Thursday, February 28, 2013

The Bible on Slavery


This came up in a recent discussion I had with a couple of believers.  They asserted the bible does not endorse slavery.  I asked which bible they were reading.  This is from my bible:

A few Bible verses about slavery:

Ex 21:2  “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

Ex 21:20-21  “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

Lev 25:44-46 “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.  Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.  And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

1 Tim 6:1 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”

Col 3:22  “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.”

How does someone read these passages and not think the bible endorses slavery?  It DOES!!  Nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned.  Why not a commandment?  Where is the commandment that says, “Thou shalt not own slaves”?  It’s not there because the bible LIKES slavery!  If we follow the bible, we not only own slaves, but regard ourselves as slaves to god.  How abhorrent!!  How vile!!  Your god is a slave-owner?!  Ew!

None for me thanks.  I, for one, am glad this god is imaginary.  How fortunate we are to be the ones who control our morality, not this monster.  How wonderful it is that all believers are so much better than the book they call holy.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Temptation of Heaven


Heaven, the greatest carrot and stick routine
I was reading a muslim’s blog the other day.  This particular blog was talking about how non-muslims seem to be fascinated by the 70 virgins in heaven thing.  I must say that when the writer said that this is the first thing most non-muslims think of islam, I agreed.  This seems to be true for me.  The point of this particular blog was that the point of the virgins isn’t the virgins themselves, but that heaven is a reward for those who chose the right religion (or were lucky enough to have been born in it) and followed the dogma of the religion all their life.  I would say that my problem with the virgins is not the virgins themselves, but the fact religion thinks we need a reward in order to do the right thing.

Let me start with this:  what IS the right thing to do?  How do we tell the right from wrong?  The question of right and wrong SHOULD keep us up at night.  We should constantly be pondering our personal code of morals and ethics, looking for flaws and ways to correct those flaws. We need to be able to discuss what we find with those closest to us, to get other perspectives and weigh them.  But this can only happen AFTER we accept that there are no objective moral standards, and that any moral standard we make can be wrong.  If we think our morality is the best, greatest morality that has god’s stamp of approval, I imagine you’d have no reason to ever ask if an action is or is not right.  And you’d have no reason to change it.  And your morality would surly stagnate, and fail.  Humans are fallible, but we are the ones in control of our morality.  Give it over to an imaginary god, and we have lost before we have begun.

Of course religion is no place to find moral standards.  If it were, we’d see all religions agreeing on what is right and what is wrong.  And while simple layers like the Golden Rule do seem to make multiple appearances, how this plays out certainly varies from religion to religion.  Show me a religion that says “…and play nice with other religions, for they have as much evidence of their god(s) as you do”. 

And why should we do the right thing instead of the wrong thing? Perhaps the wrong thing is easier, more profitable, or more enjoyable. Why would anyone ever choose to do the right thing if the wrong thing could bring about a better result?   Surely we can all agree that the right thing often is far more complicated that the wring thing.  Surely we have all been faced with a choice where the wrong thing would bring a more favorable outcome.  Why do you not do it?  Never do I weigh the consequences that I may face in an afterlife when making this decision. Yet I am pulled to do the right thing, because I know it is the right thing to do.  Is there any reward better than knowing you did your best? 

In a story I often read to my son at bedtime, a boy is faced with the problem of showing an empty pot to the emperor, when he knows all the other children will be presenting lovely flowers.  His father says to him, “You did your best, and your best is good enough to present to the emperor.”  I love that line.
Now don’t get me wrong.  I like rewards.  I have a Kroger card: I save my Coke caps; I used to save Camel cash before some asshat thought the free lighters were the reason I smoked.  But the thing is I shop at Kroger because it’s close to my house.  I like soda, and Coke is my favorite.  Nicotine is addictive.  In other words, I’d do these things without the rewards.  I ought to be able to do the right thing without one either.
Finally, let’s talk about the nature of the reward.  In heaven, or at least the muslim heaven described in the blog, you get all the pleasures of earth without any consequence.   You can eat and never be full or gain weight.  You can have sex with your 70 virgins and they will remain virgins.  You can drink and never be drunk.  You get the idea.  You know, to me, this sounds more like hell than heaven.
What would I ever do with 70 virgins?  Like I’m dead so I have all the time in eternity to teach them all what to do?  Why can’t heaven have one chick who knows how to do the dirty dance with me?  I find one person who has a clue is better then 100 giggling at each other.
Look, after I’m dead, I don’t want to eat to enjoy the taste of food.  I don’t want to have sex for pleasure.  I don’t want to drink alcohol and get intoxicated.  THAT’S WHAT LIFE IS FOR!!  If I didn’t do those things while I was alive, why would I think a good time to start is after I’m dead?  As if a virgin, on his/her deathbed ever thought, “Gee, I’m going to die and finally lose my virginity after I’m in heaven!”  I doubt it.

