f0rd Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while the atheists argued for keeping slavery. [Graham] 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. [Graham] Both posts say the same thing. Are you feeling all-right? . Is there any reason why if they are the same you neglected (yet again) another request to provide evidence for this claim? Actually don't bother answering, how about just actually posting the evidence to back it up, as has been requested numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while the atheists argued for keeping slavery. [Graham] 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. [Graham] Both posts say the same thing. Are you feeling all-right? . Why did you feel it necessary to specify 'non-christian atheists'? Seems a rather trivial change, but you must have felt it was important. Are you feeling alright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Is there any reason why if they are the same you neglected (yet again) another request to provide evidence for this claim. As I said earlier it was the God fearing Christians who abolished slavery after a lot of fierce opposition. The opposite of "God fearing Christians" is "unbelieving atheists" which is admitted by everyone on the forum. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while the atheists argued for keeping slavery. [Graham] 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. [Graham] Both posts say the same thing. Are you feeling all-right? . I'm suffering with an unexplained facial pain and bad headache which will take me to the doctors in the morning. Thanks for asking though. So Grahame, your amended post says the same thing as your original. Now kindly substantiate your claim, lest you remain a liar in our eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why did you feel it necessary to specify 'non-christian atheists'? Seems a rather trivial change, but you must have felt it was important. Are you feeling alright? I am feeling fine, I am very concerned about the cognitive abilities of atheists though along with their inability to think logically and with reason. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 As I said earlier it was the God fearing Christians who abolished slavery after a lot of fierce opposition. The opposite of "God fearing Christians" is "unbelieving atheists" which is admitted by everyone on the forum. . Are you really this inane? Name one, just one of these "unbelieving atheists" that voted against these God fearing Christians. *this isn't the only objection with your 'evidence' but it will suffice for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Survival of the Fittest has influenced American economic policy, immigration law, and political thinking up to today, while its variants have influenced everything from Hitler's eugenics to various state-sponsored incidents of ethnic cleansing. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/web1/mheeney.html . G man, did you actually read the link you posted? It refutes your argument that Darwinism is responsible for Naziism, etc. This is the first line: "Social Darwinism is a philosophy proposed by Herbert Spencer which sought to apply the ideas of Darwin to a social realm. Its basic tenet is that ""Society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance.", and that the unfit should "not be prevented from dying out" (1). It suffers from severe fallacies of both its own internal logic and its misinterpreting attempts to co-opt Darwin's theory of evolution to further its own validity by false association." False association. I'll say it again, for the hard of thinking: false association. In other words, social darwinism is a fallacious attempt to co-opt a well-evidenced scientific theory to prop up a crackpot social policy. People who worship crystals do similar disservice to quantum theory: does that means physics is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm suffering with an unexplained facial pain and bad headache which will take me to the doctors in the morning. Thanks for asking though. So Grahame, your amended post says the same thing as your original. Now kindly substantiate your claim, lest you remain a liar in our eyes. I have not amended anything I suggest you see the greatest physician of them all. His name is Jesus. Goodnight. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 G man, did you actually read the link you posted? It refutes your argument that Darwinism is responsible for Naziism, etc. This is the first line: "Social Darwinism is a philosophy proposed by Herbert Spencer which sought to apply the ideas of Darwin to a social realm. Its basic tenet is that ""Society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance.", and that the unfit should "not be prevented from dying out" (1). It suffers from severe fallacies of both its own internal logic and its misinterpreting attempts to co-opt Darwin's theory of evolution to further its own validity by false association." False association. I'll say it again, for the hard of thinking: false association. In other words, social darwinism is a fallacious attempt to co-opt a well-evidenced scientific theory to prop up a crackpot social policy. People who worship crystals do similar disservice to quantum theory: does that means physics is wrong? Darwinism does not come out of the debate very well at all. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 We are not YHVH. . Ok then, try it this way: Imagine Grahame, a xtian, sitting down at his computer and seeing a post about how Baal personally murdered, or endorsed the murder of, thousands of men, women, children and cattle. Grahame is shocked and declares that "No just god would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to his computer again and this time finds a post about Yhvh, whose brutal actions make Baal seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Grahame was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says:..........................? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.