The Religion Discussion

[York]

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.

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.

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.

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....

[York]

And the whole of Arabia accepted this man. With all of the information and technology available today, it's seemingly harder for some to distinguish truth/fact from falsehood, lies, slander, opinions....

[York]

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.

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.

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?

a quick search says
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

[bluesclues]

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.

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.

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?

a quick search says
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

historical evidence says that child marriages were not only common in ancient times.. but a way of life. over time it became more and more taboo. children would be promised to husbands while they were still a baby. depending on the situation would marry before puberty and just not have sexual relations until after puberty. Age difference was also not a matter of concern. as it is documented in the family tree of Noah and the route to re-populating the earth. one of the sons of Shem married the Granddaughter of his brother. she was if i remember correctly his 2nd wife. that was just one of the ways the genes were mixed coming down the line to prevent genetic abnormality coming from just 3 families.

it's perfectly natural. and is dictated by the law of nature not man's opinion on the matter. this is why even though by law in some countries, a man cannot have sex with a 14 or 15 year old, yet still they allow it under religious marriage. and again because marriage is an institution of the church, if a boy get an "underage" girl pregnant, the families may run to get them married to avoid the state pressing charges. the state pressing charges based on you violating it's population control measures. pedophilia is a modern term and development of the western world. and what it is, is a label for those men who cannot resist that primal instinct to go after young girls (fresh eggs), or worse, pre-pubescent girls. taking advantage of them, extorting them, kidnapping them and all the other things they do that certainly do not fall under the same discipline as an honourable marriage with traditional guidelines.

the atheists also have no case to speak against child marriages as though a hypocritical act before God. this is just one case of "is not what you do.. but how u do it."


so we dropped and altered some traditions, some people grow up in a nice world with a/c pumping and want to judge their ancestors actions as heinous. the same acts that brought them here, the same sacrifices that allowed for them to live in their beautiful a/c pumpin homes. not in a cave in the desert. not in the jungle in the wild among the animals. almost just as one of those animals. no, they expect their ancestors to have been born with their level of civilization. a level handed to them on a silver spoon. they speak against the indentureship of slaves. but they wouldnt go back to africa and live with their home tribe in the dust and heat to drink wine made from the saliva of all the elders who never hear bout toothpaste and toothbrush.

it have a short thing u call that...

forgetting where you come from.

if you want to see the kind of ppl your ancestors was.. look in the amazon jungle. look at the dogon tribe. that is the kind of people you would be if you didnt come to the west. and if civilizations didnt evolve. you wouldnt find anything wrong with it. because of your cultural programming. and it is because of the same cultural programming is why you would have your personal opinions set as they are. it is simply not a matter to be judged. obey the law and restriction in the land you living in. that law allows for marrying pubescent girls under religious terms, catholic, hindu muslim doesnt matter. because God run the show and he say it ok. otherwise he wouldve created women so that they only see their first period when theyre 21.

[Slartibartfast]

Sigh... If that is your final argument then I guess we have nothing left to argue about. I disproved everything you said and you reply by literally repeating the same arguments that did not address mine. Then you call me unreasonable. Lol yes.

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.

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!

Do you know how to read? Objective does not mean factual.

objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

At this point I detach myself. This is so contradictory, so illogical, that you are proving my point by opposing me.

subjective - 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.

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 prejudice

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.

Hmmm. "All people are born equal" should be a second moral law then.

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?

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.

My morals are still more grounded than either yours or Muhammed's because they are not subjective.

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.

Objective grounds for morals
1. Do as little harm as possible in a given situation
2. All people are born equal

There you go. A direct response. Now how about a direct disproof of it. You clearly don't understand how objectivity works. Those statements are objective and must be directly disproved without mention of any specific person on opinionated belief. They are not influenced by my personal beliefs and it therefore doesn't matter who I am. Although, I expect you will most likely fight this irrelevant point than directly address the objective grounds I just gave you.

Richard Dawkins seems to be sharing a personal anecdote

No

“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.

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?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=20640#p9002563

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=20640#p9003043
That response is still irrelevant for the resons stated in my subsequent post. I'm beginning to believe that you black out just before you are proven wrong. Too many times you side step, then misdirect, then try to answer but fail, then finally just ignore the inevitable conclusion that you are wrong. I'm hoping you at least move on to number 3 in your next reply.

And to end, to state that the Bible needs to specifically address pedophilia to condemn it is rubbish. Why is it rubbish. Come on.. proof habit. The Bible spells out who God is, what He requires from men and women, what their sexual ethic should be and how they should deal with childrenAnd it does so by not stating any specifics. That means it is open to interpretation... but what (besides humans) have the power to interpret the bible?. Every orthodox Christian agrees on the immorality of pedophilia consistent with that. Even our civil and criminal law cannot specify every action, it sets bounds and infractions.At least our laws can specifically address pedophelia. I guess our man made laws are superior. Or lawyers are just better writers. Actions are judged based on existing general law. To state that pedophilia needs to be specifically called out is a nonsense and invalided by the fact that everyone condemned it based on Christianity.Everyone? I just condemned it based on non-religious moral laws. Either I do not exist or you are wrong.[/quote]

[Habit7]

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.

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.

[crock101]

Wait ,noahs ark,all the animals on earth just happen to live in walking distance from his house.get on a rickety boat he built himself , never mind that he is not a boat builder.
The ark supposedly floated for almost a year,what did the animals eat for that year?
How do you keep the lions from eating the gazelles ?
How do you keep the ant eater from eating the ants ,it's literally all they eat.
Out of all the mosquitos he could have saved,why save that one's carrying malaria and dengue fever.
Which members of the family had a tape worm,chicken pox and all the other human loving parasites and diseases.
How does he get the kangaroo,koala and the duck billed platypus all the way to Australia,all the while making sure that there are no fossils of these animals anywhere else on the planet,almost as though they never lived outside of Australia, strange.