I can’t understand why we can’t enjoy a good pork chop today, while we are alive.  I’m confused why we should not have sex now, while we can.  Why is alcohol banned in this life and not in the next?  Why would I EVER want to drink alcohol and NOT get drunk? 

Religion tries to tempt me with promises of eternal pleasure once I’m dead if I follow the “rules” in life.  Like an eternal hand job.  I guess I just know how to resist temptation.  Besides, I don’t need god to give me a hand job. I can do that myself just fine. 

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Blog Talk Radio

I've begun an internet radio show called the Atheist Roundtable.  I think I'm so damned full of answers I should take calls!!  Actually, I wanted to try to branch out from the blog.  This is great and all, but I wanted to try other media, and the internet allows me to do this for free.  I've placed a widget on this blog.  Just look at the right and find it.  If you have any ideas or comments for the show, you can leave them here, or email the show at atheistroundtable@gmail.com.

I'll still blog from time to time.  If you like the show and the blog, and you are able, consider donating a buck or two.  I'll use the donations to fund the full version of BlogTalkRadio, which allows better times and call screening.  Oh, how I long for screening!

Thanks to everyone who has shown me such support!!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Facebook debate, Part III

Okay, here it is.  The last leg of the debate I had with Matt Larimer, pastor of the Rio Grande Baptist Church here in Terre Haute.  Matt consistently refused to address my points.  He argued from ignorance, emotion and authority.  He couldn't hold a logical conclusion in a bucket.  I eventually just stopped answering him.  I've had better conversations with trolls.

Enjoy.


·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    I'm going to be completely honest with you. I have had countless discussions and debates with atheists and you are by far the most arrogant and at the same time least capable one I have ever spoken with. It would be better for your organization and your cause for you to stop posting goofy video's, pictures, and comments that only make you and the group look ridiculous.

I have a ton of respect for atheists who just can't say they believe in something they don't. I think it takes a lot of courage to stand up in a community and tell people how you really feel. But you are laughably arrogant, rude, disrespectful, and you seem to lack a basic grasp of your own world view. I am not very smart but at least I know it. I don't run around acting like I'm brilliant and just embarrassing myself. And I have heard and debated with plenty of atheists who I truly felt were extremely intelligent.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    I could say the same of you, and I have no idea what you've been posting, cause I don't care

If you don't want to debate me, piss off. I've got plenty of asshats thinking they have an argument for god. Take a number.

Like I went looking for you in the first place...
·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    You're right what I said in that last post was extremely rude and arrogant. I would just really love to sit down and have these discussions in a group. Did you say I could come to your group meetings on Fridays? I will not cause a disturbance, and I apologize again for the last post.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    Our meetings are open to the public. We'll be at Mogger's next Friday at 6:00pm.

Keep in mind that my group is part educational, part support group. There are members who are not as jaded against religion as I, and a few who have criticized me for being too harsh on religion.

In any event, there is never a lack of things to discuss at our meetings. And there are often spirited debates WITHOUT believers there.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    Oh, and BTW. There will be people there who won't like the fact I've invited you. Keep that in mind.

There are also people in my group who have been seriously hurt or are being seriously hurt by religion.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    I totally understand that. I know religion has done a lot of damage over the years, and that is why I get frustrated with myself when I say things that aren't respectful. I really appreciate the invite.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I noticed you changed your idea's in the attic pitch to a non-profit group which will help fund abortions. I was wondering, are you pro-choice because you believe a woman has the right to make choices about her own body?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    sure
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    Then are you for or against prostitution?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    for
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    At least your consistent.
o    Why don't you post more material fighting for the rights of prostitutes?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    think I should?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I would like to see people's reactions. Do you think they will be as supportive?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    why shouldn't they be?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I totally agree, if your pro-choice you should support abortion and prostitution but I doubt many people would be, but maybe I'm wrong.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    you probably are
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    If abortion is legal and prostitution is illegal I would think that logically you would be fighting harder for the legalization of prostitution.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Abortion IS legal, and yet the fight to preserve the availability of the medicine is never ending. what with asshat laws like personhood bills getting passed all over the place, it's enough to make any rational person vomit.

