Early human slavery was NECESSARY for human progress

[Syed]

.early human slavery was NECESSARY for human progress

early human did not invented money and no one work for other people

so without man power human could not make progress

all past GREAT civilization built on slave workers

slavery responsible for civilizing human

allah did NOT condemn slavery because of that reason but make a way to abolish slavery by freeing them

since allah is all knowing, he knows that human slavery is responsible for civilizing human, so allah cant condemn something that civilized human

GOD IS GREAT

 

[Keith&Co.]

.early human slavery was NECESSARY for human progress

How early?

early human did not invented money and no one work for other people

Then why didn't Allah provide a monetary system? And why did slavery persist after 'money' was invented?

so without man power human could not make progress

Slavery is not progress.

all past GREAT civilization built on slave workers

Not the Egyptians.

Slavery responsible for civilizing human

At best your argument is that slavery was a necessary step toward civilizing people.
But owning people is not civilized.

allah did NOT condemn slavery because of that reason but make a way to abolish slavery by freeing them

Wouldn't it have been better for him to establish a fiscal model before slavery, a civilized alternative?

since allah is all knowing, he knows that human slavery is responsible for civilizing human, so allah cant condemn something that civilized human

If Allah is all knowing, but let people use slavery when there were alternatives, then he must have preferred slavery to anything else.

GOD IS GREAT

Your god, you say, USED slavery to reach a goal. Your God is a dick.
















And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

 

[Syed]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

 

[Keith&Co.]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

LOL?
Skipping completely over the fact that your theory throws your sadistic jackass of a deity under the bus?

LOL indeed, Syed. LOL, indeed.

 

[Valjean]

What's so great about progress or civilization? Did they make people more happy?

 

[Syed]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

LOL?
Skipping completely over the fact that your theory throws your sadistic jackass of a deity under the bus?

LOL indeed, Syed. LOL, indeed.

i do not thought they were good points

 

[Syed]

What's so great about progress or civilization? Did they make people more happy?

human progress differentiate between human and animals

 

[Keith&Co.]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

LOL?
Skipping completely over the fact that your theory throws your sadistic jackass of a deity under the bus?

LOL indeed, Syed. LOL, indeed.

i do not thought they were good points

Why not? God knew what money was, right? All-knowing does that.
God prefers a system of employment, with money, over slavery, right?
God COULD have just sat someone down and explained what money was, how to mint it, how to value it, why it was better than barter, set up either the same fiscal standard for the entire world or established individual moneys and an exchange rate. He's all-powerful, right? Nothing would stop him from doing this... Except God.

If the world was not as an ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING GOD would wish it to be, he has only himself to blame.

So if slavery was the only way to civilize humans, and your God wanted civilized humans, then he was forced to use slavery, sure. But then, that makes civilizing humanity more powerful than God. If there was another way to civilize humans, and God didn't use it, he made a choice. So for some reason slavery met your god's approval.

SO which is it, Syed? God could NOT have civilized us without slavery, or he could have, but chose slavery?

You have to pick one, Syed.
God is not all powerful,
Or god is a dick?

 

[Valjean]

What's so great about progress or civilization? Did they make people more happy?

human progress differentiate between human and animals

Humans lived for a million years without progress. They were still human.
Why is our civilized, 'non-animal' status a good thing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's so great about progress or civilization? Did they make people more happy?

human progress differentiate between human and animals

Humans lived for a million years without progress. They were still human.
Why is our civilized, 'non-animal' status a good thing?

So we can establish long-term residency in areas with cultivated food, metal ores, learn to make metal, fashion swords then behead people to win arguments about whether or not gods exist that want us to be civilized.

 

[Narapoia]

*Edited*

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Was only a matter of time.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is a valid argument that slavery helped society advance. If resources of a society are freed up from menial labour by having other do it for them without having to expend much in the way of resources to get that work done, it allows for more of a development of a leisure class to engage in the intellectual pursuits that lead to advances. Slavery was an effective way to make that happen.

Of course, that's completely moot if the advancement of society is influenced by an omnipotent god who can give all the resources necessary for this without any corresponding trade-offs like enslaving people. So, I agree with Syed that his analysis of early civilizations points to the nonexistence of any type of god. That's one more theist whom we've converted to atheism. Welcome to the fold, Syed! It's good to have you here.

 

[Bronzeage]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

How can one bully thy neighbor and love him at the same time? Is this possible?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And how did people buy slaves if they didn't have a concept of money....?

by bullying neighbors

lol

I

How can one bully thy neighbor and love him at the same time? Is this possible?

