|
CommieGIR posted:Don't forget that we couldn't end slavery in the US without a massive civil war in which both sides of the conflict openly appealed to divine right to their cause. Wait you actually think a bunch of poo poo stains who cobbled together phrenology and choice quites from the bible were going to just let their meal tickets free? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mmFPyDK_8
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure you can attribute all the good things achieved in the world to religion because a lot of people are religious, unless you also attribute all of the bad things for the same reason. Abolitionists were anti-slavery because of Christianity. Slaveholders were pro-slavery because money. I am truly sorry that Christians didn't abolish slavery fast enough for all the Atheists itt.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:22 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wait you actually think a bunch of poo poo stains who cobbled together phrenology and choice quites from the bible were going to just let their meal tickets free? That's a no true scotsman you are pulling there. Regardless of how baseless the claim of the Confederacy on slavery, they DID use religion as justification for their appeals. Miltank posted:Abolitionists were anti-slavery because of Christianity. Slaveholders were pro-slavery because money. No true scotsman, hey-o! The Confederacy appealed to religion, using Bible quotes and strong Christian leaders to justify their slavery. Regardless if the abolitionists where Christian, their motivation still came down to something more base than their faith: Their human disgust at slavery. They simply used their religion as backing to justify these views. quote:It’s abundantly clear, as recent scholarship has demonstrated that religion stood at the center of the Civil War for both sides. Both North and South looked to God for meaning, and each side believed—with equal fervor and certitude—that God was on its side. Many ministers, generals, leaders, and editors went so far as to proclaim that God had ordained the war and would determine its length, its damages, and its outcome. The victor would show, in other words, whose side God really supported. New England political and religious leaders had long proclaimed themselves God’s “chosen people.” With the start of the Civil War, southerners laid claim to the title and, through speech, print, and ritual actions, proceeded to “prove” their claim. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:22 |
|
Miltank posted:Abolitionists were anti-slavery because of Christianity. That's bullshit. They were anti-slavery because they weren't terrible people, and Christianity was so culturally dominant that it was not socially acceptable to appeal to doing the right thing without mentioning Jesus. Christianity actively perpetuated slavery for a very long time, sorry. The idea that slavery is against Christianity was manufactured by these abolitionists who were still afraid of dying and didn't want to throw out the promises of eternal life with the support for slavery. These days we know better. There's no need to hold on to fairy tales that were obviously made up to scare people into being easily controlled.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:25 |
|
Using religion to justify cultural inertia is different from using religion to promote radical anti-establishment egalitarianism.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:25 |
|
Miltank posted:Abolitionists were anti-slavery because of Christianity. Slaveholders were pro-slavery because money. I'm also not sure you get to redefine christianity to exclude everyone you disagree with, then appeal to its pure morality as a worthwhile thing. Either its morality is prescriptive, or descriptive, if you simply ignore every time someone uses it to justify evil as "not really christian" then its morality is not at all prescriptive. It is only morally pure because you only apply it to morally pure people. Miltank posted:Using religion to justify cultural inertia is different from using religion to promote radical anti-establishment egalitarianism. Not really it isn't. Not in terms of deciding whether the religion itself is good or not.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:25 |
|
Miltank posted:Using religion to justify cultural inertia is different from using religion to promote radical anti-establishment egalitarianism. So, what you are telling me is that without Christianity, abolitionists would have been okay with slavery. Why don't I believe you?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:26 |
|
Slavery without Christianity: keeps on going forever until Christianity stops it. Slavery with Christianity: reactionaries try and warp scripture to support chattel slavery, it doesn't work and slavery is abolished. e: abolitionists aren't abolitionists without Christianity.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:28 |
|
It's worth pointing out that the Pope banned slavery in 1537 and called slaveowners allies of the devil, and he was basically ignored by the Spanish who were profiting from it immensely. Apparently this means that the slavers were the true Catholics all along or something and not the Pope I guess?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:28 |
|
Miltank posted:Slavery without Christianity: keeps on going forever until Christianity stops it. It took over 500 years for Christianity to get the balls up to stop justifying it. Oh wait, those were not 'True Christians' right? Quit using the No True Scotsman. VitalSigns posted:It's worth pointing out that the Pope banned slavery in 1537 and called slaveowners allies of the devil, and he was basically ignored by the Spanish who were profiting from it immensely. He banned it, but it wasn't enforced until the 1700s, by which time civilization as a whole was starting to realize that slavery was a monstrous and inhuman affair.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:28 |
|
CommieGIR posted:So, what you are telling me is that without Christianity, abolitionists would have been okay with slavery. He knows it's nonsense, the opposition to slavery has no basis in scripture. People knew slavery was wrong and you couldn't talk about morality outside the context of Christianity back then, so that's how they talked about it. Note that if Christians weren't such violent bigots, people would not need to defer to their religion when arguing against things that it explicitly supports.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:29 |
The Propositions: 1) X is a Christian. A1 was an act or belief motivated by his Christianity. 2) Y is a Christian. -A1 was an act or belief not motivated by his Christianity. Is not an example of 'no true scotsman' or any other example of a logical fallacy. Kindly stop drumming it in to your arguments inappropriately.
