God does NOT exist!

[f0rd]

In his treatise, Wilberforce urged that total emancipation was morally and ethically required, and that slavery was a national crime that must be ended by parliamentary legislation to gradually abolish slavery.[205] Members of Parliament did not quickly agree, and government opposition in March 1823 stymied Wilberforce’s call for abolition.[206] On 15 May 1823, Buxton moved another resolution in Parliament for gradual emancipation.[207] Subsequent debates followed on 16 March and 11 June 1824 in which Wilberforce made his last speeches in the Commons, and which again saw the emancipationists outmanoeuvred by the government.

 

Wiki.

Didn't see atheists mentioned once, so when you say "atheists argued for keeping slavery". All you are doing is equivocating government with atheists, without any backing or foundation.

 

Wow you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

[Circa]

plekhanov is telling lies. Slaves or more properly servants in the Bible were free to go after six years; they were cared for and given shelter and food in return for work. They became part of the family and often chose to stay with the family even when they were free to go.

 

that's a good point

[f0rd]

I

When William Wilberforce first introduced anti-slave-trade legislation into Parliament, he had high hopes. He quickly learned that opposition would be fierce.

 

Financial stakeholders howled. Significant elements of British economy relied on slavery. Businesspersons didn't want to sacrifice profit. Their elected representatives didn't want to sacrifice votes. Some claimed slavery benefited slaves since it removed them from barbarous Africa. The Royal Family opposed abolition. Even Admiral Lord Nelson, Britain's great hero, denounced "the damnable doctrine of Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies."

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218071/k.DC26/William_Wilberforce_and_Abolishing_the_Slave_Trade.htm

 

I do not tell lies F0rd.

 

.

 

The Royal Family... you do realise the Monarch is the Head of the Anglican Church yes?

 

Again, who are these atheists (note multiple) that opposed it, so far you have not listed any.

 

Sure you do tell lies, for example "atheists argued for keeping slavery".

[Grahame]

The Royal Family... you do realise the Monarch is the Head of the Anglican Church yes?

 

Again, who are these atheists (note multiple) that opposed it, so far you have not listed any.

 

Sure you do tell lies, for example "atheists argued for keeping slavery".

 

A Christian (briefly) is someone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and who follows Him. Not many people do that although a lot of people when asked will say they are Christian without knowing what it means and I doubt many monarchs have been true Christians. Henry VIII for example killed his wifes and set up the Anglican Church to rid himself of the Pope. If you asked him he would have said he was a Christian. If you were to ask God I think you will get a different answer.

 

This also is the answer to the Crusades which people say was Christian, but in reality they were foreign adventures and mercenaries who were out to plunder another country and were far from being Christian.

 

It would pay you to know what a true Christian is because all your criticism is aimed at people who are Christian in name only.

 

.

[f0rd]

A Christian (briefly) is someone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and who follows Him. Not many people do that although a lot of people when asked will say they are Christian without not knowing what it means and I doubt many monarch have been true Christians. Henry VIII for example killed his wifes and set up the Anglican Church to rid himself of the Pope. If you asked him he would have said he was a Christian. If you were to ask God I think you will get a different answer.

 

This also is the answer to the Crusades which people say was Christian, but in reality they were foreign adventures and mercenaries who were out to plunder another country and were far from being Christian.

 

It would pay you to know what a true Christian is because all your criticism is aimed a people who are Christian in name only.

 

.

 

And to which you still have not shown one of these multiple atheists that "argued for keeping slavery".

 

Well done on your dishonesty.

[pininsho]

It would pay you to know what a true Christian is because all your criticism is aimed at people who are Christian in name only.

.

 

As was Wilberforce (xtian in name only), so I suggest you become a lot more thorough in your research Grahame if you wish to become somebody who's taken seriously in important debates.

[Grahame]

As was Wilberforce (xtian in name only), so I suggest you become a lot more thorough in your research Grahame if you wish to become somebody who's taken seriously in important debates.

 

In 1785 he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

 

.

[f0rd]

Still no names of atheists that "argued for keeping slavery", such disingenuous tactics Grahame.

[plekhanov]

No, not deliberately missing a point - just trying to take yours apart and understand it a bit.

 

No - it wasn't clear, or I wouldn't've bothered replying. And please get off bandying that strawman accusation - I have no desire to strawman you, or get wound up in any conundrum of fallacies, never mind

trip you up with dishonesty. I'm sure this is what you come to expect if you're a proficient debater, but I'm not -and before you come back with l "what nonsense" - or - ."it's quite painfully obvious that you don't know anything ..blah blah" - just try and take what I'm saying on face value.

How am I supposed to take anything you say at 'face value' when you keep on pretending I've said things I didn't so as to make them easier to rebut? You pretended that I'd said "atheists are not influenced by books" when I'd said nothing of the sort. Taking things at 'face value' is a hell of a lot easier when people actually seem to be trying to debate honestly.

 

OK, but I still can't entirely agree. While you may not keep a copy of "On Liberty" permanently on hand, as I might a Bible (so I agree that much), it is reasonable to say that the belief system of an athiest may be equally as founded on the writings in a book as any theist. And it could equally be argued that belief in any non god centred ideology may over rule a reality.

And yet again you dishonestly pretend that I didn't include any qualifiers in my statements and that I said something along the lines of:

 

"atheists do not take one book as the prime source of knowledge on all things which over rules everything else including reality in the manner so many theists do with their 'holy' book.