It's a long-term love. Enslave them now, beat a few until they get the idea, and in a few thousand years, Allah will get around to freeing their great-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandchildren.



Except for the granddaughters, of course.

 

[braces_for_impact]

.early human slavery was NECESSARY for human progress

early human did not invented money and no one work for other people

so without man power human could not make progress

all past GREAT civilization built on slave workers

slavery responsible for civilizing human

allah did NOT condemn slavery because of that reason but make a way to abolish slavery by freeing them

since allah is all knowing, he knows that human slavery is responsible for civilizing human, so allah cant condemn something that civilized human

GOD IS GREAT

 

[Perspicuo]

Since bad is good and good is bad, Allah comes out looking good.

 

[doubtingt]

It is a valid argument that slavery helped society advance. If resources of a society are freed up from menial labour by having other do it for them without having to expend much in the way of resources to get that work done, it allows for more of a development of a leisure class to engage in the intellectual pursuits that lead to advances. Slavery was an effective way to make that happen.

I've long thought along these lines. Intellectual and tech progress depends upon a concentrations of resources that allow the time and money needed to conduct the kind of long-term basic science that produces real leaps forward in our thinking. Slavery was a major method of doing this. Societies without equality and democracy in which most of the fruits of labor get forcibly funneled to the top are just weak forms of slavery/servitude. Fortunately (but probably not coincidentally) for civilization, just as slavery and authoritarian inequality came to be viewed as morally unacceptable, methods of acquiring and using fossil fuels took off and provided relatively cheap sources of energy and energy does "work" and vastly increases the productivity of labor. This allowed for production on massive scales, which allowed workers to live a higher quality of life while still funnelling massive wealth into concentrations either in the pockets of industrialist philanthropists who donated to intellectual, non-profit pursuits and via government taxation which allowed governments to fund Universities and research institutes.

 

[dystopian]

It is a valid argument that slavery helped society advance. If resources of a society are freed up from menial labour by having other do it for them without having to expend much in the way of resources to get that work done, it allows for more of a development of a leisure class to engage in the intellectual pursuits that lead to advances. Slavery was an effective way to make that happen.

In theory, sure. I rather doubt it worked that way in practice however. First of all; there has never been a 'leisure class' that drives intellectual progress. By and large, intellectual progress was made possible through specialization. Urbanization both increased leisure time, and enabled the rise of a class of people whose primary concern were pursuits of the mind. This class was hardly a 'leisure class' though; they usually still had to support themselves through their activities unless they were lucky enough to be hired on by smarter members of the 'leisure class' (ie; the rulers who got to reap the rewards of everyone else's hard work) you mentioned. I don't think there's ever been a society where slavery allowed sufficiently large enough numbers of people to become part of a so called 'leisure class' in order for that to have been a primary contributor to mental progress. The existence of a slave population does not yield a uniform decrease in labor elsewhere; the difference tends to be hyper-concentrated, leading to a handful of extremely wealthy slave-owners who are not particularly interested in scientific progress (in fact, they have a vested interest in being opposed to any scientific development that might result in efficient means of production other than slaves, unless they have enough foresight to take advantage which is historically rare).

We should not make the mistake of thinking that just because there are historical examples of ancient slave-owning philosophers and what not, that therefore slavery had a primary role to play in progress as a whole. I think on the balance, the efforts of say the average blacksmith to improve his craft's efficiency led to more overall technological and scientific progress than the mental pursuits of the average slave owner.

Now, that said, slavery *did* create and concentrate large quantities of wealth into a limited number of hands, and despite what I've said above, these hands did often become patrons to philosophers, scientists, inventors, and so on. So in that sense, one could argue that slavery contributed to scientific progress. But then you could say that about anything that produces wealth, so I don't think that's particularly fair.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Now, that said, slavery *did* create and concentrate large quantities of wealth into a limited number of hands, and despite what I've said above, these hands did often become patrons to philosophers, scientists, inventors, and so on. So in that sense, one could argue that slavery contributed to scientific progress. But then you could say that about anything that produces wealth, so I don't think that's particularly fair.

How is it not fair? Many things that produce wealth contribute, both directly and indirectly, to scientific progress. Slavery can be one of those things.

That doesn't mean that slavery is either moral or justified, but simply that it's one of the tools which allows this to happen and, in the past, there have been societies which have used it in that way.