Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
there are many islamic authorities i can quote and explain, etc but u will say they are biased. So i quoted un-islamic, unbiased sources PBS and respected men in history, George Bernard Shaw, Ghandhi, etc....Habit7 wrote:I didnt slander Muhammad I quoted from one of the most attested hadiths in Islam. You choose to rely on PBS as if they are an authority on Islam.York wrote:Just the same as Habit, using every opportunity to slander the prophet of Islam because he does not believe in him. It was the norm in society then and was done openly, not in secret, marriage to Aaishah.
The man had relations with a prepubescent girl. That is wrong and unnatural. Muhammad is not prefect, if you believe that you would agree and condemn him as well.
a quick search saysbluesclues wrote:Habit7 wrote:I didnt slander Muhammad I quoted from one of the most attested hadiths in Islam. You choose to rely on PBS as if they are an authority on Islam.York wrote:Just the same as Habit, using every opportunity to slander the prophet of Islam because he does not believe in him. It was the norm in society then and was done openly, not in secret, marriage to Aaishah.
The man had relations with a prepubescent girl. That is wrong and unnatural. Muhammad is not prefect, if you believe that you would agree and condemn him as well.
Habit.. i have a term i use for muslims who try to teach me things from the Qurn and ascribe things a meaning that i know well it has none. that term is "failure-muslim". in other words a muslim who consider himself to be a big muslim but dont understand his own religion.. the true islam atall. today is the first day, because of ur persistence on the thread that i will coin the name .. failure christian.
you are actually wrong on all accounts. there is nothing "unnatural" about it. but while u judging muhammad and the rest of the desert people... tell me. what age was mary and joseph when they got married?
York wrote:a quick search saysbluesclues wrote:Habit7 wrote:I didnt slander Muhammad I quoted from one of the most attested hadiths in Islam. You choose to rely on PBS as if they are an authority on Islam.York wrote:Just the same as Habit, using every opportunity to slander the prophet of Islam because he does not believe in him. It was the norm in society then and was done openly, not in secret, marriage to Aaishah.
The man had relations with a prepubescent girl. That is wrong and unnatural. Muhammad is not prefect, if you believe that you would agree and condemn him as well.
Habit.. i have a term i use for muslims who try to teach me things from the Qurn and ascribe things a meaning that i know well it has none. that term is "failure-muslim". in other words a muslim who consider himself to be a big muslim but dont understand his own religion.. the true islam atall. today is the first day, because of ur persistence on the thread that i will coin the name .. failure christian.
you are actually wrong on all accounts. there is nothing "unnatural" about it. but while u judging muhammad and the rest of the desert people... tell me. what age was mary and joseph when they got married?
1. There is no firm evidence
2. She could have been 12-14
3. It wasnt uncommon at the time to marry off girls when they hit puberty
Again, no proof of your claim that the bible specifically mentioned pedophilia. I am saying that the idea that pedophilia was wrong started with a person/ people. The only alternative is that the bible was subjectively interpreted by something other than a person. All you need to do is provide proof of this alternative to disprove me. Even you admit that some "indescript" person (or group of people) started the notion that pedophilia was wrong. It just so happens that they were Christian. You therefore agree with my point!Habit7 wrote:I gave a bible reference that not only condemns pedophilia, but every other sinful act done to a child. I gave historical reference by way of published data that states until the emergence of Christianity in the Western world, pedophilia was permitted until Christians said "stop!" You are saying that some indescript person said that pedophilia is wrong, who is this person? What grounds would they do that and why would the practitioners agree with them? Are you making this up as you go along?
You personal incredulity doesn't invalidate historic fact.
Habit7 wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Do you know how to read? Objective does not mean factual.At this point I detach myself. This is so contradictory, so illogical, that you are proving my point by opposing me.Slartibartfast wrote:objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Ok so you an't read. This is what I mean that I disprove what you say and then you reply by repeating your disproved argument.Slartibartfast wrote:You wrongly use the words objective and subjective. I attached the meanings for your ease of reference. Both objective and subjective morals can be based on facts and what they are based on is not what separates them. What separates them is personal influence and prejudicesubjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
It is an objective statement and by definition devoid of personal influence. It therefore does not matter who said it, just that it was said. This is what makes it superior to the subjectivity of Christianity. You perceive are hole being dug through you illiteracy.Habit7 wrote:Who are you quoting? On what grounding are you applying this universally? Do you realise you are constantly not answering this question but just digging a deeper hole?Slartibartfast wrote:Hmmm. "All people are born equal" should be a second moral law then.
Objective grounds for moralsHabit7 wrote:You are yet to state what objective grounds your morals are based on other than 21st century platitudes, a fortune cookie statement or the opinion of Confucius or someone else who is sharing their opinion just like you. An opinion that neither Muhammad, Dawkins or yourself agree upon. And the former two's opinions are more valued by people than yours.Slartibartfast wrote:My morals are still more grounded than either yours or Muhammed's because they are not subjective.
