No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.

(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.

(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.

If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet - present company included - would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"

The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.

Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html

Failed arguments again?


1) Atheism is not a religion and it doesnt require faith. Does it require faith not to believe in Santa Clause? No, it requires common sense to know that there is no evidence for Santa Clause (especially one guy that goes through all the chimneys in the world). There is no evidence for god.


2) In the total knowledge of the world, an everage person would only know about 0.1%. However, the fact remains that within that 99.9% of knowledge that I dont know, no one has brought the evidence from god. This is an argument from ignorance-


"I dont know X (99%) so god is in that X or god exists because of an unknown X"


If you want to claim that god can exist in that 99% of unkown, one can counterclaim that evidence debunking god can also exist in that 99%.

God will only exist if one can bring evidence for him. That which is asserted without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence.



3) Atheists have no basis for calling something evil without god?

This is another failed argument. Let me quote myself in a previous argument

Logicboy03:

Morality doesnt come from God. The moment you believe that, your morality can be very flawed if not careful.


A sense of morality comes from both evolutionary instincts, social evolution with the family and society and then the logic of the individual.



A christian can not use the bible to talk about morality with me. The bible is a book the supports sexism, slavery and racism- all in the new testament as well.

@LogicBoy03, I ask you one simply question. Do you believe there is evil in the world or not?

diehard: @LogicBoy03, I ask you one simply question. Do you believe there is eveil in the world or not?

Of course, there is evil in the world. It's just that my definition of evil is dfferent from yours

Please educate me, what is your definition of evil?

diehard: Please educate me, what is your definition of evil?

Evil is something that has almost no advantages or benefits but causes major pain or problems or harm.

Generally speaking

So if i can borrow from your statement, anything that cause major pain or problems is evil, then i can say: the flood that sacked people from their homes and destroy property is evil, the hurricane Sandy that hit USA and destroyed property killing some is evil. I can submit from your statement that evil is material or something that can be seen or felt. Am i correct?

While I believe it borders on hubrist for certain militant atheists to state unequivocally with total conviction that THERE IS NO GOD, it's exceeding daft to claim morality comes from the measure of God as the absolute good. That's a load of claptrap you would expect from a sunday school kid.

I don't need to believe in a big daddy in the skies and his retribution to define my moral boundaries. I treat others the way I'd want to be treated and that's enough for me. You have a very flawed concept of morality if you believe an imaginary being sets your moral standards.

diehard: So if i can borrow from your statement, anything that cause major pain or problems is evil, then i can say: the flood that sacked people from their homes and destroy property is evil, the hurricane Sandy that hit USA and destroyed property killing some is evil. I can submit from your statement that evil is material or something that can be seen or felt. Am i correct?

Seriously? Is a flood or a hurricane a conscious action? Clearly, you should understand what I mean.


Now, assuming god exists, sending that hurrican would make him evil.

@obikenobi, "i treat others the way i want to be treated" if i may paraphrase you, if your own definition is the basis upon which you draw the line of what is moral or not, throws up a lot suggestions to me. Inother word, if i steal millions of naira as a govt official and other poeple steal from me in turn. there is no problem with that cause the basis of the argument is as long others are treating me the way i treat them it's very moral (in your dictionary).

@logicboy03, your definition of evil you gave me has nothing to do with conscious action, You said anything that causes major pain or problem. And on that basis my example stand. Except of cos, your definition or notion is wrong. We've not reach the argument about the existence of God. it takes faith (belief) in the non-existence of God. infact a bigger faith in the big bang theory (it is just a theory without any shred of evidence)

diehard: @obikenobi, "i treat others the way i want to be treated" if i may paraphrase you, if your own definition is the basis upon which you draw the line of what is moral or not, throws up a lot suggestions to me. Inother word, if i steal millions of naira as a govt official and other poeple steal from me in turn. there is no problem with that cause the basis of the argument is as long others are treating me the way i treat them it's very moral (in your dictionary).

If stealing is morally acceptable to me, then your point holds. It isn't acceptable to me so your example is rather bizzare. There are hundreds of "dos" and "don'ts" in my moral code which I can't waste my time listing but suffice it to say, they aren't defined by your sky daddy. For example, I don't consider pre-marital sex immoral just because christians preach it.