On the other hand, prostitution is illegal, and yet the laws against it are rarely enforced. the vice police have better things to do than chase down people paying for blowjobs
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    At what point do you think that a person becomes a person?
o    I know it's a tough question just message me when you have it all figured out.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    yawn. sure
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    No seriously, at what point?
o    I really would love to know when you have decided that a person becomes a person.
o    Don't even answer it, this whole discussion makes me want to vomit. 50 million dead babies because you want to play God, and decide when people become people, and post stupid analogies between chickens and eggs.
o    At least be honest and start posting some information fighting to make prostitution legal.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    Or at least be honest and post pictures of a fertilized chicken egg, with the little baby chicken in it.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Matt, you're an idiot.

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Consider this:

I am a 36 year old male. There is no question I am a person. Certainly, you would also argue that if I became ill, I would still be a person.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me? what if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

NONE!!

When my body can no longer sustain my life, I die. I have NO right to force, by will, law or moral authority someone else to use their body to sustain my own, for ANY length of time.

Your argument make me want to vomit. 50 million women forced to bear children they did not want. That equals 100 million lives destroyed because YOU think you have some divine knowledge that no one else has. You think you have the right to force your morality onto others. That's sick, and it is why I find religion so destructive to society. The idea that we ought to use religion to stop behavior found to be "sinful" is repugnant to me.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Andrew, your argument is ridiculous! A child could not survive on its own, realistically, until young adulthood. So please tell me you're logically consistent and you support murdering children if parents decide that they no longer want to sustain their lives.

Quit the whole "you make me want to vomit" act. It doesn't add any credibility to your argument. I literally was going to vomit last night because during our conversation I read some of the techniques used to perform abortions. The vital organs are fully formed and the heart begins beating at 5-6 weeks, and this is exactly the time that the majority of abortions are performed. The child is cut up and sucked through a tube.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Honestly this argument sounds eerily similar to your "thought crime" argument. Your ideas are born out of a contempt for religion rather than actually thinking about the situations and there consequences.
o    Surely you are not arguing that at birth the child can now survive on its own. So again at what point do think a person becomes a person, or at what point do you think a fetus can survive on its own? This is your argument right?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Matt, you must be daft.

This is not an argument about the needs of an infant for care from others. I would argue that no one is an island, at any point in their lives, and we all depend on one another at all times. This point of view further enrages me when I see people like you who try to impose false morality on others through legislation. That's offensive, and it makes me nauseous to contemplate. That's not an act. That's a response to religions' infection on society.

The argument is that if you support the mandatory commitment of one person's body to sustain the life of another, then you must also support the idea of forcing people to use their bodies to extend the life of others who are adults. This is the natural, logical conclusion to you position.

I think that is repulsive. It makes me want to vomit when I consider it. When I further acknowledge that there are people like you who think this is the moral thing to do, I am indeed filled with anger that you haven't thought about the situation and its consequences.

We can return to thought crime if you like. This is far more interesting to me.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    The question of when a person becomes a person is irrelevant, until you acknowledge you would be willing to force your mother to use her body to sustain your life after you became so ill your biody could no longer sustain life on its own.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    I'm not sure what you're talking about. How could my mother's body help sustain my life if I was ill? Do you mean things like taking care of me, feeding me, and changing my clothes? These things don't make me sick, they sound like things a loving caring mother would do. I would definitely do all of those things for any of my children if they became ill. I was trying to resist the urge to ask you this, but you sound like you've been reading to much eugenics literature.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Let's try again.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me?

See, what I mean here is that my body cannot perform the functions on its own required to sustain my life.

What if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What I mean here is that, hypothetically, my body must be connected in some biological way so that my mother's body is now to perform the function that mine can no longer perform.

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

The question is NOT would you do this willingly. The question is what right do you have to coerce, through legislation, any person to use their body in this manner? If it were voluntary, there is no conflict. It would indeed be wonderfully nice to do. However, that is not the point. By what right do you force a person (that's a person however you'd like to define one) to use their body to sustain the life of another person ( that's another person define however you;d like)?