|
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:29 |
|
I always lol when I remember how atheists think morality is some sort of universal constant. talk about magical thinking.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:31 |
|
Miltank posted:e: abolitionists aren't abolitionists without Christianity. Well I mean if you define the terms so that your argument is a tautology, things become as easy as assuming you're just going to live forever because death is scary.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:31 |
|
Disinterested posted:The Propositions: Miltank posted:Slavery without Christianity: keeps on going forever until Christianity stops it. Bullshit. He is arguing that Christians that justify slavery with their religion are 'warping it' i.e. "No True Christian" Its a No True Scotsman. Miltank posted:e: abolitionists aren't abolitionists without Christianity. Once again: So Abolitionists would've been okay with slavery had they not been Christian
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:31 |
|
CommieGIR posted:That's a no true scotsman you are pulling there. Regardless of how baseless the claim of the Confederacy on slavery, they DID use religion as justification for their appeals. Yeah I mean its not like they litterally thought it was a holy war or anything to extinguish something that was an abomination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I9duc8W6Q Starving Autist posted:Well I mean if you define the terms so that your argument is a tautology, things become as easy as assuming you're just going to live forever because death is scary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrDvpChmecI Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:32 |
|
CommieGIR posted:He banned it, but it wasn't enforced until the 1700s, by which time civilization as a whole was starting to realize that slavery was a monstrous and inhuman affair. Ah so the Papal Bull was No True Christianity because it only counts as Catholic teaching if he has the military might to enforce it on recalcitrant aristocrats? CommieGIR posted:Once again: So Abolitionists would've been okay with slavery had they not been Christian Why did this "natural human revulsion" of slavery you credit for abolition take some ten thousand years to get around to doing it?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:33 |
|
VitalSigns posted:OK now find the craziest Muslim you can and use his words to prove all Muslims are death worshipping terrorists. Christ never forbade or even spoke against the owning of slaves nor implied anywhere that he was against it probably because he had no problem with it, being a Bronze Age Jewish scholar and all.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:34 |
CommieGIR posted:Bullshit. He is arguing that Christians that justify slavery with their religion are 'warping it' i.e. "No True Christian" I don't necessarily accept your point, but even if I did, no true Scotsman in that form is not a formal logical fallacy, and the argument is arguably true in some parallel situations: e.g. 'No true Marxist believes in the vanguard party'. Yelling 'no true Scotsman' is in no way decisive to the argument. Who What Now posted:Christ never forbade or even spoke against the owning of slaves nor implied anywhere that he was against it probably because he had no problem with it, being a Bronze Age Jewish scholar and all. Slavery does appear in the New Testament; the best way of thinking of it is probably the 'rend unto Caesar' logic. E.g. Christianity is not intended as a program for government, and one is intended to follow the law insofar as is possible. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:34 |
|
CommieGIR posted:He banned it, but it wasn't enforced until the 1700s, by which time civilization as a whole was starting to realize that slavery was a monstrous and inhuman affair. Nevermind the fact that Christians keeping slaves and supporting it with scripture were so common as to not be notable at all, the real Christians were the ones who appealed to the golden rule and ignored scripture
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:34 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Once again: So Abolitionists would've been okay with slavery had they not been Christian Your statement or question or whatever it was is nonsense. Its like asking whether blue would still be blue if it was green.