Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 1 of 3

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism


  1. The way Midwest Atheist accuses you of being "childish", yet keeps bringing up the word "poopyhead" cracks me up.

  2. What I don't get why many atheists trot out the same silly arguments and act like they are new and have no response! It's been 2000 years. Most of their objections were laid to waste when the Bible was written. None of them are new.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Atheist' "objections" were laid to waste only if you believe in the infallibility of (your interpretation of) the Bible. And since atheists typically object to the way the Bible is interpreted...

    You see where I'm going with this, right?

  5. Marcus McElhaney:

    You are a dumb half witted imbecile who has been brainwashed by your stupid religion.
    Atheists do not accept the Bible because it disproves and makes waste of itself. In other words it is a piece of shit like yourself!
    Any book that talks about beastiality,Cannibalism,perversions,gangbangs,
    homosexuality, slavery should be flushed down the toilet and not applauded.
    But then again maybe you would enjoy being a slave again!

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such
    resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your
    relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Being a slave then you wouldn't mind if you and your unlucky gal pal were beaten regularly!
    It is okay it is in the Bible!
    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the
    slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

  6. Dear MaskedMarauder

    Did you take the opportunity to search this site to see if the issue / verses you raised are addressed in a meaningful manner? If so what articles did you find and how are they lacking?

    I think that many of us (or is it just me) have made hasty emotive outbursts that could have been avoided by just a tiny bit of research.



  7. argumentum ad chronologicum
    The reason some on the net object to postings being made on inactive threads is because often the posting will go unnoticed (by virtue of being inactive).

    This makes it appear that the poster is attempting to "get the last word in" and make it appear that nobody has a response to their comment, when in actuality nobody is looking at that thread anymore.

    It is considered bad net-etiquette.

    argumentum ad bad grammarum
    Likewise, rushed grammer and spelling, especially from a user not previously encountered by the community, are a sign of a troll or drive-by. This combined with the fact that you merely called the Midwest Atheist illogical and accused him of using "common talking points" (rather than elaborating on any specific point in his essay), and responded to an old post, has lead to his errenous conclusion that you were, in fact, a troll.

    Internet trolls are generally met with dismissive or emotionally charged reactions. I recommend if you find yourself in a similar situation again to actually attempt to discuss a specific point or points, rather than making generalised defensive statements. As it was, and I realise this was entirely unintentional, you displayed inflammetory and unconstructive behaviour without any sign that you were other than what they assumed you were: namely, a troll.

    Your experience as relayed here shows an odd approach to net-etiquette. I hope you take the advice offered here in the spirit in which it is given.


  8. Masked Marauder

    The common apologetic responce to the problem of slavery is the claim that biblical slavery was not "slavery" as we know it these days, but rather a form of forced servitude, wherein one would pay off ones debts via working in a servant position for a 'master'.

    I admit I find this argument uncompelling, given that the very same verses have been used to support "actual" slavery in the past, and that the laws and provisions seem to indicate that physical abuse or 'punishment' of slaves is an acceptable practice (which would not be true in an instance of servitude). However, I admit that if modern christians find this argument satisfactory then their opinions must be given credence over those of people in the past who may have "abused" the text. If I were not to accept this, then I would be faced with accusatons of hypocrisy when I claim, for example, that the german eugenics regime was an abuse of science and evolutionary theory, in responce to the terribly common anti-evolutionist claim (or "talking point", if you would prefer) that the Nazi's beliefs were influenced by Darwin.

  9. James wrote stuff which can be summed up as follows: If I were not to accept this, then I would be faced with accusatons of hypocrisy

    It's an interesting point, but I believe you're comparing apples to oranges. "Evolutionists" don't claim that Darwin's theory was 100% correct and infallible from the beginning. It has changed, and anyone who works in science or is interested in it HOPES that it's capable of change.

    By contrast, Biblical morality doesn't change (according to most outspoken Christians). It IS infallible, and represents Truth that should be put into practice by all people.

    Claiming that Biblical slavery was more like indentured servitude might be a valid point, but it is inconsistent with this notion that it comes from an infallible, unchanging and 100% divinely true source. Such a thing would never yield the myriad of interpretations that the understanding of the Bible has struggled with for nearly 2000 years.

  10. For the reasons listed above, I feel it's valid to question BOTH ideas (re. that Biblical slavery was different from the modern conception, and that eugenics were a logical consequence of Darwinian evolution)

  11. WEM -

    Biblical slavery is laid out in the Bible itself. Just because society has changed definitions of certain terms (or that an ancient language uses terms differently than modern English) doesn't have anything to do with the infallibility of Scripture but instead the fallibility of man.

    Further, the fallibility of man is what leads to the myriad of interpretations most of which can be put to rest as nonsense by simply studying the topic in an honest fashion for yourself.