 

When in reality I said

 

"atheists tend not to take one book as the prime source of knowledge on all things which over rules everything else including reality in the manner so many theists do with their 'holy' book."

 

It is of course entirely possible to be an atheists & have a strong reality denying ideology but the fact is that in our society there are a great many theistic groups, often centred round a 'holy' book, which deliberately set out to create and then reinforce in people the ideology that theirs is the one true ideology. In contrast there are hardly any atheistic groups which do the same. There is nothing the least bit 'equal' about this, practically all theists believe their ideology overrules reality, as there is no evidence for any of their assorted gods.

 

For example - a person may be so sold out to capitalism, that they overlook the reality of it's bad effects. I'm sure you'll pull that apart, but I've seen it, in the 80's I knew a lot of people who were secure in their capitalist Margaret Thatcher bubbles and seemed totally blind to all else.

And your superior alternative to capitalism is what exactly? In the few short centuries we've had it capitalism has helped bring billions of people out of absolute poverty, what other economic system has done anything half as good? It obviously isn't perfect but as with democracy capitalism is the worst system there is, apart from all the rest.

 

I like that example - and yes, lots of people desperately try and defend what they think to be true - not just christians. But to be honest - I'm not really afraid of the truth. The fact that it appears the bible is "full of stuff which flat out contradicts well established science and history." interests me and causes me to ask questions. My personal experience of god goes before all of that though, and my faith is there despite all that.

But bizarrely none of those questions appear to be 'why am I following the dictats of a nonsensical document, that was so clearly the work of pig ignorant bronze age bigots?'

 

You have just neatly proved my point, when faced with overwhelming evidence that your precious book is nonsense you simply ignore that evidence and believe you book anyway and pretend that it only 'appears' that your book is so deeply flawed.

 

I see now from that, that you are narrowing this down to atheism, specifically. I'm sure if you opened that out to include any other ideology/belief which is not specifically god centred (perhaps better described as a-theistic?) you would find some examples Although not so much from a book - and already chewed over many times on threads on this forum - Stalinism is an example. Sure - not just about atheism, but not at all about god,.

Well I suppose red herrings are atleast a change from strawmen. Now I realise that you don't like to discuss the fact that the god described in your holy book is a blood thirsty narcissist who indulged in numerous massacres and who heartily approves of slavery, and that Xians pretend he's all loving in spite of this. But is this really the best you can do?

 

The world is currently beset by groups of theistic ideologues who believe that their ends (generally the saving of peoples souls) are so important that any means, be it lying to and about people be it on internet forums or from the pulpit, lying to children in school, seeking to capture the government to repress alternate viewpoints, even the torture and killing of people, is justified. Now of course a belief that the ends justify the means isn't exclusive to theists but that belief is greatly helped when your ideology has hopelessly utopian goals (as nearly all theists groups have) and there are currently a great many theistic groups of some influence with such utopian ends and very few Atheist groups of any influence with a utopian ideology.

 

In many ways I think the current 'New Atheist' is more a general movement against irrational reality denying and utoptian ideology than theism specifically. For example New Atheists are every bit as scathing in their critique of fuzzy new age irrationality such as the murderous anti-vaccination movement which is not really theistic. It's hardly a surprise that the movement was in many ways spurred into action by 9/11, if the utopian ideology which inspired the 9/11 hijackers to murder thousands had been secular rather than theistic I suspect the reaction from Dawkins and co would have been much the same, it's just the target would have been different.

 

I have met lots of atheists, none of them were Stalinists hardly any of them were even socialists of any type and they didn't try to defend Stalin. I have however met plenty of theists who think their book makes it's perfectly moral to lie to children (both here and in Africa) about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV. I have met lots of theists who defend the character of a being whom they believe on more than one occasions killed many thousands of babies simply because he felt like it even though being all powerful he must have had the ability to achieve his ends without murdering anyone.

[plekhanov]

plekhanov is telling lies. Slaves or more properly servants in the Bible were free to go after six years; they were cared for and given shelter and food in return for work. They became part of the family and often chose to stay with the family even when they were free to go.

That 6 years thing only applies to Jewish slaves, none Hebrew slaves were subjugated for life, so as we can see the bible is both pro-slavery and racism.

 

Leviticus 25:44-46 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

Compare that to Roman and Egyptian slaves and it is a different story altogether. Remember the Israelites were kept captive in Egypt and had a horrible time. Not only that but if someone in the Bible ill-treated a slave it was the master who was punished. Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while it was the non-Christian atheists who argued to keep people in enslavement.

Once again you are flatly contradicting the bible:

 

Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

 

So either you are accusing the Bible of lying or you are so inhumane as to think beating someone so badly they can't move for several days is not 'ill-treating' them, which is it?

 

And just to show that approval of slavery isn't just an Old Testament thing here's some pro-slavery propaganda from the New:

 

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

 

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

 

1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

 

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 

There are more pro-slavery passages but I think I've made my point. Is it any wonder that the brutal slave owners of the American South were such devote Christians and so keen to pass their religion onto their slaves?

 

So Xians in this thread please to explain to us why doesn't the bible just say 'slavery is an abomination, masters free your slaves'? Lots of things are abominations according to the bible including consensual sex between adults of the same sex and eating shellfish. Depriving someone of their liberty for life however isn't, how could a 'loving god' be responsible for such abhorrent teachings?