₦airaland Forum

winner01:
Slavery existed long before Christianity you retard.

Christians took the initiative to end slavery while atheists did nothing.

Christianity participated in slavery. Please admit that first and stop dodging.

There were freethinkers in the abolition movement. Do your research.

Butterflyleo:
Okay so the universe was not accidental? Clearly state how it came about.

This is how I know you never read what intellignent people post to you.

Atheists have been telling you that no one knows how the universe came about. It is better to be agnostic than to claim one thing or the other.

What caused the big bang? No one knows. It could have been a knock off effect from another bang, it could be an exploding flying tea pot.....no one knows.


You never learn.

CuteMadridista:
THIS!

and those that fought to keep slavery had their stand backed by the folklore BuyBull while the abolitionists don't

check out the famous quotes by Christians in support of slavery during the fight for its abolition

Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

Jefferson Davis , President, Confederate States of America

the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

Richard Furman , President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Gbam!!

Okay, butterflyleo ati winner01, come and explain how is it that there are christian who fought to keep slavery as well? Also, why did they have backing of the scripture.

winner01, could you stop posting pictures of shite?

Don't be disgusting

winner01:
Thoss points are your own making. I wonder where you got those from.

If you noticed, butterflyleo did not deny them.

Butterflyleo:
Guy your brain is literally smoking hot.

Stop being a cheerleading shitstain

winner01:
Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?

Consider atheist Sam Harris, who blames Christianity for supporting slavery. Harris is right that slavery existed among the Old Testament Jews, and Paul even instructs slaves to obey their masters. During the civil war both sides quoted the Bible. We know all this. (Yawn, yawn.)

But slavery pre-dated Christianity by centuries and even millennia. As we read from sociologist Orlando Patterson's work, all known cultures had slavery. For centuries, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics. Atheists who champion ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome somehow seem to forget that those empires were based on large-scale enslavement.
Atheist Michael Shermer says Christians are "late comers" to the movement against slavery. Shermer advanced this argument in our Cal Tech debate in December. That debate is now online, and you can watch it at michaelshermer.com.
But if what Shermer says is true, who were the early opponents of slavery who got there before the Christians did? Actually, there weren't any. Shermer probably thinks the Christians only got around to opposing slavery in the modern era.

Wrong. Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization--then called Christendom--between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a "human tool" and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.

In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn't turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D'Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.
The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.
Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."


But wasn't Jefferson also a man of science? Yes he was, and it was on the basis of the latest science of his day that Jefferson expressed his convictions about black inferiority. Citing the discoveries of modern science, Jefferson noted that "there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals." Blacks, Jefferson continued, lack the powers of reason that are evident in whites and even in native Indians. While atheists today like to portray themselves as paragons of equal dignity, Jefferson's scientific and skeptical outlook contributed not to his anti-slavery sentiments but to his racism. Somehow Harris and Shermer neglect to point this out.
In the end the fact remains that the only movements that opposed slavery in principle were mobilized in the West, and they were overwhelmingly led and populated by Christians. Sadly the West had to use force to stop slavery in other cultures, such as the Muslim slave trade off the coast of Africa. In some quarters the campaign to eradicate slavery still goes on.
So who killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.



https://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/01/14/how-christians-ended-slavery-n962085

Copy and paste.......


Just look at the long post you made about christianity and slavery. Not once in this long post was it accepted that christianiy played a huge role in the transatlantic slavery of black people.

It only focuses on the fact that christianity also played a huge role in stopping slavery (while still conveniently forgetting that other sets of christians fought to keep slavery)

winner01:
Okay. What is Christianity?

guy, what is in your bible?

You are asking me what is christianity. lol

winner01:
I wonder what gives an atheist the moral grounds to blame anyone.

Superhumanist, in case you haven't noticed, you and a terrorist in this "accidental universe" have equal rights. That you choose to borrow from the christian morality and live like a normal human being is your business, a terrorist has all the rights to crack open the heads of other accidental beings. You do not have the right to call him to order. He's acting in his own interest.

Who is agreeing with you that the universe is accidental?

You just assume and presuppose nonsense.


And by the way, morality existed long before judaism and christianity.

TrajansKong:
Metzger told the truth here. He was also a leading white supremacist and Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Yeah, the guy is a hardcore racist but he told the cold truth here- christianity is a slave religion

Butterflyleo:
Here is the conclusion of the matter for you.


www.nairaland.com/attachments/6882112_atheistshavenorighttojudgeothersatheistsbelievethat12844518_png938f4410f5b13d21d83b8e92fc0764b0

You just post silly memes without thinkng.