Your silly personhood question is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. There is NO circumstance under which it is morally permissible to use legislation to coerce someone to do this. Period.

This has nothing to do with eugenics. You would be daft to think it did.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Okay I understand now, you don't think a woman's choice to create another person should translate into any responsibility to take care of that person. And I don't understand why the biological connection is so important to you. An infant is just as dependent on it's mother for care before and after the cord is cut. But I'm assuming that you feel a mother is responsible for the well being of the child as soon as it is born correct? Or do you think mothers should have the right to abandon their children if they no longer want to care for them?

And this argument has everything to do with eugenics, and you would be daft to think it doesn't. You don't think anyone should be responsible for another person if that person can not take care of themselves. That is the logical outcome of your argument. And it's exactly what leads to the termination of the elderly, mentally handicapped, and the unborn.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    No.

NO.

no.

NO.

Let's try again.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me?

See, what I mean here is that my body cannot perform the functions on its own required to sustain my life.

What if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What I mean here is that, hypothetically, my body must be connected in some biological way so that my mother's body is now to perform the function that mine can no longer perform.

THIS SCENARIO INVOLVES THE LEGAL COERCION OF ONE PERSON TO USE THEIR BODY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE OF ANOTHER PERSON.

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

The question is NOT would you do this willingly. The question is what right do you have to coerce, through legislation, any person to use their body in this manner? If it were voluntary, there is no conflict. It would indeed be wonderfully nice to do. However, that is not the point. By what right do you force a person (that's a person however you'd like to define one) to use their body to sustain the life of another person ( that's another person define however you;d like)?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    This is NOT a question of responsibility. This is a question of legal coercion.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Okay I think I get it now. No one should be legally coerced into sustaining the life of another person. Therefore it is okay to cut that person into pieces, suck them up through a hose, and throw them in the trash. Your position now makes perfect sense.
o    How does that not make you sick. They cut the baby up, suck it out through a hose, and throw it in the trash.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    they do the same to cancer
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    You are really cold hearted man, and you think religion makes people do crazy things.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    you still haven't defended the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
o    You really are a simple man, with no understainding of how morals, ethics and civility work
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Yeah I do. It is moral, ethical, and civil not to cut people up into little pieces. What about that do you not understand.
o    I'm not coercing anyone. A man and woman make a choice to create a life it is therefore their responsibility to care for that life. This doesn't seem that difficult of a concept.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    I'm not coercing anyone. A man and woman make a choice to create a life it is therefore their responsibility to care for that life. This doesn't seem that difficult of a concept.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Oh, you think abortion should be legal, and only object on moral grounds?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    If you only object on moral grounds, then FINE!!

You do that, and allow others to make moral choice ON THEIR OWN
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    pass one law that restricts or prohibits abortion and....
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    When a person uses their body to create a life they should be legally obligated to care for that life. There shouldn't be any laws concerning abortion. The child is a person, it's simply murder man.
o    When the child is born are the parents obligated to care for it?
o    If they left it in the car when they got home they would be prosecuted for negligent homicide. What difference does the umbilical cord make?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    So you think your mother ought to be forced to use her body to save your life if your body was no longer able to sustain it's own?

"When a person uses their body to create a life they should be legally obligated to care for that life."

Until when? Until birth? Death? High school?

"What difference does the umbilical cord make?"

That's MY point.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 9
o    We already have laws which state the period of time in which a parent is obligated to car for a child, I believe in Indiana it's until they're 18 years old. Do you disagree with these laws?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Yes, exactly. These laws are arbitrary, no?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 9
o    You don't think there is any reason why parents should be obligated to take care of their children?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    are these reasons arbitrary?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 10
o    No the reasons aren't arbitrary. If a parent neglects their child, and as a result the child dies or experiences trauma there should be consequences.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
May 10
o    sure. consequences. fine.

What does that have to do with the question? Do you understand what "arbitrary" means?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 10
o    The reasons for the laws aren't arbitrary. They aren't random or based on personal whims. They are based on damage that will occur if the laws aren't followed, and therefore there must be a defined punishment if the laws are broken. What do you think arbitrary means? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't punish parents who neglect their children?


And there you have it.  I couldn't take anymore.  I just had to stop.  And I thought Tim gave me a headache!!