Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I notice that Grahame posted at 05.26 today. Maybe when he next posts again, he will finally get round to providing evidence to support his claim? But then again, maybe not. Grahame has a habit of ducking awkward questions either by ignoring them or replying with spurious links which do not address the issue. Or by replying with a rant. Or by replying with claims that unbelievers will suffer at the hands of his god. Or.... all of these! Come on Grahame, prove me wrong for once, and let's have a reply to f0rd's reasonable, and repeated, request for you to put up the evidence to support your claim. Or... maybe not! The people who moved the abolition of slavery bill amidst much opposition were Christians. If they were Christians what were the other lot? This will probably be my last post. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olorin Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The people who moved the abolition of slavery bill amidst much opposition were Christians. If they were Christians what were the other lot? This will probably be my last post. . All elephants are grey. Does that mean that all animals that are not elephants are also not grey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The people who moved the abolition of slavery bill amidst much opposition were Christians. If they were Christians what were the other lot?[/Quote] Some other Christians... you know Christians can disagree with each other about issues, for starters that is how schisms started within the Catholic church. So Grahame we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that it was "atheists argued for keeping slavery". This will probably be my last post. . Is that so you conveniently don't have to back up your ridiculous assertions for the most part you can't, and if you can you have failed to do so. Or is this going to be your last post much like you have said in the past, but in fact return, once you think people have moved on past your outrageous claims that are tantamount to lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Some other Christians... you know Christians can disagree with each other about issues, for starters that is how schisms started within the Catholic church. So Grahame we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that it was "atheists argued for keeping slavery". The people who sought to abolish slavery amid much opposition were Christians, whether they were Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist whatever they were they were Christians and they believed in God. If you are not Christian and you do not believe in God what are you? You are an atheist. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The people who sought to abolish slavery amid much opposition were Christians, whether they were Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist whatever they were they were Christians and they believed in God. [/Quote] Right Grahame, you have established that well done. Now present the evidence that has been lacking to support this statement "atheists argued for keeping slavery". Why on numerous requests have you failed to present it, could you please present the evidence, to support this claim, or are you going to carry on obfuscating because you can't. If you are not Christian and you do not believe in God what are you? You are an atheist. . Actually I am agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The people who sought to abolish slavery amid much opposition were Christians, whether they were Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist whatever they were they were Christians and they believed in God. If you are not Christian and you do not believe in God what are you? You are an atheist. . How about the Reverend Richard Fuller, who stated that: "what god sanctioned in the old testament, and permitted in in the new, cannot be a sin". He even co-authored a book on the subject: Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution in 1845. Christians or atheists? There are plenty more examples like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 How about the Reverend Richard Fuller, who stated that: "what god sanctioned in the old testament, and permitted in in the new, cannot be a sin". He even co-authored a book on the subject: Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution in 1845. Christians or atheists? There are plenty more examples like this. Come on EbonyBranch, Grahame is just going to say that Fuller wasn't a real Christian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Come on EbonyBranch, Grahame is just going to say that Fuller wasn't a real Christian! Which then leads to a more interesting point, is any believer who disagrees with Grahame's interpretation of the bible not a Christian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circa Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 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. The thing is - that I'm not pretending, or thinking about how easy things are to rebut, I'm just attempting to have a straight forward interaction with you, which is obviously quite difficult as you seem to be in debate-attack mode all of the time. Fair enough if this is the way you like to converse on a forum, but I don't really. It just means that you interpret any error, misunderstanding, mis quoting or attempt to understand, as an attack, proof of dishonesty or of being disingenuous. You probably have had good reason not to trust some theists in your life - but it is a bit tough on the rest of us if we have to be a target for your accusations on their behalf. 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. My only point is that you are defining reality as not including god. I define god as part of reality - so reality is not being over ruled. 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. 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 appreciate that you don't understand why people should have conviction about the existence of god in the face of this "overwhelming evidence". Only , I'm not overwhelmed by it. I was reading recently about the time when quarks were discovered by particle physicists. Despite the fact that a quark has never been seen or actually identified, scientists believed in them because their effects seemed to explain a lot of things quite neatly. There is some faith in that - and there is evidence. But the evidence doesn't appear in a clearly identifiable way. I think that's similar to the way god is. 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. I appreciate the content of your post - there's alot in there and you obviously believe in it passionately. I'm not out to get you,and I'm not setting traps for you, so there's no need to keep looking for these strawmen and red herrings. I've not got an agenda against athiests, but i believe in god passionately, and want to talk about it (almost) as much as you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Come on EbonyBranch, Grahame is just going to say that Fuller wasn't a real Christian! Sigh. Yes, i suspect this is the point he's been trying to make by insisting that the abolitionists were all xtians. In his mind, those who supported slavery on scriptural grounds could only have been either evil atheists misusing 'the word of god' for their own ends, or believers so misguided in their beliefs in the 'wrong god' that they could not in any sense be called xtians. Why he would lump this latter group in with the atheists i have no idea; we don't want 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.