Bill Snedden

Hmm. A strawman argument is an argument offered in rebuttal to an argument your opponent did not represent. It's usually done by creating a caricature of your opponent's argument and then responding to it.

We are not arguing that god is a "slave driver". You claimed that we were and then argued against that definition.

That is a strawman argument. QED.

I must be confused. I thought there was a penalty or otherwise unpleasant consequence of rejecting God. Now you're claiming that there's not? That I'm free to reject his authority over me without any threat of sanction or negative consequence?

By your definition, African slaves were also "free" to reject the authority of their masters...and earn the lashes of their taskmaster's whip as a consequence. Wowee! What a bundle of freedom they had!

You will please note that my formalization of the argument does not use 'X'. I used "we", which clearly implies a person. Your "rebuttal" is a complete non sequitur.

But, if it will help, I'll rewrite the argument to eliminate the confusion:

P1: If a person is owned, then that person is a slave
P2: God owns all persons.
C1: All persons are slaves

P3: A slave master is one who owns slaves
C2: God is a slave master (from P2, P3)

Again, as near as I can determine, this is a deductively valid argument (it appears to follow the modus ponens form). If the premises are sound then the conclusion is valid.

BTW, you mention "pet" in your list. Do you really own your pet in the same way that you own your shoes? Is there equal moral consequence to placing your shoes and your pet in the garbage compactor?

Also please note that you continue to misuse the word "unilateral"...

You claim they are counterexamples, but you've not provided any argument or evidence that they are. Both Fiach and I have provided both to address your "counterexamples" that you have yet to address.

Try again. Address the actual formalized argument I used. Deny one of the premises or conclusions and provide evidence/argumentation that it is incorrect.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Slavemaster...slavedriver. Same thing.



Bill, again...you should have left this one to Fiach.


From Webster's
Slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

As you can see...'slave' is not defined in terms of 'ownership'.

P1 is now verifiably false...and Webster agrees with me.


Correct.

Incorrect. African slaves where not free to do anything. They had no freedom to: go to the store, buy stuff, eat ice cream. They most certainly had no freedom to reject their masters.











They are examples that show 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' is a false statement.

For example: If a child does not 'consent' to his/her parents...this does not mean that the parents don't have authority over the child. This directly contradicts the statement 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' because the child does not consent yet the parents still have authority over the child.


Another example: If you do not 'consent' to the police...this does not mean the police have no authority over you. This directly contradicts the statement 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' because you don't consent yet the police still have authority over you.


Another example: If you do not 'consent' to the President of the United States...this does not mean the President of the United States has not authority over you. This directly contradicts the statement 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' because you don't consent yet the President of the United States still has authority over you.


These are 3 examples that show the statement 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' is false. In each case the subject does not consent...yet the person in authority still retains authority.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Fiach

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

My comments are in italics - Fiach


1) He (and I) are arguing that your conception of god is as a "slavemaster". In refutation, you cited Webster's definition of "slave driver" and then preceded to claim that god did not fit this definition. This is a strawman fallacy. Fiach never claimed god was a slave driver, but rather a slave master.


No strawman here, watch...Are you or are you not calling God a slave driver?

I never used the term slave driver. This is a non-issue. Your hypothetical God is a slavemaster or owner of humans as property.


quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

At any rate, the relevant definitions from Websters:

Slave:

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

<some stuff omitted>

Obviously a "slave master" is someone that is in charge of, in control of, or owns slaves.

Therefore, in what way does your conception of god not fit the appellation "slavemaster?"


In the way that we do not qualify as 'slaves'. We are neither 'held in servitude' or 'completely subservient' to God. The ironic part is...you Bill...are proof of this. Any person can at anytime excersize their freedom and do whatever they wish...even reject God. This is not 'competely subservient' behavior. No slave has the freedom to reject their master.

Time scale is important. A Black slave in Alabama was owned. That slave could exercise his freedom, even reject his master. That could be done at any time. Of course the most likely outcome would be for Patrollers to hunt down and kill the slave. Bill and I would be like the slave who rejects his master and escapes. God would be like the Plantation slave owner, who mounts his horse, musket and pistol in place who gathers up 20 rough homicidal patrollers also mounted and armed to pursue the slaves trying to escape on foot. When caught, the slave may be hung or shot. That is the equivalent of God’s later punishment of Bill and I, by sending us to Hell. If your God were real, we would be slaves. We would be slaves who rebelled, and when caught, (i.e. die) we would be condemned (hung or shot = Hell.)

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

2) Fiach has not committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your "restatement" of his argument is inaccurate.

In actuality, it should go like this:

P1: If we are owned, then we are slaves
P2: God owns us.
C1: we are slaves


Bill, I was hoping Fiach (not you) would step on this one. P1 'If X is owned THEN X is slave' is unilaterally false. Notice X=your shoes, your car, your family pet, money in savings, your favorite work of art. These are all 'owned', however none of them are 'slaves'.

I would put it slightly different for emphasis:
P1: If humans are owned, then humans are slaves.
P2: God owns humans, human slaves.
C1: God is a slave master/owner of humans.


quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

3) Fiach's acknowledgement of "4 counter-arguments" does not amount to an argument that they are correct.


