I can't imagine a significant amount of people reading obvious fiction like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and...

>like what
thou shall not kill vs endorsing slavery, for example
>how is this better
because it allows for improvement rather than sticking to life lessons made up by jews 2500 years ago

I mean, 80% of your knowledge about the world is essentially data compiled from all your predecessors specifically carrying forward the best stuff to know, so maybe next time you rip on prehistoric peoples you should not be a dick, dick

>thou shall not kill vs endorsing slavery, for example
just listing things doesn't mean its harmful
just because something is harmful doesn't mean its unappealing.

>because it allows for improvement rather than sticking to life lessons made up by jews 2500 years ago
How is life better today?

Slavery isn't harmful?

I never said it was unappealing (if you're the slaveowner), I said it's harmful (ie to the slaves and society as a whole) and dumb (economically)

>How is life better today?
You mean compared to 2500 years ago? How is that even a question?

>Slavery isn't harmful?
its both harmful and beneficial

>I said it's harmful (ie to the slaves and society as a whole) and dumb (economically)
there is a reason why its appealing its because it can be beneficial.
Also calling something you don't like dumb isn't a good argument.

>You mean compared to 2500 years ago? How is that even a question?
its a question because you can't seem to provide an answer

Plenty of people treat those as if they were real, user. What's the difference between you seeing a man get shot in real life, and on television? Because your brain "knows" one is "real" and the other is "fake"? Plato was wrong, user.

No, you're romanticizing the past. Our forbears were just as intelligent as we are today, no more no less (accounting for malnutrition). There's plenty of stuff that's completely fucking stupid in the light of newer developments that happens to be really old. Much of the scientific works of Aristotle are just plain wrong, and much of philosophy becomes worth less, to outright worthless, in the light of more recent developments (the entirety of Platonism and Aristotelianism, for example, as they are based on theories of physics and neuroscience that do not accurately describe the reality in which we live).

The thinkers of yesterday were no different than the thinkers of today, and to view them as being intrinsically correct just because they're old is not only fallacious (Eastern Orthodox Crusader Monks are pretty cool, but Roman Farmers are older so they're a more proper way to live), but in fact does a disservice to the thinkers themselves. By giving them value simply because of their age, you rob them of their value for what they have to say; whether they're right or wrong or ill informed or have been moved past is irrelevant to the importance of the journey to reach their ideas, which you discard when you just say
>OLD GOOD
>NEW BAD

It's beneficial to one small group of society. It's harmful to everybody enslaved (who usually will outnumber the slave owners).
It's bad economically for the country

It's dumb because it's illogical and counterproductive.
>its a question because you can't seem to provide an answer
Is this some retard version of the Socratic method? I guess I'll humor you:
>less war
>less famine
>less disease
>less child mortality
>less slavery
>longer lifespan
>better food
>better health care and medicine
>better economy
>better technology
I could go on, but you get the point.

Attached: somenig.jpg (350x438, 43K)

>No, you're romanticizing the past
no you're fetishizing the future

>Our forbears were just as intelligent as we are today no more no less (accounting for malnutrition
can you prove that

>There's plenty of stuff that's completely fucking stupid in the light of newer developments that happens to be really old.
there are plenty of new developments that are completely fucking stupid in the light of tradition

>philosophy becomes worth less, to outright worthless, in the light of more recent developments (the entirety of Platonism and Aristotelianism, for example, as they are based on theories of physics and neuroscience that do not accurately describe the reality in which we live).
you being unable to find value in ancient philosophy is a skill you lack

>The thinkers of yesterday were no different than the thinkers of today
why not

>and to view them as being intrinsically correct just because they're old is not only fallacious
I never said this. try again

>Eastern Orthodox Crusader Monks are pretty cool, but Roman Farmers are older so they're a more proper way to live
I never said this either

>giving them value simply because of their age
I'm not

Most of your post is just you arguing against points I never made.

>It's beneficial to one small group of society. It's harmful to everybody enslaved (who usually will outnumber the slave owners).
and this is somehow inherently "bad"?

>It's bad economically for the country
source? Even if this were true why is the pursuit of economics at a higher standard then everything else?

