A question for theists...

269 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
ROYISM "You can’t be

ROYISM "You can’t be selective in taking info from the Islamic sources."

Fnarrr, funniest post ever.

ROYISM "All these don’t paint the picture of a girl who was abused. Rather it only shows how healthy her relationship with the prophet was"

Deeply worrying as Nyarl said. Do you think all countries should lower the age of consent to 9? If not why not, since you find it perfectly moral to marry and rape children, and yes it is rape.

ROYISM 's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

You said: “Do you think all countries should lower the age of consent to 9? If not why not, since you find it perfectly moral to marry and rape children, and yes it is rape.”

Yes, I would say the age of marriage should not be as low as 9 today. That’s because, in our current times, given our schooling and university system, getting a girl married that young would jeopardize her education and career prospects. The situation has changed drastically today.

However, would that mean the ruling in Islam has been invalidated? Not at all. Because the rule does not say that every girl must be married off at 9. It only fixes a baseline limit – which is menstruation. But starting from there, a girl can be married off anytime depending on the socio cultural context of the time. During the prophet’s time, Fatima was married off at 18.

Moreover, the truth is that the age of consent is pretty low even in our current times. In some US states it’s as low as 12 and ranges across 14, 16 and so on. So, which of these ages do you support? And based on what do you decide?

Sheldon's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

So what you're saying is it was moral to marry and rape children then, but not now. (Yes it is and always was rape)

So much for objective morality.

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

"This info about Aisha marrying at 6 and consummating it at 9 comes from a book called Bukhari"

Bukhari accepted the narratives from only those who, according to his knowledge, not only believed in Islam but practiced its teachings. And is it not reasonable to accept that Bukhari would not put anything in his book that was a scathing criticism of Muhammad? Bukhari was biased.

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM "Well that's what we

ROYISM "Well that's what we understand from the hadith sources."

That the rape of a nine year old child is moral, and YES it absolutely is rape as only a vile sexual predator would even try and claim a nine year old child can consent to sex. Your religious beliefs are appalling, quite nauseating. Mohammed's rape of a nine year old child is sickening enough, but can at least be viewed in the barbaric context of the period, though this doesn't change how immoral an act it was, but for you to espouse paedophilia as moral in the 21 century is sickeningly amoral. I hope your children get away from you, and never look back. As Nyarl has said, worrying doesn't come close to describing your sick views.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Posts about 9 year old

Re: Posts about 9 year old girl having sex with 50 year old man being okay.

...*gag*.... *dry heave*... *holding hands across tummy*... Um, okay.... Well, for the record, I will try to get through this post without hurling all over my keyboard. Already had a little vomit come up into my mouth as it is. I swear, reading through some of that nauseating trash from our current Muslim visitor has put a bit of a pinch on my Tums and Alka-Seltzer supply. In trying to remain positive and optimistic, though, at least we have somebody from the Islamic faith back on here who is incredibly outstanding at showcasing the truly vile and repugnant nature of his chosen faith. Just as our dearly departed Fergie put the spotlight on the detrimental effects of Christianity for the site lurkers to view, we now have a representative of the Muslim community to shine a light onto the slimy underbelly of the Islamic faith. It is interesting to note, however, that in Fergie's case, he could have easily been dismissed by his fellow Christians as a mentally disturbed whacko. Fair enough, I suppose. In the case of our Muslim pal, though, that particular excuse to dismiss him is not so easily accomplished. He is articulate. He is apparently fairly well educated. He is even polite and has an even temper. And he is also very adept at evading answers and explaining things in such a way that could potentially persuade/convince person(s) of lower-than-average intelligence. And it is because of those very traits/characteristics that his willingness to follow and defend such anachronistic sewage is far more disturbing than the inarticulate rantings of some loony nut-job. As I have said before, the mental gymnastics required to accept such things is astounding. Sure, we as atheists can try to explain that to people. And some folks may understand it somewhat. But to have an individual come here and actually DEMONSTRATE this concept for all to see?.... Well, that is just priceless. So, if nothing else, we at least have that going for us.