[Slartibartfast]

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.

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.

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.

T'was fun.

[crock101]

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Before anyone starts asking for "proof".

[jsr]

can someone recommend a person who can cast out any evil or spiritual harm done to a person

pm me thanks

[York]

The Qur'an affirms Noah and the flood. The flood may have been local, not the whole earth. Any thing is possible with God. Miracles were performed that most would think impossible eg. Moses and the red sea.

[York]

Habit probably busy defending Marlene and Udecott boss....

[megadoc1]

this is a video version of habit and slarti's argument

[Slartibartfast]

..K..

[Habit7]

Actually...

[crock101]

york.

if the flood was local, then the animals and people everywhere else in the world would have been fine,
there would have been no reason to put animals on the ark.so basically no mass extinction,and noah wasted his life and the lives of his family by forcing them to build a boat to survive a local flood that they could have just as easily walked away from.

moses and the red sea , where do i start, the idea the the law of gravity and basic fluid dynamics are suspended in such a way so that this guy and his friends can have a stroll.according to the entirety of present day physics, yes i would say that this is impossible .
its like me saying that turtles can fly , i have no proof of this other than that i truly believe it and find it spiritually satisfying .never mind it goes against everything we know about turtles.
i demand that my beliefs be treated with respect and anyone who ridicules them will be called bigoted and racist.
if this sound crazy, it is because it is.

[Slartibartfast]

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.

[nareshseep]

1929752_1166656870028460_2460479179162605859_n.jpg (18.59 KiB) Viewed 2620 times

[Habit7]

Honestly as long as you believe

Do you know how to read? Objective does not mean factual.

objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I dont trust you when you use the word "objective" in your ramble above.



Thus you

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.

That is why you say

He even quoted the paraphrased Confucius teaching as his main "proof". LOL.

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.

But you wouldn't know that because as you said above you don't do research.

Therefore your golden rule thesis you want to hang your argument on, is inherent in religion, not irreligion.

[Slartibartfast]

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.

subjective - 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.

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 prejudice

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.

[crock101]

The very word "atheist" is silly. There is no word for someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns or orcs or fairies or minotours , but I ,for some reason need to have a word for why I don't buy in to a story about a magic man in the sky ,who conveniently ,nobody ever sees .
This magic man by the way , according to scripture ,tried at least once to annihilate all life on earth,but he loves us.
Imagine if you will the number of women and children , including babies and pregnant women that he supposedly murdered with that alleged worldwide flood . For a guy who is supposed to be against abortion , he sure has killed a lot of unborn children, allegedly.

[crock101]

http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_ma ... tality/en/


Every year nine million children under the age of five die ,that's seventeen every minute. If god is real then he sure does seem prefer dead children to living ones, I'm quite the opposite.
The prayers of all those parents just being ignored by this impotent God. I find it extremely difficult to bring myself to believe in such a being ,who would sit back and watch seventeen children suffer till they die literally every minute, many from diseases the he supposedly created in the first place and do nothing about it.

[bluesclues]

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.

pffffff hahaha

ur logic bro... made my eyes burn to read that.

i wont even bother

[Habit7]

For once bluesclues and I agree on something.

[Slartibartfast]

Blues the burning of your eyes does not refute anything I said. Please indicate which part of my argument is incorrect.

Habit, I refuse to believe that you are following blues now. I know you are better than that... no offense blues.

For one, your arguments are always more grounded in reality or at least localised to the stories in the bible. All easily referenced. For all you know blues could think his eyes are literally on fire right now. Given his past claims it is a definite possibility.

Just please be careful and consider exactly what you are saying. One must first give up all credibility to follow blues and I rather not see you give up what credibility you have left.

[Slartibartfast]

To crock

The very word "atheist" is silly.

Nornall things are defined first by what attributes they have and not by what attributes they don't have. This is what makes the word "atheist" seem silly in a lot of contexts. Kind of hard to use the word to actually define something but this concept is extremely hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around. I mean, if you have problems using the words "objective" and "subjective" in context then thus concept is waaaaay out of your grasp.

Habit and blues just ignore this post. I'm more interested in your rebuttal of my previous proof.

[bluesclues]

mainly for any of those belief systems to apply they must be attributed to living things that are capable of differentiating. calling a rock an atheist is dumb. its a total mis-application of the word. there is no metaphoric or symbolic attribution. thus a sentence, a phrase, a nintendo or a 32 inch tv cannot be an atheist. not even if is a smart tv.. lool

[Habit7]

Habit and blues just ignore this post. I'm more interested in your rebuttal of my previous proof.

Refute you? I thought I did that on the last page when I rightly cited the Christian morals you claim to be atheistic as being grounded in Jewish moral law?

You are the one who needs to prove that the Confucius moral law you adher to is grounded in atheistic ideology....all while claiming that atheism has no ideology.

[bluesclues]

slarti ur logic reminds me of that girl who thinks shes a boy but want to get in on female special price at that club on the avenue. what's her name? ur not her right?

[Slartibartfast]

I love the fact that the two of you replied to the one post I said to ignore. Anyway, Habit you clearly missed this post. You never replied to it.

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.

subjective - 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.

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 prejudice

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.

I'll be waiting patiently for your rebuttal of this. Feel free to also tackle the post that blues quoted before you became one of his disciples.