Who is saying it? Are you saying that it is relevant that he is saying it because that means it is his opinion. What makes his opinion so important here? I thought we were arguing objective points?Habit7 wrote:NoSlartibartfast wrote:Richard Dawkins seems to be sharing a personal anecdote
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” Richard Dawkins
He is also saying you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Richard Dawkins is much more consistent in his morality than you are.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=20640#p9003043Slartibartfast wrote: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=20640#p9002563
As long as you believe objective doesn't mean factual, in your mind you will always win the argument. Your facts can be based on your subjective opinion and you have no problem with that.Slartibartfast wrote:I don't mind carrying on arguments on a thread every now and then but I don't have time to research and find all the biblical "answers" to my questions.
Well I do have time but it's pointless for me as the answers are mostly sidesteps, unverified quotations, or just plain ole bull$h!t to me. The reason I converse with you is because I am incapable of understanding the scriptures the way you do as my logic is constantly biased by reality.
so now you are unable to argue with me because I use words in the proper context? This is a new low... even for you. But, I guess this means we have finally reached the final stage of this argument where you ignore all the inevitable conclusion.Habit7 wrote:As long as you believe objective doesn't mean factual, in your mind you will always win the argument. Your facts can be based on your subjective opinion and you have no problem with that.Slartibartfast wrote:I don't mind carrying on arguments on a thread every now and then but I don't have time to research and find all the biblical "answers" to my questions.
Well I do have time but it's pointless for me as the answers are mostly sidesteps, unverified quotations, or just plain ole bull$h!t to me. The reason I converse with you is because I am incapable of understanding the scriptures the way you do as my logic is constantly biased by reality.
atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Slartibartfast wrote:Do you know how to read? Objective does not mean factual.
I dont trust you when you use the word "objective" in your ramble above.Slartibartfast wrote:objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Slartibartfast wrote:I don't mind carrying on arguments on a thread every now and then but I don't have time to research and find all the biblical "answers" to my questions.
Well I do have time but it's pointless for me as the answers are mostly sidesteps, unverified quotations, or just plain ole bull$h!t to me. The reason I converse with you is because I am incapable of understanding the scriptures the way you do as my logic is constantly biased by reality.
No, it is a quote from Matthew 22:36-40 which says "love you neighbour as yourself" comes from the Law/Pentateuch/Torah/first 5 books of the Bible which predates Confucius. Likewise "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you" is Matthew 7:12 based on the Law/Pentateuch/Torah/first 5 books of the Bible which predates Confucius.Slartibartfast wrote:He even quoted the paraphrased Confucius teaching as his main "proof". LOL.
Slartibartfast wrote:You wrongly use the words objective and subjective. I attached the meanings for your ease of reference. Both objective and subjective morals can be based on facts and what they are based on is not what separates them. What separates them is personal influence and prejudicesubjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Slartibartfast wrote:Lol @ Habit.
Are childishly illustrated videos the pinnacle of your arguments? He raises the same points that I disproved earlier. He even quoted the paraphrased Confucius teaching as his main "proof". LOL.
My favourite part was his "Moral Argument" in the end where he just assumes the first premise as true.
But the funniest thing of all, the thing that you refuse to address as long as I continue to use words correctly is the key word "objective"
As long as something is based on Christianity it is subjective to Christianity (i.e. it cannot be objective)
Now here is the fun part. The phrase "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you" is an what the video calls the source of objective morality. I agree it is objective because it makes no reference to any person or shows bias to any idea. It doesn't even reference a God. But what do you call something that is devoid of any reference to God? Atheist.
Therefore, your golden rule is an atheist by definition. It does not make any reference to the belief in any God or religion whatsoever. How do you feel knowing that you follow atheist morals?atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You golden rule does not point to any belief in the existence of God. It therefore shows a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. You morals are therefore based on atheist morals.
crock101 wrote:The very word "atheist" is silly.
Slartibartfast wrote:Habit and blues just ignore this post. I'm more interested in your rebuttal of my previous proof.
Slartibartfast wrote:Read the bit in red Habit. There are objective and subjective facts. Again, it's laughable that you completely ignore the relevant part of the definition.Slartibartfast wrote:You wrongly use the words objective and subjective. I attached the meanings for your ease of reference. Both objective and subjective morals can be based on facts and what they are based on is not what separates them. What separates them is personal influence and prejudicesubjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
1. Please link you references. (Just for my curiosity. It won't help your argument but it will help you credibility)
2. Show that Confucius was directly influenced by at least one of them. Otherwise that means the law can be derived independently of all of them.
3. Show which part of that Golden Rule references a belief in any sort of God. If it does not then it is an atheist moral belief. That means as a Christian, you base all of you morals and values on atheism. Howdya like dem apples!
Definition quoted below once again for your ease of reference.atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: foss, VexXx Dogg and 63 guests