>It's dumb because it's illogical and counterproductive.
you're doing the same non argument that you did in your last post
I don't like it so its dumb
I don't like it so its illogical and counterproductive
Just saying negative things about a system doesn't make it so.

>Is this some retard version of the Socratic method? I guess I'll humor you:
no you just seem to take things at face value that might not be exactly true.
>less war
>less famine
>less disease
>less child mortality
>less slavery
>longer lifespan
>better food
>better health care and medicine
>better economy
>better technology

lol do you even know how to provide an argument? what time frame are you even basing this off of? What section of the world
"there is less war now then there was in the past" is an extremely vague statement,
Also you list a handful of things that don't quite = a better life.

Attached: 1401584116277.jpg (850x850, 194K)

I suggest rereading my post because you clearly didn't seem to get it. You're obciously some sort of Perennialist, so I'll just leave you woth a reminder that pride is a sin according to Yahweh. Meditate on that.

>I suggest rereading my post because you clearly didn't seem to get it. You're obciously some sort of Perennialist, so I'll just leave you woth a reminder that pride is a sin according to Yahweh. Meditate on that.
see

I bet you think that you derive your morals from science or something.

>>and this is somehow inherently "bad"?
Yes, things that are on the whole harmful are "bad".
>source?
amazon.com/Poverty-Slavery-Unfree-Pollutes-Economy/dp/3319489674 and a multitude of other sources you are more than capable of googling
>Even if this were true why is the pursuit of economics at a higher standard then everything else?
I never said it was a higher standard "then" everything else. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts again, though.
>you're doing the same non argument that you did in your last post
What does "illogical and counterproductive" have to do with my personal feelings on the subject?
>no you just seem to take things at face value that might not be exactly true.
How so?
>lol do you even know how to provide an argument? what time frame are you even basing this off of?
No idea. Couldn't possibly be the 2500 year time frame since the authoring of those books, could it?
>What section of the world
"there is less war now then there was in the past" is an extremely vague statement,
The world as a whole
>Also you list a handful of things that don't quite = a better life.
Even if not 100% beneficial, each of the things I listed is, on balance, a benefit to people's individual lives.
We get our morals from our biology and culture.

>Yes, things that are on the whole harmful are "bad".
except it is not on the whole harmful
but it is also beneficial so with your same logic it is "good"

>amazon.com/Poverty-Slavery-Unfree-Pollutes-Economy/dp/3319489674 and a multitude of other sources you are more than capable of googling

an amazon link is not a citation sorry.
I could do the same with a better source
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/how-slavery-helped-build-a-world-economy/

>I never said it was a higher standard "then" everything else. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts again, though.
yes you did

>What does "illogical and counterproductive" have to do with my personal feelings on the subject?
you said that.

>How so?
">How is life better today?
You mean compared to 2500 years ago? How is that even a question?"

>No idea. Couldn't possibly be the 2500 year time frame since the authoring of those books, could it?
So your argument is: there is less war now(some vague timeline of what "now" is) than in the last 2500 years
bad argument.

>The world as a whole
ok please provide stats.

>Even if not 100% beneficial, each of the things I listed is, on balance, a benefit to people's individual lives.
this isn't inherently better

>bad things aren't bad
>good things aren't good
>being this contrarian just to get (You)s on a Tuvaluan fly fishing forum
cringe

>Unable to produce an argument
The ultimate cringe

The Bible warns against things that fiction exalts, like sorcery, false idolatry, and witchcraft.

To be honest with you, I can’t believe you would equate evidence of God existing to a fictional tale that has poisoned the minds of our youth :3

No. They were much smarter. We are retarded and closeminded today.

>no new scientific information in the bible
>no new moral information in the bible
>supposedly influenced by the all knowing creator of the universe
Sure makes sense to me.

>secular
>morals
kek

>no new moral information
Objectively false.
>no new scientific information
Not really the point of the text.
Anyhow it's a codification of what would previously have been oral tradition, so it's not necessarily new.

>Objectively false.
What new morals and teachings are in the Bible that didn't exist previously?