Go read some books, son. It would help you think outside the box occasionally and emancipate you from your tunnel vision.

@obi1kenobi, Your argument about what is moral has changed into what is acceptable to 'me'. A lot of things are acceptable to people that are not acceptable to others. Since i cannot enter into you book of 'dos' and 'don'ts'. i can submit my argument based on your statement. Since pre-marital sex is moral in your books, but in the books of the fathers whose children you sleep with that is very immoral. Based on these two opposing views. who is right? the fathers whose daughters is being defiled or the guy who enjoys the defilement. Can you see the folly of your argument?

diehard: @obi1kenobi, Your argument about what is moral has changed into what is acceptable to 'me'. A lot of things are acceptable to people that are not acceptable to others. Since i cannot enter into you book of 'dos' and 'don'ts'. i can submit my argument based on your statement. Since pre-marital sex is moral in your books, but in the books of the fathers whose children you sleep with that is very immoral. Based on these two opposing views. who is right? the fathers whose daughters is being defiled or the guy who enjoys the defilement. Can you see the folly of your argument?

Arguing with you is obviously a waste of precious time cos logic obviously isn't your forte. So it is "defilement" to have consensual sex with a partner? Are you like, 5 years old? Did I talk about sleeping with children or did you pervert my statement so you could attack a strawman you created.

Morality is not an absolute and is defined by several factors including personal conviction, empathy, conformity to societal laws, culture and religion. It isn't difficult to understand this.

For example, I don't steal because the property doesn't belong to me, I've not earned it and it's a prosecutable offence. I don't eschew stealing because an imaginary being told me not to steal and I will go to hell for it. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp with your aimless arguments masquerading as logic?

@Obi1kenobi, it is easy to label somebody 'cos logic obviously isn't your forte' when you can match is argument with superior logic. i won't join issues with you. You're obviously still a bachelor so i can excuse your ignorance of how fathers see their daughters with casanova (playboy, irresponsible adult, lacking morality) take your pick of my synonyms. it is diffucult to argue about morality without basing it on a standard that is outside of oneself. I fully understand your logic, but its a selfish logic that doesn't consider the consequence on others.

diehard: @obi1kenobi, Your argument about what is moral has changed into what is acceptable to 'me'. A lot of things are acceptable to people that are not acceptable to others. Since i cannot enter into you book of 'dos' and 'don'ts'. i can submit my argument based on your statement. Since pre-marital sex is moral in your books, but in the books of the fathers whose children you sleep with that is very immoral. Based on these two opposing views. who is right? the fathers whose daughters is being defiled or the guy who enjoys the defilement. Can you see the folly of your argument?

So? That's how its always worked, even if one doesn't want to admit it. These days though civilized folk respect rights and try to cause as little harm/injury to other life as they can. Your religious morals, man made as they are, are constantly changing as well. Or do you think slavery is acceptable?

diehard: @Obi1kenobi, it is easy to label somebody 'cos logic obviously isn't your forte' when you can match is argument with superior logic. i won't join issues with you. You're obviously still a bachelor so i can excuse your ignorance of how fathers see their daughters with casanova (playboy, irresponsible adult, lacking morality) take your pick of my synonyms. it is diffucult to argue about morality without basing it on a standard that is outside of oneself. I fully understand your logic, but its a selfish logic that doesn't consider the consequence on others.

This is my last reply to you. 2 adults having a consensual sexual relationship is well within their rights irrespective of what a father thinks and such a relationship can be a functional, productive, respectful one. You equated it with "defilement" which is rank stupidity. Go check a dictionary for what "defilement" means. There's no logic of any sort in your arguments, just sentimental offerings that distorts my initial arguments. Goodluck with your thread and those that wish to indulge you.

@wiegraf, 'Your religious morals' as you put it, has never changed. they are not based on my feeling cos that changes a lot, or how i see it cos i get wiser everyday. They are based on ideals higher than me. That is absolutely correct and does not have shades and shadows. And they can only be defined by a higher being. I call HIM THE MOST HIGH, cos you can go any higher. Your statement ' These days though civilized folk respect rights and try to cause as little harm/injury to other life as they can' is not correct. Men are getting more evil as the days goes by, you only need to look at the society around you to confirm it. The purpose of this thread is to educate people on the folly of Atheist and frankly i do not expect everybody to agree with me cos not all men are wise.