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:35 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah I mean its not like they litterally thought it was a holy war or anything to extinguish something that was an abomination. quote:Vindication for this new nation under God seemed to come with the South’s victory at First Manassas on July 21, 1861. In a thanksgiving sermon preached the same day in Richmond, Virginia, at St. John’s Episcopal Church, William C. Butler declared: Either its a holy war, or they just like involving God a lot. But let's step back a second: Christianity was just the cultural paradigm of the day back then, for both sides. Abolitionists used Christianity because people would listen if you involved their religion, and this is the same reason the South and North used Christianity in their political and military appeals. This does not support Miltanks idea that Christianity was the motivator, nobody would have listened if they hadn't put a religious spin on it, because that was just how 1800s culture worked. Miltank posted:Your statement or question or whatever it was is nonsense. Its like asking whether blue would still be blue if it was green. Nope. You made the claim, either provide supporting evidence that Christianity was the SOLE drivers in Abolition, or stop making the claim. The question is: If the Abolitionists were not Christian, would they have had no argument against slavery? Your statement is that you HAVE to be Christian to be an abolitionist, which by the way just means you are against slavery. What you are arguing is that everyone except Christians is pro-slavery, while making broad strokes and claiming that 'No True Christian' would support slavery, despite the obviously strong Christianity of the South. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:36 |
|
Miltank posted:Your statement or question or whatever it was is nonsense. Its like asking whether blue would still be blue if it was green. Or if religion wasn't made up for the sole purpose of exercising control over the weak and powerless but now pretends that it actually opposed the fact that it has been exclusively used for that purpose throughout its entire existence.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:37 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Either its a holy war, or they just like involving God a lot. The 2nd great revival is considered by most historians as the catalyst for the abolitionist movement. You are literally wrong. CommieGIR posted:Nope. You made the claim, either provide supporting evidence that Christianity was the SOLE drivers in Abolition, or stop making the claim. The question is: If the Abolitionists were not Christian, would they have had no argument against slavery? Your statement is that you HAVE to be Christian to be an abolitionist, which by the way just means you are against slavery. You don't HAVE to be a Christian to be an abolitionist, but all the abolitionists WERE Christians. Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:39 |
|
Who What Now posted:Christ never forbade or even spoke against the owning of slaves nor implied anywhere that he was against it probably because he had no problem with it, being a Bronze Age Jewish scholar and all. Plenty of Christ's moral teachings amounted to that though. It's really hard to reconcile slavery with the Sermon on the Mount, for example, where Christ says that everything we do to each other we're actually doing to God.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:40 |
|
Starving Autist posted:Or if religion wasn't made up for the sole purpose of exercising control over the weak and powerless but now pretends that it actually opposed the fact that it has been exclusively used for that purpose throughout its entire existence. Christianity wasn't made up for the purpose of control so you are wrong right out of the gate.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:45 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Plenty of Christ's moral teachings amounted to that though. It's really hard to reconcile slavery with the Sermon on the Mount, for example, where Christ says that everything we do to each other we're actually doing to God. I'm sure Jesus supported treating slaves kindly and not being needlessly cruel but he absolutely had no problem with Jews owning slaves in general and if he did he seems to have forgotten to ever mention it. In retrospect we recognize that even the "kindest" form of slavery is grossly immoral and inhumane and so can apply Jesus' words to the practice, but that doesn't retroactively change the past.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:46 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Either its a holy war, or they just like involving God a lot. Look I know you're an anti theist and everything that christianity or any religion has ever done is evil. But lets just look at the songs ofr abolitionists and their writings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrDvpChmecI They call what they do SACRED. I wonder what they mean. Oh here's a abolitionist and a slave talking. Frederick Douglas to his former "master" posted:Your wickedness and cruelty committed in this respect on your fellow creatures, are greater than all the stripes you have laid upon my back or theirs. It is an outrage upon the soul, a war upon the immortal spirit, and one for which you must give account at the bar of our common Father and Creator. Yep nothing to do with Christianity. Uncle Tom's Cabin posted:It was the first time that ever George had sat down on equal terms at any white man's table; and he sat down, at first, with some constraint, and awkwardness; but they all exhaled and went off like fog, in the genial morning rays of this simple overflowing kindness. To deny that Christianity was the main impulse behind the American and the British abolitionist movements is to deny actual history. Really its as bad as when poo poo heels like the wall builders try to turn the Founders into Dominionists.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:48 |