The information would've existed previously, but it was first written down in the bible.
>Ten Commandments
>Leviticus
>teaching of Jesus
Many of the other teachings are allegorical or inferrable from the events of a trueish story.

>The information would've existed previously
So none of it is new. All of that predated Judaism. So the original point
>no new moral information in the bible
stands

Not him, but I don't see how the fact that the Bible doesn't offer anything "new" is at all important.

Judaism predated the Bible.

It matters because you would think an all knowing, all powerful God would have something novel to say. Instead, everything seems to be fiction, flat out wrong, immoral, and/or stolen from previous cultures/religions.
What's your point? If the morals/teachings predates Judaism, which predates the Bible, then it necessarily predates the Bible too.

>fiction, flat out wrong
Not important
>immoral
How?
>and/or stolen from previous cultures/religions
Not important

Abstain.

>Not important
Important when you are looking at it in a context of whether or not it's true. If everything is stolen from other religions and/or just flat out false, it matters immensely.
>How?
Advocating genocide, child murder, mass rape (possibly including children), punishment of thought crimes, its followers are eternal slaves, slavery in general, etc

>Important when you are looking at it in a context of whether or not it's true. If everything is stolen from other religions and/or just flat out false, it matters immensely.
Quite the contrary. If many cultures and societies agree that certain events happened, that only serves as verification that they are true.
>Advocating genocide, child murder, mass rape (possibly including children), punishment of thought crimes, its followers are eternal slaves, slavery in general, etc
Please list specific examples for each one, and explain to me why these are all bad.

Religion is more complex than you probably think. The most important in it is emotion that leads to full agreement with revelation, second - unabillity to say that it is not true for sure. There is also difference in culture, knowledge, and so on. Nowadays aignificant amount of people think that what we see is truth at its finest. I think it is not less "reatrded" than believing in religion (believing emotions that originated in it)
P.S.
Sorry if there are gramatical errors, cell phone is not the best tool for dealing with them

People look for absolute knowledge and try to find it either in emotions (religion), visible world (scientism) or just keep philosophying, last way reaches nothing, but is realy helpfull, first may be very important for one believing and may be needed for the one, middle mostly closes one's eyes for anything beyond physics. I wouldn't say that either is retarded.

They aren't agreeing on it if they just rip the text outright or stitch together multiple myths from other cultures. And none of that makes any impact on whether it actually happened, given the lack of other evidence.
lmgtfy.com/?q=bible verse genocide&s=k&t=w
lmgtfy.com/?q=bible verse child murder&s=a&t=w
lmgtfy.com/?q=bible verse mass rape&s=y&t=w
lmgtfy.com/?q=bible verse thought crimes&s=b&t=w
lmgtfy.com/?q=bible verse slavery&p=1&s=&t=w

>I'm not doing the research for you
You are the one making these claims of immorality. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you. Second, condescendingly posting search engine results is not an argument. Lastly, if you can't even give me a summary of your points in your own words, you don't know what your argument is and look like an idiot. Now, stop being a gish galloping faggot, and actually state your evidence and reasons why.

Latter-day Saints are better in every way

>Prove to me that murdering and raping children is wrong.
If you're going to be that argumentative and obstinate, there's no point in conversing with you.

>polytheistic Canaanites worship a slew of gods, with El as their chief god
>some Canaanites decide to start a cult and only worship El, not the other gods
>their god El is a jealous and capricious god, hence the first 4 (or 3 if you're Catholic) commandments about not worshiping other gods (instead of saying they don't exist, like Muslims do), subjugating yourself in all ways to El, etc
>start calling themselves Jews
>most of the tribes worship in their own way
>eventually the monotheists take over
>Jews put together their holy books to get more power from the Persians
>some time later a woman gives birth and tricks her cuck husband into thinking it was a miracle
>2000 years later retards who worship a magic Jew insist their magic sky ghost imaginary friend is real

Attached: .png (1000x700, 85K)

I am not being obstinate. The reason why I asked for examples is because we need to judge these situations in their own contexts. Again, I'm not asking for sources, only examples and reason in your own words.

>Secular morals
Lamo