All that being said, ever since I joined this site over a year and a half ago, I have noticed a particular recurring theme among theists (Christians and Muslims alike) that never ceases to amaze me. Now, if I'm not mistaken, both the Bible and the Koran are suppose to be the works of a perfect god that has perfect knowledge of EVERYTHING (Past, Present, AND Future). And as such, both the Bible and Koran are suppose to be written instructions for ALL OF HUMANITY (Past, Present, and FUTURE). That means the teachings/instructions/laws in those books are to be followed REGARDLESS of the culture or time period of the person(s) reading them. (As it seems only reasonable that such an all-powerful and all-knowing god would be VERY WELL AWARE that people, cultures, and social structures would change over time and with the advancements of civilization, science, and technology... *rolling eyes*...) Yet, it is downright perplexing to me (and just straight-up comical, to boot) when I hear a theist from either team make the statement, "Well, that rule applied only to the people of that time period, because things were different back then." (Or any other such similar statement.) Personally, I know I have heard that statement countless times from theist friends I know, and it is an excuse we see posted on this site on a regular basis. It is hilarious. With that one statement, they pretty much negate their entire "perfect" holy book. To put it another way, "It is the perfect and timeless word of God to be followed completely.... well, except for those parts that apply only to the people of the time period in which it was written. But everything else should TOTALLY be followed."... *shaking head in amusement*... Allah, have mercy!... *chuckle*... That shit is just too ridiculous to be made up...

Oh, and on a bit of a side note here, did anybody else catch that one particular excuse as to why it was perfectly okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl? Paraphrasing a bit, but it went something like this, "Well, she wasn't going to school, and she wasn't working to provide for the family. Hell, what other use is she? Might as well send her off to be fucked by some 50+ year old dude." Oh, and keep in mind, according to the Islamic belief, that particular practice is suppose to apply TODAY just as much as it applied to the time period in which it was written. There's a little bit of info to help you sleep better at night....

(Edited a minor sentence for better clarity.)

Cognostic's picture
RE: Sex with a 9 year old.

RE: Sex with a 9 year old. Christians forget that God raped Marry when she was only 13. I don't care how you impregnate a 13 year old, IT'S RAPE. What people don't seem to know is that Muhammad molested his six year old wife until she was nine. A common practice among Muslim men is "Thighing." You stick your dick between the child's legs and masturbate. Muhammad engaged in this activity for three years prior to the rape. We can only imagine what other indignant activities his six year old bride was forced to do.

ROYISM 's picture
@cognostic

@cognostic

What people don't seem to know is that Muhammad molested his six year old wife until she was nine. A common practice among Muslim men is "Thighing."

What's the proof please?

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

"What's the proof please?"

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha#.22Thighi...

The problem ROYISM, is that you are morally bankrupt. You take moral direction from an old book written over a thousand years ago by barbaric herdsmen. I can understand why you actually believe you are a moral person. But your failing is that you fail to direct any critical eye towards those writings in your holy book. You actually believe every piece of crap written in there is perfect and correct. That is your failing.

Sheldon's picture
So to recap, not one theist

So to recap, not one theist despite multiple claims their beliefs offer objective morality, can list ten objectively moral actions, with evidence, and not just simply invoke their belief (as ROYISM & Jo did) that objective morality exists because the deity they believe in is perfectly moral, as this is just a circular argument that invokes unevidenced claims.

In fact ROYISM claims it's perfectly moral to murder people as revenge for murder, and to marry and rape children, as long as its not his own children.

I'm not sure whether to be relieved or not at the last part, but the stunning immorality of the hypocrisy surely can't have escaped most people on here.

Not one theists seems able to list any beliefs they hold, let alone ten, that are nothing to do with their religious beliefs and for which they an demonstrate no objective evidence, again the bias of this should be manifest to any impartial readers.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Sheldon.

@Sheldon.

1,000,000 agrees.

