Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 01-13-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Without genetic intelligence, military power, and other secular factors, Christianity would not have become nearly as large as it is today, and a very small country like Britain would not have been able to conquer a large empire. British scientific achievements are quite impressive, and so were the scientific achievements of the ancient Greeks, which contributed a lot to the success of the Graeco-Roman empire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

Genetic intelligence? Are you suggesting that Europeans are genetically more intelligent than others?

I am suggesting that intelligence is a very useful means for a lifeform to favorably compete against other lifeforms for survival, food, mates, territory etc. The British invented radar during the Second World War, and they were able to break some German secret codes which told them where German submarines would be.

Genetics is obviously secular. Are you suggesting that Christianity did not grow entirely by secular means, and that scientific achievements did not help Christianity grow?

you stated

Quote:

Without genetic intelligence, military power, and other secular factors, Christianity would not have become nearly as large as it is today, and a very small country like Britain would not have been able to conquer a large empire.

and that

Quote:

intelligence is a very useful means for a lifeform to favorably compete against other lifeforms

I know you are aware that the British Empire was conquering other humans, not other lifeforms. so, are you saying that you beleive Europeans are genetically superior to other humans in the area of inteliigence?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scchlicter

I will be in this thread discussing slavery and celebrating your victory with you.

More accurately, you will be in this thread discussing slavery AND you will continue to have discussions that do not have anything to do with slavery until you get into trouble, in which case you will conveniently ask me to stick to one topic at a time when you yourself obviously do not have any intention of sticking to one topic at a time. You are quite content to engage in off-topic discussions, but only if you believe that you have the advantage. As soon as you become aware that you do not have the advantage, which is frequent, you quickly take the next bus out of town, just like you recently did in a thread about the flood at the Evolution/Creation Forum. Are you aware that you made a false claim about answering my question about Mount Ararat?

Please do not make any more promises that you do not intend to keep. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

Do you believe I exist? Just answer me and we will talk about the role of faith and reason.

I answered your question "yes," but you have refused to discuss faith and reason.

You are definitely wasting your time in this thread because nothing that you say will provide reasonable proof that a God inspired the Bible, and that ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves well. The texts only say what Hebrews were told to do. There is not any historical evidence that shows that ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves well. In addition, who knows how much the original texts might have been altered in later centuries in order to make it appear that ancient Hebrews treated their slaves well?

sschlichter · 01-13-2009, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by scchlicter

I will be in this thread discussing slavery and celebrating your victory with you.

More accurately, you will be in this thread discussing slavery AND you will continue to have discussions that do not have anything to do with slavery until you get into trouble, in which case you will conveniently ask me to stick to one topic at a time when you yourself obviously do not have any intention of sticking to one topic at a time. You are quite content to engage in off-topic discussions, but only if you believe that you have the advantage. As soon as you become aware that you do not have the advantage, which is frequent, you quickly take the next bus out of town, just like you recently did in a thread about the flood at the Evolution/Creation Forum. Are you aware that you made a false claim about answering my question about Mount Ararat?

Please do not make any more promises that you do not intend to keep. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

Do you believe I exist? Just answer me and we will talk about the role of faith and reason.

I answered your question "yes," but you have refused to discuss faith and reason.

You are definitely wasting your time in this thread because nothing that you say will provide reasonable proof that a God inspired the Bible, and that ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves well. The texts only say what Hebrews were told to do. There is not any historical evidence that shows that ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves well. In addition, who knows how much the original texts might have been altered in later centuries in order to make it appear that ancient Hebrews treated their slaves well?

Please pay closer attention. I used your answer of 'yes' to illustrate that you except my existence on a preponderance of evidence that results in faith. (since you have never met me, I could be a compilation of multiple people using the same moniker). I am actually re-evaulating the reasons that I thought you were a person. I am now thinking that it is possible you are a computer that is programmed to spit out the same type of chiding and bating every 3rd post.

You illustrate your commitment to the 'beleif' that I exist by hounding me to follow you around this site. My promise was fulfilled in that discussion, which was tangential but brief. I have now provided double the promised faith and reason discussion than was first promised.

I agree that I am wasting time right now, but I hope to get back to the discussion soon.

premjan · 01-13-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity.[4] Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery,[5] and the kings of Achaemenid Persia followed this ban to varying degrees, as evidenced by the freeing of the Jews at Babylon, and the construction of Persepolis by paid workers.

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

sschlichter · 01-13-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Quote:

The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity.[4] Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery,[5] and the kings of Achaemenid Persia followed this ban to varying degrees, as evidenced by the freeing of the Jews at Babylon, and the construction of Persepolis by paid workers.

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

That is interesting, but if you follow the reference in wikipedia, it takes you to this quote.

Quote:

The concept of slavery is alien to Zarathushtra's teachings, and no caste system or class privilege is recognized in the Gathas. The best evidence of this is provided by Zarathushtra's prayer for Kavi Gushtasp, wherein he hopes that some of the King's sons would go into agriculture, some into the military, and some work for the religion.

I do not find this very good evidence at all. this is not a ban or even a mention of slavery. It may be seen as an indictment against any type of caste system but it makes no mention of slavery. To say that it was followed in varying degrees is to say slavery was implemented in varying degrees. Some of whihc could have been moral and some immoral.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scchlicter

I used your answer of 'yes' to illustrate that you except my existence on a preponderance of evidence that results in faith.

