The Transgender deulusion

414 posts / 0 new
Last post
Searching for truth's picture
@Sapporo

@Sapporo

“How can people really believe objective morality exists when the world is split into those who think that causing eternal unbearable suffering is wrong, and those who think it is acceptable?” Do you think people are perfect? Are all Atheists 100% the exact same in all their actions and views of the world?

“I suspect that @Searching for truth isn't answering whether he thinks I should be tortured” on the contrary, I simply want you to be consistent in the method you use to reach a conclusion. If 5 out of context verses can justify a conclusion about a 600+page book written over 1,400 years ago is enough. Why can’t you reach a conclusion to you question from someone who you have personally exchanged a reasonable amount of ideas with?

“either to admit that he is in favor of such an action, or because he is ashamed to admit he isn't.” I genuinely giggled at this statement. How could I be ashamed or even worry about being ashamed in front of someone that has no objective standard for shame or shamefulness? You have to be able to prove shame before being ready to apply it to others.

“There's also a slight possibility that he is remaining silent because he doesn't wanted to get banned for hate speech.” Nope, not worried about being banned. I also don’t believe in the need to use “hate speech” when trying to have a constructive conversation. Saying I agree or disagree with torture is not hate speech.

Sapporo's picture
Searching for truth: @Sapporo

Searching for truth: @Sapporo

“How can people really believe objective morality exists when the world is split into those who think that causing eternal unbearable suffering is wrong, and those who think it is acceptable?” Do you think people are perfect? Are all Atheists 100% the exact same in all their actions and views of the world?

“I suspect that @Searching for truth isn't answering whether he thinks I should be tortured” on the contrary, I simply want you to be consistent in the method you use to reach a conclusion. If 5 out of context verses can justify a conclusion about a 600+page book written over 1,400 years ago is enough. Why can’t you reach a conclusion to you question from someone who you have personally exchanged a reasonable amount of ideas with?

“either to admit that he is in favor of such an action, or because he is ashamed to admit he isn't.” I genuinely giggled at this statement. How could I be ashamed or even worry about being ashamed in front of someone that has no objective standard for shame or shamefulness? You have to be able to prove shame before being ready to apply it to others.

“There's also a slight possibility that he is remaining silent because he doesn't wanted to get banned for hate speech.” Nope, not worried about being banned. I also don’t believe in the need to use “hate speech” when trying to have a constructive conversation. Saying I agree or disagree with torture is not hate speech.

Oh, I see your confusion. You think that being certain that you have an objective standard must mean that "your" standard is better than my standard which is inferred to be subjective, simply because it is regarded subjective.

The fact is, if it is true that an "objective" morality exists, you being certain of it does not make you more objective than I. For a start, your objective morality could only be objective if you are infallible.

And for all your sniggering about your "objective" morality...you cannot in good faith claim that you would not kill a child if you heard a voice you thought was god telling you to do so....your own religion has a case where a man was willing to do this, and he was considered "moral".

So I would ask you...is there anything so immoral that even you would not do it if you were told to do so by some "objective voice"? We have already determined that you probably think that torture is acceptable, but despite the chutzpah about having "objective morality", you don't actually have the guts to come out and say it.

You were asked whether you think I should be tortured for hating Islam for promoting torture...you affirming this could easily constitute hate speech. You were also asked, amongst other questions (Sheldon gave you one too), whether you would laugh hardest at Christians or atheists being tortured. Your answer here could also constitute hate speech.

Why do you accuse someone of hating Islam for being opposed to torture, but you do not seem to consider it hate speech when a Muslim says an individual or a group of people should be tortured?

Searching for truth's picture
@sapproro

@sapproro
"And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" - quran (8:39)

Muhammad did NOT say "fight some of the world's population until most of the world is still non-Muslim, Allah is okay with that." He said ""And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah"

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." - quran (9:5)

This makes it clear that Muslims are permitted to go out of their way to wage war against non-Muslims, even those who weren't fighting them.

"And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." - quran (8:59-60)

This does NOT say "Allah cannot get to some places in the universe, therefore only wage war against non-Muslims where Allah can reach. It does NOT say "fight only those who fight you" ...it says fight those who disbelieve. This would be considered a crime against humanity today.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - quran (9:29) -

This does NOT say "fight only those who fight you", nor does it say "don't fight"...it says "fight people because they believe differently to you, until they think the same as you.

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." - quran (9:111) - and this does NOT say "persuade people to your point of view by peaceful means" ...it says good Muslims "slay and are slain".

"But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." - quran (9:88)

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." - Sahih Bukhari 8:387

If people abided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than texts such as the qur'an, the world would be a better place.

