When Atheists utterly refuse to discuss “Biblical views on slavery,” 5 of 7

Hereinafter continues a series depicting discussion I had—or, attempted to have—with various Atheist about a video titled, “Biblical views on slavery with and Old an New Testament Scholar”—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

You will note that the Atheists were quick to jump to their typical brimstone and fire condemnation modus operandi. However, once I sought to pick the scab of the conclusions with which they began, which exposed the mere assertions upon which they were jumping to conclusions, they typically called me names and utterly refused to engage in issues that are inconvenient to their worldviews.

Picking up where we left off in the previous segment, spacedoohicky replied:

I didn’t say “cure any, and all diseases”. We don’t even do that now. I’m talking about advancement. Even ancient Chinese medicine was similarly advanced as middle eastern, or European medicine.

I don’t know of any historical evidence that gives the impression that ancient Jews had any better health than their contemporaries.

I’m not sure what you’re point is. It’s no shame to have scientific advances that fit the period.

Ken Ammi:

Of course, it’s no shame to have scientific advances that fit the period, I noted you were unaware of key fact and I noted that the medical field in the 1800s AD would have advanced much faster had it paid heed to the Torah. In any case, this is all un-contextual to the comment section and you also began with a conclusion by basing your statements on hidden assumptions.

spacedoohicky:

How? Other nations had their own level of medicine, and documentation of that medicine. Any medical stuff from back then from any nation would have provided similar content.

Ken Ammi:

You began with a conclusion by basing your statements on hidden assumptions by implying truth, logic, and ethics and that it is a universal imperative to adhere to them—as well as that the health and continued survival of humans is some sort of imperative.

spacedoohicky:

Actually I said: “actual practical, thoughtful, and direct unambiguous instruction”. So it’s generally more of a qualitative view of history where the ancient Jews had technology that was the same as all other contemporary societies.

Which shows that they probably weren’t divinely inspired. It doesn’t really matter if logic, or ethics is involved because nitpicking on those is the transcendental argument which is the final refuge of a theist losing an argument.

Ken Ammi:

Your “probably weren’t divinely inspired” is questionable and then it fails.

You would have to be very, very, very certain about the very, very, very specific details about the timelines of various peoples and their hygienic practices—including how we would know such things about them.

There is no reason to think that the we Jews would have any unique insights since we are all created in God’s image and so come front loaded with certain characteristics such as the desire to survive (which on Atheism is just an accident).

Yet, again, there are reasons why we Jews tended to fare better through plagues, etc. and that is very advanced, in a manner of speaking, practices of cleansing, quarantine, handling blood, handling dead bodies, etc.

As for a supposed “final refuge of a theist losing an argument” keep in mind that you showed up on the scene and moved the goalpost—just like every other Atheist in this comments section who flatly refuses to discuss the video, which sets the context for the comment sections’ existence in the first place—but it is not “final refuge of a theist losing an argument” but rather, the commencement of a Messianic Jew, speaking for myself, engaging in argumentation—and, of course, merely titling an mode of argumentation does not debunk it and is a genetic logical fallacy.

Truth, logic and ethics are key since without them you would merely be emotively expressing subjective assertions du jour based on your interpretation of accidentally existing bio-chemical neural reactions.

spacedoohicky:

I’m not using any details only specific to any group. I’m using the details of many groups. Unless you also believe ancient Chinese, Romans, Greeks, and so on were also divinely inspired. I think going by what humans have accomplished they don’t need divine inspiration. I don’t really take the sort of transcendental argument you use in your last paragraph seriously. It just seems like wishful thinking to me.

Ken Ammi:

So your point has been that many peoples knew how to take care of themselves: very well then.

Indeed, I can see that you subjectively “don’t really take the sort of transcendental argument…seriously” because it would utterly devastate your entire Atheist activist endeavor.

For example, you subjectively say “It just seems like wishful thinking to me” but that is a conclusion so what is the hidden assumption, what is the premise—why should accidentally existing apes avoid wishful thinking?

spacedoohicky:

It’s fine if you want to engage in wishful thinking. It just means you shouldn’t be taken seriously. Yes, that’s an opinion. There’s no doctrine that tells me I have to take you seriously, or not.

Ken Ammi:

But on your worldview “to engage in wishful thinking” and to not “be taken seriously” and to voice “an opinion,” etc. are non-issues and you have to abandon your worldview to make them issues.

spacedoohicky:

Part of my worldview is that humans define those things.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, which is what makes your statement utterly subjective on the level of merely emoting.

spacedoohicky:

I don’t think words get emoted into being. Words are formed over hundreds of years of usage in a cultural transition. That’s why we have the field of etymology. The formation of words have a history.

The earliest sort of advanced communication was probably sign language. Whether, or not some words are used to emote is irrelevant as the words themselves aren’t necessarily derived from emoting. Like signing was probably a necessary development to enhance social interaction.

But a descendant’s adoption of signs isn’t motivated by emoting any more than just imagining what the signs represent.

Ken Ammi:

You, and every Atheist in this comments section with whom I have interacted, merely and constantly move the goalpost.

spacedoohicky:

The original topic was about ancient divine inspiration, and the fact that if it were divinely inspired it seems they would have received inspiration that was vastly different from the cultures around them. Then you went off about this: “But on your worldview “to engage in wishful thinking” and to not “be taken seriously” and to voice “an opinion,” etc. are none issues and you have to abandon your worldview” You’re the one trying to change the subject. I wonder why.

Ken Ammi:

The original topic was “Biblical views on slavery with and Old an New Testament Scholar” and you moved the goalpost by chiming in with your subjective imagination about “it seems they…”

spacedoohicky:

You’re very confused. The topic is whether, or not the God character is capable of giving a rule against slavery. That applies to capability in general since the God character is supposed to omnipotent.

If there are things God can’t do then it is more likely that God is fictional because every example of impotence is met with excuses from apologists about God giving rules that fit the era.

If the Torah rules fit the era that means God was crafted by men to support their needs.

Ken Ammi:

I am “very confused”? You do realize that I merely quoted the title of the video, right?

Your premise is faulty: omnipotent does not mean the ability to do anything but rather, the ability to do that which one wills to do.

By the way, if “God is fictional” and “was crafted by men to support their needs” it matters not on your worldview since you have no premise for truth, logic, and ethics, for adhering to them, and for demanding that others do likewise besides your emotive subjective personal preferences du jour which, of course, you steal from my worldview.

In the next segment, we will continue from here since this discussion continued.

Learn more about Atheism from my various books about that worldview.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.