I have never said otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scchlicter

Since you have never met me, I could be a compilation of multiple people using the same moniker.

I have never said otherwise, and for that matter, President Bush could be an alien. What evidence do you have that President Bush is not an alien?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scchlicter

My promise was fulfilled in that discussion, which was tangential but brief. I have now provided double the promised faith and reason discussion than was first promised.

No, your promise was not fulfilled in that discussion because you abandoned the discussion soonafter I asked you why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. A discussion about an issue as complex as the existence of the God of the Bible is certainly not one or two posts. You like to ask questions, but you do not like to give answers.

Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

Why do you believe I exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? If you answer my question, I will answer your question.

Asking questions is easy. Answering questions is much more difficult, which would easily be proven if you answered my question. You want me to answer your question, but you do not want to answer my question. That is not fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

I actually answered your question with mine had you taken one minute to think about it. You 'believe' I exist yet you cannot prove it. Once you decided that I most likely existed, then you acted on that faith by firing 1000 questions at me. These are the elements of faith, knowledge, belief, and commitment. Not for only theists. Atheists also live by faith. It is the object of faith that is different.

I believe in God first because the existence of a God is self evident. I see design and beauty in nature and in relationships. It is beyond belief (IMO) that A) life or matter can exist on it's own or create itself and B) that evolution (non-theistic) can provide us with some of the life that exists. Do you know the eye of an Octopus is very similar to a human eye? How could random evolutionary mutations in such different environments end up with the same design. I also consider the skunk a very funny animal. It is nearly inconceivable to me that a skunk could have evolved such a humorous defense without help. How could that have started? Did the gland evolve separately from the firing mechanism? If so, what reward existed separately from the firing mechanism to continue it's progress. Why did the firing mechanism even evolve with or without the gland. It is (IMO) willful ignorance to deny the creators role in creation.

The God of the Bible is a separate question.

If we are trading question for question then I want you to answer me why you believe that life can start without the existence of God without invoking your faith.

Will you please tell me how any of that tells why you believe that the God of the Bible exists? How does why I believe what I believe tell why you believe that the God of the Bible exists.

Regarding "The God of the Bible is a separate question," that is correct, and that is the exact separate question that I asked you, which was "Why do you believe that the God of the Bible exists?"

Since I am agnostic, I obviously do not promote naturalism or intelligent.

I have never said that atheists do not have faith, although some atheists at the Evolution/Creation Forum would be happy to discuss the issue of faith with you.

Regarding "If we are trading question for question.......," that is cute since you have made it clear that you do not have any intention of trading question for question. If you did you would be willing to have a discussion regarding why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. You are obviously not confident enough of your debating abilities to do that, although I was confident enough of my debating ablities to start a thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum that is titled "If is doubtful that a God inspired the Bible." Since you are evasive, it is a given that you would not be willing start a thread that is titled "It is probable that a God inspired the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2009, 11:08 AM

Message to sschlicter: You will never be able to make any progress in this thread since the issue of what the texts say, and the issue of how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, are two entirely different matters. Who knows how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, and how many times the original texts might have been altered in order to try to make ancient Hebrews look good?

If morality is an issue, you lose hands down because the God of the Bible is immoral.

May I ask what you are trying to prove in this thread?

sschlichter · 01-13-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I obviously do not promote naturalism or intelligent.

agreed.

Quote:

it is a given that you would not be willing start a thread that is titled "It is probable that a God inspired the Bible.

agreed.

premjan · 01-13-2009, 11:15 AM

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that slavery was not followed at all in Achaemenid Persia, but it was not permitted as per Zoroastrian principles.

sschlichter · 01-13-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

the issue of what the texts say, and the issue of how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, are two entirely different matters.

please listen because this will be at least my thrid time agreeing with this statement. Ancient Hebrews disobeyed the written text. the law was a covenant that carried blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Since they ended up with the curses, I expect they were disobedient, whihc is not at issue. What is at issue is the law itself, not anyone's ability to obey it.

Quote:

Who knows how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, and how many times the original texts might have been altered in order to try to make ancient Hebrews look good?

If you read the text, it actually makes the Hebrews look bad. that is what is interesting about your claim. It shows repeated inability to obey and a constant repetitive cycle of disobedience, punishment, restoration.

Quote:

If morality is an issue, you lose hands down because the God of the Bible is immoral.

If the God if the Bible is immoral then it is consequential that morality is not an issue.

Quote:

May I ask what you are trying to prove in this thread?

Look at the very first post, I beleive it is from you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2009, 11:08 AM	#957
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sschlicter: You will never be able to make any progress in this thread since the issue of what the texts say, and the issue of how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, are two entirely different matters. Who knows how ancient Hebrews actually treated their slaves, and how many times the original texts might have been altered in order to try to make ancient Hebrews look good? If morality is an issue, you lose hands down because the God of the Bible is immoral. May I ask what you are trying to prove in this thread?

01-13-2009, 11:15 AM	#959
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that slavery was not followed at all in Achaemenid Persia, but it was not permitted as per Zoroastrian principles.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.