may buy slaves from the heathen around you
-you must kill every living thing in these 6 cities
- if an offer of peace (forced labor) is refused you are to kill all the men and take the women and children as plunder, they are yours to do what you will

I do not care how many times a God speaks of mercy. If the same God tells you straight out where to buy slaves, to kill every living thing (yes, babies) in six cities and in all other wars to kill all men and plunder children and women then that is what he wants you to do.

Your apologetics about "deeper meanings" or "context" is the absolute world record denial.
Context? Yeah the context is kill everyone in those cities during war. There is no deeper meaning to "you may buy your slaves from the heathen around you.."
Are you actually saying yeah Yahweh did kill 70,000 men, woman and children with a plague (he sent Satan) but he's also really loving and forgiving. Like, a lot of times!
Yeah we had to kill everyone in that city but he's really patient so much.

Yahweh is so evil that one early group of Christians thought he was a different God than Jesus?

• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia

The first Christian canon was the Marcionite canon.

You haven't addressed the facts about slavery. You said it was a loving relationship between master and slave. Except it doesn't say that. It says to be "less severe" with HEBREW slaves. That sounds like a nightmare for the "heathen" that you are to aquire. It's also permanent and their children are also slaves. If you beat your slave and he doesn't die then it's ok. In your denial state you may somehow twist this but this clearly allows for beating of slaves. It didn't say "don't beat up anyone" but rather doesn't want any lethal beatings.






Here is some more perception. The OT is a collection of myths taken from older stories. It is not historical. The deity spoken about is a fictional character.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

 

[Sheldon]

No, it's a 'know' then.

Except it wasn't, you demonstrated no knowledge at all, just showed that you couldn't. As indeed you've done here again. You may find these inane responses somehow satisfying, but the fact is you are not engaging in debate, merely avoiding it, and it is patently obvious why.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

If you feel that is an unfair benchmark, then you could at least demonstrate the best or most compelling reason you think you have. If after that all you have is bare subjective opinions, well what will you have lost? I will remain an atheist, this is hardly of any concern to anyone else, and nothing will have changed.

 

[Sheldon]

I can't even find it now.

Really it took me two clicks of my mouse...

Great, glad to see that you read the post. I was hoping that you weren't going to miss it - but then you do seem to be rather ubiquitous on this forum.
Unfortunately, it was probably wasted on someone like yourself - it's a shame that you're not more enlightened and decently minded instead of promoting such filth, ...especially under the guise of love and compassion.

It was in response to your remark about my post, where I said that homosexuality was an abomination, and that those who endorse its practice are vile.

Then why pretend you didn't know? Then again what can one expect from anyone who thinks bigotry and prejudice, based on the morals of bronze and iron age patriarchal Bedouins, is enlightened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept your apology, but you do have a tendency to leap to assertions I've not made. Finding the views of one theist to be as pernicious as those DNB e



Except it wasn't, you demonstrated no knowledge at all, just showed that you couldn't. As indeed you've done here again. You may find these inane responses somehow satisfying, but the fact is you are not engaging in debate, merely avoiding it, and it is patently obvious why.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

If you feel that is an unfair benchmark, then you could at least demonstrate the best or most compelling reason you think you have. If after that all you have is bare subjective opinions, well what will you have lost? I will remain an atheist, this is hardly of any concern to anyone else, and nothing will have changed.

None for the bold. Nor can I give only positive objective evidence for all the everyday world. I just try to learn if it is possible to give positive objective evidence for all the everyday world and for that I use your kind. Everytime one of you claim something about how objective evidence works, I check if I have overlook something.
I have been reading books, following the news and tried to learn from the Internet and so far nobody have been able to falsify this one:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras. And no, it is apparently not about the whole world. It is about limited cognitive, cultural and moral relativism and not about the objective parts of the world.

 

[Sheldon]

No I repeated my question since you ignored it?
Is there any context in which it is morally acceptable for one human to buy or own another human?
Repeating the question would be pretty bizarre if that were the case, though I have little expectation of any kind of candid response from you.

Slaves were often handed over to owners due to payment of debts, for example.

So what? Is it ever moral for one human to buy or own another or not?

It was a form of payment or collateral for delinquency in fulfilling one's obligation to another. You're stubborn Sheldon, and extremely biased.

Against a vile notion like slavery? Yes I am very biased, as it is a pernicious moral turpitude.

You can't seem to get over the word slave.

Sophistry, it's not the word I object to, and that is demonstrable in this exchange, and in Exodus 21 that specifically endorse slavery. Which you obviously won't condemn, as you are blind to any rational or moral reason that remotely contradicts it.

This started due to the Bible's usage of it, and I clearly showed you that it does not have the connotation or functionality that the notorious slave trade has.

You showed no such thing, and I can and have read Exodus 21 myself, so your sophistry here is fooling no one.

You're not seeking the truth Sheldon, you're just parroting yourself over and over again until you hear what you want to hear.

You don't seem to understand this is a public debate forum, and not pulpit. You don't get to make claims and espouse beliefs unchallenged in here. The barbarity of the deity depicted in the bible is open to critical scrutiny, as are the bible's claims. Your vapid platitudes are no use here, as they have no meaning to those who don't share your beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what? Is it ever moral for one human to buy or own another or not?



Against a vile notion like slavery? Yes I am very biased, as it is a pernicious moral turpitude.



