The Problem of Slavery in the Bible
- Thread starter fOx
- Start date
Because none of the claims of religion, that are remotely rooted in reality (meaning declarations about non-supernatural things) are unique or exclusive to religion, thus you don't need the trappings of religion for those things. And all the supernatural claims they make (and are also the root of their supposed authority to make their claims) can either not be proven (because they are appealing to something that is outside the realm of testable reality), or have often been disproven.
You only have to look at the content of this thread to see why religion doesn't help anything. It's got people debating the ethical justification of SLAVERY, so that they can not feel bad about believing in a book that certainly doesn't say it's directly AGAINST slavery. I mean god didn't seem inclined to make one of his Commandments "Thou Shalt Not Own Other People As Property" But instead gave rules on the most effective way to obtain slaves from the heathens around you, and how you can own them, and pass them on to your offspring for life. Slavery, being debated, on the nuances of it, and if it was "ok" or not. All because god.
And that's just ONE religion, in a plethora of religions that humanity has created and adopted over the years. All of which get casually disregarded by followers of one religion as "being just silly, but my iteration of invisible sky daddy is totally real! because it's holy book says it is!" Never mind all the other religions say the exact same thing about THEIR religion, and all of them have the same complete lack of actual proof that what they are spouting is even remotely true.
And since nobody's religion actually exists in a vacuum, it colors their interactions with the world, and the choices that they make, that have impact on the people around them. They vote for people and laws based on their faith, even though those people and laws are designed to restrict the health/safety/and liberties of another group, all because they think their god doesn't like that group. Because of their specific interpretation of a passage of a book written thousands of years ago (an interpretation that probably half of their own religion disagrees with, and has an interpretation directly opposed to theirs).
It causes them to decide that they shouldn't use things like medical care, because they think it's going to make their sky daddy angry. It causes them to ostracize and evict family members, for saying things like "I'm an atheist." or "I'm LGBTQ" isolating them from their family, and treating them like a stranger, forcing them to try and find a support group elsewhere, because apparently their god is more important to them then their actual family. It causes them to strap bombs to themselves, and hijack planes and ram them into buildings. And a laundry list of other things that people do in the name of religion, without any actual concrete evidence to support the validity of the source of their behavior. "I do all this because it's what my god wants me to" But more accurately it's what they THINK their god wants to them to do because the god sure as hell isn't actually saying anything to clarify his/her/it's position on the matter today. And the rest of us, are supposed to accommodate them and their delusions, while simultaneously having to put up with them establishing laws that impact us, despite us not sharing their faith.
So yeah, fuck religion.
No, I think it's a valid point that people are inclined to express some form of religiosity, or perhaps spirituality may be a less loaded term. If you somehow managed to annihilate every current religion on earth tomorrow, in 100 years billions of people would be adherents of either new religions or some similarish form of semi-structured, overgrown spirituality. Frankly, some people might call themselves non-religious or atheists now, but will be thinking of themselves that way in terms of conventional organised religion, and in fact have a wide range of unprovable metaphysical beliefs similar to religions.
One might argue that the number of religious people has decreased, and that's technically true. However, I would suggest that in the old days, a lot of nominal adherents never had any significant faith. Religion was more a social veneer to them: an assumed fact of life because no contrary position really existed, a social role or convenience to fit in, that played negligible role in their thoughts on the world. Since modern atheism was developed as a structured ideology in the 17th century and beyond, people with this sort of mindset are the ones who have increasingly self-defined as atheist.
The way I tend to phrase it is that while I have my issues with religion, I am way more lenient with faith. You want to hold individual beliefs then, as long as no one’s getting hurt, more power to you. It’s when faith becomes religion that it starts to become a means of control and assumption of power
What do you mean when you use the term "faith"? Because nobody ever seems to use that term to mean the same thing. So depending on your definition, I might have a big issue with someone just living "on faith." A lot of religious apologists like to play with the word faith, to try and undermine opposing stances that criticize their religious stances. "Well you just have faith in science" being a popular one. But the issue is that in that context, they are just using faith to me "confidence in something." But that's not the same thing when applied to religious belief. Having confidence in something, that has been tested and proven to be a reliable stance, isn't faith. To quote Matt Dillahunty, "faith is the excuse people use, when they don't have a good REASON to believe in something. If you have a good reason to believe in something, you don't ever appeal to faith, you appeal to the good reason (ie: evidence).