Thank you for only further proving my point and your utter lack of understanding and willfully stupidity to context. All you have done is only further prove that your statement of having read the Quran to be a lie. That is all I have to say on this post of yours. I was initially going to try and explain some but, realized if you really cared you could find the same info in its proper context and back story within 5 mins. Oh, and I also forgot you are now a scholar of the Quran and have great interpretation skills even, having 0 context. Good job.

Searching for truth's picture
@ Sapporo

@ Sapporo

“Oh, I see your confusion. You think that being certain that you have an objective standard must mean that "your" standard is better than my standard which is inferred to be subjective, simply because it is regarded subjective.” No, I am saying we need a 3rd party standard to be consistent and for it to be objective.

“The fact is, if it is true that an "objective" morality exists, you being certain of it does not make you more objective than I. For a start, your objective morality could only be objective if you are infallible. “False, just because I make a mistake does not mean it’s the faulty of an objective morality. I don’t know where you live but, where I live and every country I have visited it had humans that made mistakes. You seem to come from a place that does not believe that humans can make mistakes therefore, believe if someone believes in an objective morality it automatically makes them perfect.

“you cannot in good faith claim that you would not kill a child if you heard a voice you thought was god telling you to do so” Well, it’s ironic and AMAZING you actually bring this particular example up.

“And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin.” Quran 17:31.

Even more proof that nothing, not a single claim against Islam that is being brought forward today has not either 1) Been dealt with through a hadith or 2) Been dealt with through the Quran. Nothing today’s Atheist bring forward to refute the Quran has not already been addressed during the 7th century. With all your science and technology today, you guys are no smarter than the average Bedouin farmer living in the desert. Actually, I think they were smarter since they brought up this false claims first, so all you are doing is repeating what 7th century farmer ultimately found to be false. I could go in further detail also about the Hadith that talks against killing your own kids or even cite a few more verses but, I think my point has been more than proven. Ah what the heck, let me say one last thing. This exact, same, 100% the same question you asked was asked by a man to the Prophet, long story short, his answers was (paraphrasing) “that we are not to kill our own children in fear of poverty and that any whispers of doing such a thing is to be ignored”. Then he talked about how Prophets’ (Abraham in this case) are tested in far different ways then non-prophets. Again, you have shown 0 understand, lack of context and as you have always done, you always dismiss the “common sense” element to Islam. So, I hope that answers your question on whether I would kill a child or my own child if I thought it was god telling me to do so.

“So I would ask you...is there anything so immoral that even you would not do it if you were told to do so by some "objective voice"? Yes, everything the Quran tells me not to as well as all the things that can be understood using common sense as not to do as well. For example, the Quran does not say do not throw people out of an airplane but, the fact that it stands for peace and against killing. One can use common sense and understand its wrong to throw someone out of an airplane, especially if they don’t have a parachute lol.

“We have already determined that you probably think that torture is acceptable” Another lie. No, WE have not. You have come to that lie all on your own.

“you affirming this could easily constitute hate speech.” Huh? What? When? Where?

“You were also asked, amongst other questions (Sheldon gave you one too)” Just FYI, I honestly no longer read anything Sheldon posts. So, I do not know what he said or asked. I realized he is not worth the time nor kilobytes it will take from my unlimited data plan to reply to him.

“Your answer here could also constitute hate speech.” Only to a SJW, I could believe in torture or be against it. It’s an opinion and I can have any opinion I want and that won’t be hate speech by any rational person. Acting on it and call for torture, that’s a different story.

“Why do you accuse someone of hating Islam for being opposed to torture” Please show me where I said that. While I do enjoy our exchanged I honestly think it would be far more productive if you stopped lying.

“but you do not seem to consider it hate speech when a Muslim says an individual or a group of people should be tortured?” I see you are still fishing for an answer, how many different ways will you ask the same question lol? Ah what the heck, I will answer. I consider any speech the calls for and attracts hate or any form of violence against any individual or group to be hate speech, regardless of the source. Whether that source is an Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian or anyone else. Does that answer satisfy you?

Sheldon's picture
I suppose this is progress of

I suppose this is progress of a sort anyway, you admitting you have no cogent answers to my posts. Though it's typical of a theist to make indirect snide ad hominem attacks when their verbiage is beaten, and they haven''t the courage to speak directly to those who dare reject their superstitious beliefs.

Is it ever morally acceptable to rape a nine year old child, as Mohammed is supposed to have done?

What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam?

No need to answer, as with Breezy you're reticence is answer enough, as is your petulant evasion. It's not like we don't already know why you won't answer.

calhais's picture
What a condescending comment.

What a condescending comment.

Be nice. Be respectful.

Sapporo's picture
Searching for truth: “but you

Searching for truth: “but you do not seem to consider it hate speech when a Muslim says an individual or a group of people should be tortured?” I see you are still fishing for an answer, how many different ways will you ask the same question lol? Ah what the heck, I will answer. I consider any speech the calls for and attracts hate or any form of violence against any individual or group to be hate speech, regardless of the source. Whether that source is an Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian or anyone else. Does that answer satisfy you?