Sophistry, it's not the word I object to, and that is demonstrable in this exchange, and in Exodus 21 that specifically endorse slavery. Which you obviously won't condemn, as you are blind to any rational or moral reason that remotely contradicts it.



You showed no such thing, and I can and have read Exodus 21 myself, so your sophistry here is fooling no one.



You don't seem to understand this is a public debate forum, and not pulpit. You don't get to make claims and espouse beliefs unchallenged in here. The barbarity of the deity depicted in the bible is open to critical scrutiny, as are the bible's claims. Your vapid platitudes are no use here, as they have no meaning to those who don't share your beliefs.

How are you going to decide that one: Is there any context in which it is morally acceptable for one human to buy or own another human?
I mean we have left science as I understand it. So what are you going to answer yourself? Looking forward to see if I can learn something new.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really it took me two clicks of my mouse...





Then why pretend you didn't know? Then again what can one expect from anyone who thinks bigotry and prejudice, based on the morals of bronze and iron age patriarchal Bedouins, is enlightened.

How do you determine if someone is enlightened?

 

[Sheldon]

How are you going to decide that one: Is there any context in which it is morally acceptable for one human to buy or own another human?
I mean we have left science as I understand it. So what are you going to answer yourself? Looking forward to see if I can learn something new.

Based on my subjective moral worldview, as I already explained, more than once. My morality cares to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering, doesn't yours?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Based on my subjective moral worldview, as I already explained, more than once. My morality cares to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering, doesn't yours?

Well, yes, but that is too simple as it stands. It is a good starting point, but in practice we run into context, context, context...

 

[Sheldon]

Well, yes, but that is too simple as it stands. It is a good starting point, but in practice we run into context, context, context...

The context was DNB trying to justify slavery. in order to rationalise why a deity is portrayed as endorsing slavery in the bible. Buying other humans and owning them as property, and their children, and beating them, even to death, as long as they survive for a couple of days.

That was the context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The context was DNB trying to justify slavery. in order to rationalise why a deity is portrayed as endorsing slavery in the bible. Buying other humans and owning them as property, and their children, and beating them, even to death, as long as they survive for a couple of days.

That was the context.

Yeah, but that is not all cases of suffering.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, but that is not all cases of suffering.

Good grief, you object there is no context, even though there was, so I spell the context out for you, even though you could easily have read it for yourself btw, and you immediately ignore it, and make yet another straw man non sequitur?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good grief, you object there is no context, even though there was, so I spell the context out for you, even though you could easily have read it for yourself btw, and you immediately ignore it, and make yet another straw man non sequitur?

Yes, I oppose suffering. But that may not be the same version as you have in mind for some cases. Stop overdoing induction. Slavery is a case of suffering, therefore all others are the same. It is not that simple.
The whole world is not Abrahamic religion versus your beloved democracy. There is more to suffering than your examples.

 

[DNB]

Another meaningless one-liner. The conversation we're having is axiomatic; yeah, right. When you have something sensible to say, do get back to me.

How is it that atheists understand what the word God means, if it's nothing more than a man-made construct? Why do the discussions between a theist and atheist become so protracted, if the only argumentation required is to suggest that the theist consult a shrink?

 

[DNB]

Let's talk about denial.
You think because a God talks about some nice concepts a bunch of times that somehow means he wants you to IGNORE literal laws to:
-you may buy slaves from the heathen around you
-you must kill every living thing in these 6 cities
- if an offer of peace (forced labor) is refused you are to kill all the men and take the women and children as plunder, they are yours to do what you will

I do not care how many times a God speaks of mercy. If the same God tells you straight out where to buy slaves, to kill every living thing (yes, babies) in six cities and in all other wars to kill all men and plunder children and women then that is what he wants you to do.

Your apologetics about "deeper meanings" or "context" is the absolute world record denial.
Context? Yeah the context is kill everyone in those cities during war. There is no deeper meaning to "you may buy your slaves from the heathen around you.."
Are you actually saying yeah Yahweh did kill 70,000 men, woman and children with a plague (he sent Satan) but he's also really loving and forgiving. Like, a lot of times!
Yeah we had to kill everyone in that city but he's really patient so much.

Yahweh is so evil that one early group of Christians thought he was a different God than Jesus?

• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia

The first Christian canon was the Marcionite canon.

You haven't addressed the facts about slavery. You said it was a loving relationship between master and slave. Except it doesn't say that. It says to be "less severe" with HEBREW slaves. That sounds like a nightmare for the "heathen" that you are to aquire. It's also permanent and their children are also slaves. If you beat your slave and he doesn't die then it's ok. In your denial state you may somehow twist this but this clearly allows for beating of slaves. It didn't say "don't beat up anyone" but rather doesn't want any lethal beatings.






Here is some more perception. The OT is a collection of myths taken from older stories. It is not historical. The deity spoken about is a fictional character.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

We all deserve to die as much as the Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites and Canaanites. In other words, the only reason that we're all still alive is because of God's mercy. So, yes, God's ordaining the slaughter and genocide of many nations was only due to the fact, as it is written, because he was patient and gave them centuries to repent (Genesis 15:16). But, their crimes were beyond heinous and precluded absolution.
Slaves were treated as family, the Law reflects the relationship between a master and a slave - offering the slave the option to remain with his master if he, out of love, feels so compelled.

You've entirely misunderstood the context and deeper significance of these occurrences in the Bible.