Conventionally, when talking about religion, faith tends to have a more constrained definition of belief in something by spiritual conviction rather than materialism, measurement and logic.
Going into a debate on religion by trying to make "faith" nothing but a synonym for belief is something of a semantic fiddle.
Largely just a catch all term I personally use for whatever belief system people have. To better define what it means to me at least it would largely mean something you believe to be true without the means of proving it so. Maybe you worship a deity, maybe you just believe in ghosts, maybe you've got a wicca thing going on. If its your thing and you just get along with it without imposing on anyone else, what business is it of mine?
The problem is that there isn't any position someone can't "just take on faith." Including very bad ones, for themselves and others. Sure, it would be great, if everyone had these isolated, singular, insular little faith systems, that were limited to just themselves, but that's not the world we live in. Something like belief/faith, colors just about EVERY aspect of a person's life. So it has repercussions to others.
For the very small number of people who have some incredibly small and singular belief system, that isn't propping up some larger religious institution or organization, if you asked most athiests and secularists if they care, most will say "no, not really." But they aren't the issue at hand.
*blinks* Where in the hell did you get the impression that I refuse to become an atheist? I have declared myself to be an athiest for the last decade. Hell my profile information on Escapist 1.0 was Atheist Godfather. I have stated multiple times in other threads on these very forums that I am an atheist, and have stated my criticisms about how media and entertainment poorly portrays those without faith.
If all that's not enough, let me just state it here. "I am an atheist, and have been for well over a decade."
I'm genuinely confused how you came to that conclusion, seeing as I have never said anything of the sort, on these forums or anywhere else.
This eloquently describes why I gave up on anti-theism. If it were simply a matter of truth claims, theism wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But religion is more than just metaphysical contemplations as it also satisfies our own need for social interaction, habit and ritual. Even atheists have formed organizations that take on the bare-bones structure of religious ritual to enrich communities. Religion has indeed been the vehicle for a lot of human atrocities, but to blame religion entirely overlooks the fact that this capacity for horror and cruelty exists in the human condition and it doesn't need a church so much as a strong enough motive to bring it out.
I agree entirely.
In fact, one of the things I would throw at some atheists is the fervour with which they attack religions and the reigious is on the same end of spectrum as the attitude of the Inquisition: intolerance, contempt, hatred, and a desire to destroy. As you say, that'is part of the human condition, and it can attach itself to ideologies such as atheism as well as religions.
Yes, thats why I tend to take issue with religion. Because it takes the things that should be be insular and turns it into...a product really. Something you must buy into and must consume and if you don't like the exact same brand you are wrong. Its why I feel you shouldn't get your morality from an ancient book because why on earth should you?
Don't even get me started on the movement atheism of the 2000's and what a shit show that turned into. All those people did is prove that you don't need to be religious to be a vain, petty asshole.
Assuming that a person believes that:
1. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God exists
2. Gave his instructions for humanity in the form of a book
3. Rewards people who follow that book
It should seem obvious.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,985
- 3,847
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Why are you all talking about the bible like its a true thing, everyone knows the only true god is the glorious sun horse.
(Seen here with a majestic look of mayhem in her eye.)
(Seen here with a majestic look of mayhem in her eye.)
No atheist has ever claimed that being an asshole is the sole propriety of religion. That still doesn't validate the supernatural claims of religions in any way, or invalidate the atheist stance on supernatural claims.
Except the book is ancient, and contains numerous rulings that make little sense in a modern world. If your god isn't so omnipotent and omniscient that he can't update his own instruction manual with, picking a minor example, "hey, you know tattoos? Maybe not so bad" then surely the modern moral code takes precedence
I don't think you've quite hit the nail on the head. Motive is part of it, yes, but organization is the other half. For a span of a few centuries, the church had greater power and international organization than any European monarch. Hence, beliefs and ideology found their main outlet through the church.
As social power shifted to the countries, you see more atrocities committed by nations at the behest of governments, with political and economic ideologies as the fuel within the organizational framework of the state.
I'd like to do a nice, long post about my perspective of spirituality and religion, and how I believe that modern mythology has found its outlet through consumerism and harnessed by corporations through intentionally encouraging fandoms as modern day cults, and its effect on the spiritual health of society, but that might be best saved for a new thread. I don't feel like doing a deep dive into it at this moment anyway.