So the qur'an qualifies as hate speech because it endorses the torture of those who do not submit to Islam.

Muashkis's picture
All this incoherent rambling,

All this incoherent rambling, logical fallacies, evading and flat out lying... reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCQwe_AMo74

Sheldon's picture
So to recap, John's question

So to recap, John's question

"How do I reconcile Newton's genius with his superstitious religious beliefs"

In the same way I reconcile his unevidenced beliefs in alchemy and astrology, clearly his intellect was no barrier to believing vapid superstitions like christianity. Hardly surising given the epoch in which he lived. His science I accept because it has been objectively evidenced by the scientific process.

John on the other hand makes an arbitrary distinction between his (Newton's) superstitious beliefs singling out one as valid because he ostensibly shares that belief.

For someone who relentless claims to be part of the scientific community he seems to have liitle respect for, and a strange grasp of, how that process works as a whole to validate ideas and claims.

Unlike Francis Collins, who even though he shares that arbitrary superstious belief, acknowledges when overwhelming evidence contradicts any part of it, as of course DNA evidence does exactly, and in Collins own words shows unequivocally all life shares common ancestry through species evolution. More importantly Collins does this even when, by his own admission, he wishes that were not the case.

It seems John wants to ignore or pretend he doesnt understand what these facts imply for the way he cherry picks scientific facts to accept, jettisoning the ones that are anathema to the creation myth in his superstitious religious beliefs.

We could make a more informed assessment, but John tellingly refuses to answer questions that might further imply he is motivated by his beliefs and not by any scientific evidence.

For example if he only denies scientific facts that contradict any part of his religious beliefs, but he refuses to say if this is or is not the case. So I shall let others decide why he refuses to answer questions that would confirm or deny this, though the inference is too obvious to ignore.

Equally damning of course is the fact we know all the scientifically validated evidence supports species evolution through natural selection, and not once in 160 years has anyone demonstrated scientifically validated evidences that calls it into question.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I've hardly commented on

I've hardly commented on Newton.

Sheldon's picture
I'm not sure what that pithy

I'm not sure what that pithy rejoinder is meant to tell us, but I don't think the recap needs a recap in light of this latest bombshell. You know what the word infer means, right?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Within statistics it's a

Within statistics it's a specific method of deducing information from the data. But with you, it just means making stuff up and pretending is true.

Sheldon's picture
I never mentioned stats, so

I never mentioned stats, so how ironic you should lie about me making things up when it is you who is demonstrably making up lies.

infer
verb
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

You claimed your denial of the scientific fact of evolution was not motivated by your religious beliefs, yet refuse to give examples of any scientific facts you deny that don't in any way refute any part of your religious beliefs, or if you are a young earth creationist. I have made nothing up, but can only infer you are evading the questions because the answers would not support your claim. I find your claim the questions have no relevance too facile to warrant a response, especially as you made the claim without offering any explanation, though this is your MO when evading questions you don't like. You have form, and quite a few people on here have noticed this.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Do you know what cognitive

Do you know what cognitive flexibility is?

Sheldon's picture
Irrelevant straw man.

Irrelevant straw man.

Now about these questions you are refusing to answer because you know how the answers will look.

calhais's picture
You really like to abuse

You really like to abuse Sheldon-words like `rejoinder.'

Sheldon's picture
"You really like to abuse

"You really like to abuse Sheldon-words like `rejoinder.'"

Talking of pithy rejoinders, anyone able to decipher that for me?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

"anyone able to decipher that for me?" Nah, sorry mate, I don't speak troll.

Sheldon's picture
They are busy attacking me in

They are busy attacking me in another thread for offering best wishes to someone whose child is being abused, bizarre.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Yeh its almost as if they have come across you before and are trying to discredit you anonymously and without reference to their previous avatar.. Seems like a few pounds of sour grapes have been consumed by Calhais before posting here. * strolls off checking under the local bridges for occupancy*

Sheldon's picture
Hard to say, it might just be

Hard to say, it might just be a coincidence of course, but he seems to have started posting recently, and honed straight in on me. With little interest in the topic of the OP. Time will tell all i suppose.

Searching for truth's picture
Facts are the 1st step to

Facts are the 1st step to understanding a problem

Argue with facts, not opinions

https://youtu.be/m23YpRPJuP4

My focus is only the 1st half

Sheldon's picture
All you post is opinions, I

All you post is opinions, I have yet to see you offer any facts, and you positively refuse to answer any questions about your bare assertions.

1) What objective evidence can you demonstrate that your deity is real?
2) Is it ever moral for an adult in their 50's to have sex (rape) a 9 year old child?
3) What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.