Bill, those weren't 'arguments'. They are real world counter-examples of why 'authority exists only by the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed' is a unilaterally false statement.

Authority exists at the consent of those over whom the authority is claimed, is the basis of social groups since humans started walking upright if not earlier. It is an evolutionary principle. In addition it has been formalized in the Enlightenment concept of the Social Contract. We all, even in monarchies, have an implicit contract to accept the King’s authority in exchange for his protection. If he fails to protect us, we can contract to another noble to overthrow that king and become the new king based on our new contract. In the case of a hypothetical God, we have no contract, you do. We feel that we are not bound by your contract to some hypothetical being which we think doesn’t exists. However if we are his slaves and he is the slave master, and he is real, then he can send his patrollers (angels) and hunt us down like Blacks in 1850 Alabama. I see no difference between your God and Simon Legree.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

4) Your final response "Correct. He (god) isn't a slavemaster." is in contradiction to your earlier statements regarding our relationship to god.


You misunderstand. They are a contradiction to your earlier statements about God...not mine. See above.

Whatever. The logical conclusion of your argument is to confirm that your ideology is about a Slavemaster God who owns Human slaves, who are under His authority without their consent (at least the 70% non-Christians of the world.)



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Fiach, anti-slavery activist.

Bill Snedden

I'll respond to the rest of your "arguments" later, but for now:

Sigh. I'm trying to be charitable here...is English perhaps not your primary language? I'm seriously trying to understand why this is so difficult. We really seem to have a communication gap.

Try looking up the definition of chattel...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
I actually don't think it's difficult. I think we just disagree.

Perhaps this would clear things up.


Both you and Fiach claim we are slaves. Given that the definition of slave is...
From Webster's
Slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

Can you show how we are 'held in servitude' or 'completely subservient' to God?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
[B]Bill,

I actually don't think it's difficult. I think we just disagree.

Perhaps this would clear things up.


Both you and Fiach claim we are slaves. Given that the definition of slave is...
From Webster's
Slave:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

Can you show how we are 'held in servitude' or 'completely subservient' to God?

Crikey, Boyo, didn't you bother to read my post? I said it as clearly as possible. We and 1850 black slaves are held in servitude to a slave master (God and Simon Legree respectively). We can rebel, reject our master, just as a black slave could reject his Massa Legree. But according to your Christian dogma and Plantation rules, definite penalties were inflicted for dissent, rebellion, and rejection of authority. Slave insurrections were common in the Pre-Civil War South, and punishments were lethal. The slave could resist and reject, but later he faced lethal punishment. Humans who think independently can do so, but in your cult dogma, we face an ultimate worse than lethal punishment, Hell. Can't you see that there is no difference?

Someone microwaved your metalic sonatas ;-)

Fiach

Bill Snedden

I've never met a Christian who didn't think that rendering service to God was a requirement for the faithful. You believe in him and worship him as your master, but somehow you owe him nothing? He requires nothing of you?

At any rate, the Bible certainly doesn't agree:

Luke 1:54 - "He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy..."

Luke 2:29 - "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word"

John 12:26 - "If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him..."

Acts 4:29 - "And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness..."

1 Corinthians 4:1 - "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."

2 Corinthians 6:4 - "but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities..."

Galatians 1:10 - "Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ."

And this is only the NT. I'm sure the OT contains some relevant references as well. I didn't even cite all that I found in the NT, only a few to demonstrate my point:

It is clear that your god, through his words recorded in the Bible, considers his faithful as servants.

At any rate, I don't intend for this to develop into an exegetical argument. I think I've made my prima facie case and I haven't even dealt with so called "moral laws". Perhaps you would now care to explain how being regarded as a servant (with the expectation of service required) does not amount to servitude?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Absolutely correct.

Those who follow God are to be good and faithful servants. However, there is a huge difference between 'servant' and 'slave'...especially in Hebrew culture: 'servant' was an occupation (like a butler or nanny). Servants were citizens, they could leave anytime they wish, own property, run estates, they were even considered part of the family. Slaves were not citizens and could do none of these. Most importantly, servants have freedom...slaves do not.


So in light of this...can you please why both you and Fiach still claim that we are 'slaves'? Or do you?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

True. Of course, "servants" in the sense you are now using are not in any sense owned by their masters. Their service is freely given (for wages) and can be freely withdrawn. You seem to feel that a human can be both chattel and free at the same time; a contradiction of the plain meaning of both words.

Remember, that you have already agreed that your god owns us. You asked me to demonstrate that we are "in servitude" to him. I have done so and you've agreed that we are. The Webster's definition with which you previously agreed says "ownership" + "servitude" = "slave". As you've already stipulated to the ownership and we've just agreed upon the servitude, I'd say we're done here.

However, even if I should grant your objection (and I don't), can you please explain how a human "servant" of your god seeks employment elsewhere without sanction? Surely you recognize that if a servant is not free to renounce his service without fear of reprisal by his former employer that he is not actually a servant, but a slave?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Fiach

j

Fiach