@Obi1kenobi, only those whose conscience is dead can tell the father whose daughter you sleep with that there is nothing wrong with his actions. I can sense your conscience judging you, hence you're trying to convince yourself that it is right. And to educate you incase you don't have a dictionary: one of the definitions of defilement is "to be the first man to have sexual intercourse with a woman, usually outside marriage"


Atheism makes no sense.

I am calling on the Atheist in the house, come and present your case. Let knowledge be brought to the fore without attacking ones person.


I wish above all thing that men will come to the knowledge of the TRUTH and forsake their old ways.


Jesus Rocks!!

diehard: @wiegraf, 'Your religious morals' as you put it, has never changed. they are not based on my feeling cos that changes a lot, or how i see it cos i get wiser everyday. They are based on ideals higher than me. That is absolutely correct and does not have shades and shadows. And they can only be defined by a higher being. I call HIM THE MOST HIGH, cos you can go any higher. Your statement ' These days though civilized folk respect rights and try to cause as little harm/injury to other life as they can' is not correct. Men are getting more evil as the days goes by, you only need to look at the society around you to confirm it. The purpose of this thread is to educate people on the folly of Atheist and frankly i do not expect everybody to agree with me cos not all men are wise.

This is clearly false. Did xtianity condone slavery? Does it do so now? What about the mess that is the OT, did god change its mind?
And note you have now made a claim that a higher being exists, giving you laws. I hope you have proper evidence to back up your claims, not opinions else you just wasted everyone's time

Introduction, God condones slavery?
Skeptics claim that the God of the Bible approves of and encourages slavery. What they won't tell you is that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament...

Rich Deem
The claim is often made that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament. Since virtually everyone agrees that forced, involuntary servitude is morally wrong, how can Christians justify the Bible's apparent support of slavery?

What the Old Testament says about slaveryFirst, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

What the New Testament says about slaverySince many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9 The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities.10 Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.11 Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.12

As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened,13 but treated with justice and fairness.14 The text goes on to explain that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.13, 14

There is an interesting letter in the New Testament (Philemon15-21) that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial.15 He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house16 (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul.18 In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon.19 However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper"17 although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will".20 Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel.19 Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say."21 Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.

God does not distinguish between slaves and freemenContrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:

•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
•knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8 )
•And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
•a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
Conclusion The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
[b][/b]

^^

Oh lord, I have never asked you for anything since I became an atheist, so please grant me this request;

[size=18pt]
Stop your gaddem worshippers from killing us with copy and pastes!! [/size]

@Logicboy03, There is hope for you atlast (even though you were sarcastic about it). You do believe there is a God but too proud to admit you do. He loves you and wants you to change your ways

diehard: @Logicboy03, There is hope for you atlast (even though you were sarcastic about it). You do believe there is a God but too proud to admit you do. He loves you and wants you to change your ways

Unfortunately, I dont believe in god.

Proverbs 12:15. A person that trusts only himself to make good judgment is a fool and is not wise. God created us to rely on Him for His purposes. He is our moral compass who we should trust to make good decisions in life. Without a relationship with God, our Creator, we lose our direction. Without real purpose, our decisions are easily influenced by self-destructive desires and temporary circumstances. We are like a rudderless ship that gets tossed to and fro in dangerous waters.

The definition of a fool is “a person who lacks good judgment”. From a Biblical perspective you lack good judgment when you do not seek God for answers in all things. A wise person looks to God for answers. A wise person seeks godly counsel to do what is right. A fool has deceived himself when he thinks he alone can determine what is right and wrong. Without godly counsel in our lives, we deceive ourselves into thinking we are wise and know what is best (Proverbs 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkened unto counsel is wise.”). Instead we are just fools in God‘s eyes.

To God, a fool is no different than an evil person. Both do evil and are enemies of God. The only difference is an evil person knows he is doing evil despite the consequences. A fool does not know that he does evil, nor understand the consequences of his actions.

You can slave but don't slave jews? Jews can be salaried workers though, of course recommending the same for people from other tribes would be silly.

There's no strong condemnation here, instead I see laws requesting you to be decent; it approves of slavery so long as you remain humane. It makes some laws which amount to "love thy slave, and slave be good to thy master". Eventually, an ambiguous suggestion to release them, but only if xtian?