Do all atheists believe the same thing? Do all atheists believe in subjective morality? You just post nonsense without thinking. What about humanists and religious atheist who argue for moral universalism?

Even if atheists believe in subjective morality, does that mean that they have no right to say that your morality is more subjective?


Use your brain!!!

Butterflyleo:
Atheism stems from questioning RELIGION and it's effects and not questioning atheism

If you cannot see how confused your write up is and how you keep swinging back and forth from atheism to religion while confusing your own post, then your case is beyond redemption.

Butterflyleo's tactics


1. spin lies against opponents

2. troll and insult when corrected

3. change the topic and spin more lies

4. start again at step one.

cc Butterflyleo, emmanystone, felixomor and winner01,

I believe that this woman is on to something. She understands how christianity has forced the black man to be a docile servant to a foreign culture.

Butterflyleo:
When your stupidity is revealed to you, you resort to ad hominems instead if learning and improving.

I keep telling you that the word "super" you put in your moniker is sadly deceiving you because there is absolutely nothing super about your free thinking.

Let's test your intelligence

1. You argue that atheism is a belief

2. You don't accept that evolution is true

3. You are a christian but argue for a deistic god.

4. You once started a debate about god and refused to give your definition of god.


My guy, if you were on TV in the UK with these views, you would be mocked for the dumbass you are.

Butterflyleo:
Yet all over the internet the analogy is said to SPECIFICALLY apply to religion.

Thank God your dense nature is not infectious.

You shouldn't be calling other people dense. You are a failed scammer according to many here

Butterflyleo:
Your mumu don do.

Russell's teapot is an analogy, to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion

When person call you senseless now you will start complaining.

You no get sense at all at all.

Isn't it atheists who claim they should not be asked to prove a negative?

Even at that the very purpose of Bertrands analogy has been disproved because WE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE or DISPROVE it as it were. But somehow atheists never believe that they can actually show proof for a negative.
So they always attempt shifting the burden of proof to others despite also making claims of their own. Such grandiose proportions of dishonesty.

there are more than one applications for analogy



Pls move along.

winner01:
This is an extremely foolish reply.

Says the foolish man who loves ignorance about atheism

winner01:
I know what agnostic atheism is.


Give me an example of atheists questioning atheism. Give me proof.

That you call yourself something is not enough reason to believe if you don't act the part.

The very notion of Russell's teapot is an example. It is an argument against atheism also.


It is an agnostic argument because it posits that we can never disprove if there is a giant teapot in space even if it is highly unlikely.

The same way we can never disprove God existing outside the universe even though it is highly unlikely for him to exist.



This stops some atheists from saying that they can disprove all god's. Some atheists are agnostic towards certain god's.

winner01:
Superhumanist knows the truth. He's only being a bigot.

Says the man that tells lies against atheists

Butterflyleo:
Indeed you are brainless




Note the word LOCAL. here you are talking about A GLOBAL CONVENTION. I even did you a service by using LOCAL. you no get sense.

Does the global title change anything?

There are local matches that are more packed than international ones or even global ones.


What matters is the sample size....and also the nature of the event.

You are just arguing semantics like a joker

Butterflyleo:
Yet with this your own analogy you cannot see how it is that the attendance was poor despite you claiming otherwise. Smh common is very alien to you.

What kind of nonsense are you spewing?

Were you not the one that foolishly compared a football match attendance to an atheist convention?

One is niche and the other is a popular sport.


Guy. You have embarrassed yourself.

Emmanystone:
Ignored.

Pained slave.

To those Nigerians who are claiming that they are lost tribe of Jews

winner01:
I don't think that guy deserves anyones time or reply.

You can only run run run......when you hear the truth.

Butterflyleo:
That guy no get sense at all at all

Even local football matches draw more attendees than that and he calls a global convention with 4000 attendees as not poorly attended.

Now 4000 must look like 400,000 in his eyes

Let me illustrate how silly you are.


Nigeria is a country of 180 million people who are majorly football fans. I.e at least 90 million people are football fans.

Atheists make up less than 1% of Nigerians. Some even put it as low as 0.1 percent. Meaning that atheists would be a maximum of 1.8 million.


Lastly, flight tickets to Australia are far more expensive than local football matches.

So, of course football matches would have more attendance than atheist conventions