|
Miltank posted:Christianity wasn't made up for the purpose of control so you are wrong right out of the gate. It absolutely was, just like every other religion ever invented.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:49 |
|
Miltank posted:You don't HAVE to be a Christian to be an abolitionist, but all the abolitionists WERE Christians. Lol you are such a troll of this thread. For the folks who aren't seeing through this one. Abolitionism came out of the Enlightenment rationalists, many of which were deists or agnostics, and for nonreligious reasons. It was largely adopted throughout Europe and Northern US long before it became popularized in the Southern US by Protestant evangelists. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:50 |
|
John Brown obviously was just pretending to be a devout Christian in order to trick dull-witted religious folk into supporting his atheist cause. e:^ lol no Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 6, 2015 |
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:51 |
|
Miltank posted:John Brown obviously was just pretending to be a devout Christian in order to trick dull-witted religious folk into supporting his atheist cause. It worked, what can I say?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:52 |
|
Reminder that though Miltank claims to be Christian, he thinks it's perfectly a-ok to personally administer the death penalty to anyone at will as long as you have a gun.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:53 |
|
who ar eyou?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:55 |
Kaal posted:Lol you are such a troll of this thread. The abolitionist movement in Britain was led by evangelicals. Evangelicals at that time were also more likely to be political radicals; their influence was strongly responsible for the institution of free trade in Britain, as well. If you don't know that, you don't know much at all about British 19th century political history.
|
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:55 |
|
Miltank posted:John Brown obviously was just pretending to be a devout Christian in order to trick dull-witted religious folk into supporting his atheist cause. If John Brown invented abolitionism then he did it about century too late.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:55 |
|
Miltank posted:who ar eyou? An unidentified shadowy figure in your backyard. No time to think! I could be here to rape your family! Quick, grab the glock from under your pillow!
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:57 |
|
Who What Now posted:I'm sure Jesus supported treating slaves kindly and not being needlessly cruel but he absolutely had no problem with Jews owning slaves in general and if he did he seems to have forgotten to ever mention it. In retrospect we recognize that even the "kindest" form of slavery is grossly immoral and inhumane and so can apply Jesus' words to the practice, but that doesn't retroactively change the past. It doesn't really make sense to claim that you know Jesus' true opinion on slavery just because he didn't mention it. Sure maybe he didn't care or he forgot to mention it, or maybe he consciously avoided saying anything that could be interpreted as treason against Rome (as the Pharisees were constantly trying to trick him into doing so he could be arrested) and instead said subversive things about how you should treat every human being the same way you would treat Him if He came to your house. I don't really have any interest in trying to retroactively change the past, since that's impossible. But in the here and now we absolutely can use scripture to convince Christians to be consistent with the teachings of Jesus, rather than agreeing with Fred Phelps and telling Christians that if they want to follow Christ they should start being bigots.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:57 |
|
Miltank posted:Slavery without Christianity: keeps on going forever until Christianity stops it. Well, more like Slavery without Christianity: Keeps going until Christianity happens, at which point it becomes slavery with Christianity, and after a while of that, a large, international and pantheistic societal change, roughly coincident with the enlightenment, over the course of a few centuries results in the gradual reduction and abolition of slavery across much of the western world.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:58 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
Kaal posted:If John Brown invented abolitionism then he did it about century too late. It is EXTREMELY telling that atheists think that the important aspect of abolition was just thinking it up. It took action and conviction of believe more than anything else.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:58 |