It looks like it had political reasons for not condemning slavery. Clinton privately approved of gay marriage but couldn't say so publicly because it would mean political death. Obama was able to publicly declare his support only this year, the first US president to do so. Weed will probably go through the same process. Omnipotent God seems to be doing the same, it seems to be afraid to condemn slavery lest it lose votes. Is it a politician? Well, if it were the product of human minds it would have a gender, probably male, 'he' would also reason like humans (eg, be tribalistic like on the slave issue), have human emotions, require 'votes' and of course, have morality that changes with the population's whims.

You still haven't shown me where this god that gives you a moral code is, it seems to be in your minds. Also where did it get its moral code from?


Edits.

Hey diehard, rather than simply copy and pasting, why don't you try to actually engage in a discussion? You're welcome to introduce what you think you've learned from the sites you copy from just make sure you understand them and put them in your own words.

@thehomer, i've actually been engaging in discussion, just that some persons want the discussion to be on their term. The reason i copied those side and usually give them credit by posting a link is because their write up was comprehensive and i like it. though is a long read and most people don't like reading long comments.

@wiegraf, What is your point really? i'll attemtpt to logically give you proof of God existence if only you'll have an open mind

The Universe: Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
The universe operates by uniform laws of nature that never changes, why does it? Gravity remains consistent and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
This must be the Handiwork of some master planner, or do you have a better explanation. Even scientist that believes in the big bang theory cannot attempt to answer such uniformity.
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."


We'll soon get to the planet earth and it's complexity which points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
We'll also get the complexity of the human anatomy and the brain which our medical science is fully yet to understans all of its workings. all this point to grand designer

diehard:
@wiegraf, What is your point really? i'll attemtpt to logically give you proof of God existence if only you'll have an open mind

My points look pretty clear to me unless you have comprehension problems or you just read that without giving it any thought. You wouldn't be asking me to clarify otherwise. I'll indulge though, I enjoy masochism once in a while, heh. Ok, I'll grant mayhaps I might be wrong and it might be a bit of a chore for most to understand it

Both: He allows slavery to persist, he only asks the parties involved be nice to each other

Both: if slavery were a non-issue, which the article seems to imply, why bother to attempt to free the xtian slave or ban slaving jews?

OT: He condones slavery, but not against jews. Why not apply the solution (salaries, time limits) used for downtrodden jews on everyone else? Omnixxx god is tribalistic? Is he jewish?

NT: The author notes that there was a particular interest in pleasing slaves, as many early xtians were slaves themselves. This is of course self-serving

NT: paul only suggests ambiguously that a slave be freed, and mostly because said slave was xtian, and potentially a good evangelist.



OT: As for condemnation, there's only don't slave or die. This can't be taken too seriously as it was decreed in the OT. The OT also decrees that people who work on sabbath or eat shellfish should be put to death. Death seems to be the answer for everything in that book, like say not wiping your a$$ after visiting the toilet*. Put in that context death is not a particularly strong rebuttal. Indeed, the law was ignored as they later state slavery existed just not of fellow jews. And also note, importantly, it recommends death only for the slavers, not slave owners.

NT: The eventual attempts by NT god at condemnation are weak, similar to those of a practical (or maybe cowardly and/or self-serving) politician who privately doesn't approve of the practice but is seeking to maintain or gain a power base. Omnipotent (impossible, but we've been ignoring a lot anyways) god wouldn't need to make half-measures, would it? It should be able to just come out and say, unequivocally, "slavery is wrong, don't do it in any shape or form", no? Is he afraid of losing votes? (Actually since omnipotent, it should be able to just eradicate slavery, simple. But that's another long topic, we can ignore that, for now)


And you're asking an atheist, who is open minded enough to consider a belief system which is far from the norm in this society to be open minded? How much 'close-mindedness' do you expect to find in a person who's positions are diametrically opposite to that of popular opinion?



*i even went out of my way to look into NT stance on slavery, as you guys seem to conveniently cherry pick old testament verses that suit your purposes. The times OT is particularly egregious you'll say "but jesus died for our sins, OT is void/irrelevant' etc

I think you really did not read my post or you just skimp through it, let me quote myself again, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16). that is what the Almighty God decreed, how else do you want it to be spelt. (in your own language or what)