Both Jo and Royism have convicted themselves entirely on their own statements of being utterly amoral, and by extension, convicted their chosen deity to be amoral and utterly lacking in empathy and compassion.

Fucking dangerous.

Sheldon's picture
This is where secular morals

This is where secular morals will always be superior, as they are not confined to archaic codes of ethics that by any contemporary standard contain doctrines that are morally repulsive. Who but a theists would even suggest paedophilia with 9byear old children is morally acceptable, then blithely point out they wouldn't want this for their own children, and seemingly be unaware of the immoral hypocrisy?

For that a victims family should be able to murder the murderer, and not see a whole slew of innocent victims forming up for their own revenge at that murder. As if this represents a moral code of justice in the 21st century.

FWIW secular democracies like Norway and Sweden have some of the lowest rates of violent crimes like murder and rape in the world, they also have very low rates of recidivism for violent offenders. They don't have the death penalty, and their criminal justice system focuses mainly on rehabilitation of offenders by making them face up responsibility for their crimes.

We may not all agree, but the figures speak for themselves, and I know I'd rather live under a criminal justice system that focuses on reducing crime and recidivism, especially over the theocratic dystopian Hell of countries that have strict sharia law, or any barbaric and bigoted repressive religious codes enacted into law.

ROYISM 's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Sheldon: Who but a theists would even suggest paedophilia with 9byear old children is morally acceptable, then blithely point out they wouldn't want this for their own children, and seemingly be unaware of the immoral hypocrisy?

I had explained this with the example of the ‘chess rules’, as to how a rule can be applied differently depending on the context and yet remain objective. You totally ignored those points and keep parroting your first argument. If you can tell me why the chess example is wrong, I would consider that a sensible response.

Sheldon's picture
Your desperate

Your desperate rationalisation about chess is irrelevant, and imbecilic, because there is no context in which any sexual contact between a 50 year old adult and a nine year child is morally defensible in any way for any remotely decent or moral person, anyone who condones paedophilia has no semblance of morality whatsoever.

Again your vile defence of the rape of children is exacerbated by the hypocrisy of you not wanting this for your own children. No amount of facile analogies about chess will change this fact. Though for the record game rules are not objective, they're arbitrary as humans make them up, and they can and do change over time. The fact we hit on a set of rules for chess that remains popular doesn't make them objective.

As I said you don't seem to grasp what objective means, like your hilarious claim that because you blindly and unquestioningly follow a vapid archaic superstition without using personal opinion to examine it critically somehow makes it objectively true. Something is objectively true regardless of personal opinion, but it's beyond moronic to claim that means that you not having an opinion about something makes it objectively true.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

"FWIW secular democracies like Norway and Sweden have some of the lowest rates of violent crimes like murder and rape in the world, they also have very low rates of recidivism for violent offenders. They don't have the death penalty, and their criminal justice system focuses mainly on rehabilitation of offenders by making them face up responsibility for their crimes."

I completely agree that how those countries address crime is a much better way than most countries do.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I completely agree that

Jo "I completely agree that how those countries address crime is a much better way than most countries do."

Those are subjective moral systems, you do realise what your statement means in the context of this thread?

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Did confession, repentance, recompense, redemption and restoration of those who have done wrong, have its origin in the Bible?

Sheldon's picture
https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

5:47 into that video the late (great) Christopher Hitchens destroys the appalling christian concept that our responsibility for our actions can be expunged vicariously, and the responsibility taken away, by a "human" sacrifice, even the sacrifice of a deity made flesh, because this is a deeply immoral idea by any "objective" human standard.

Take your sin, take your crucifixion, take your bible and your koran, and all the hadiths, and apologetic literature and fuck right off. I am responsible for my failings, and all errors of judgement and mistakes in my life. I will do what I can to avoid making them again, and when I am dead that is an end to me. I will live on briefly in the minds of those who knew me, and I hope for at least some of them, it will be a fond remembrance, and what sort of rampant ego can hope for more than that?

Ladies, gentlemen, I am off on holiday in a few hours, and am a little drunk, and am going to imbibe further, so have fun while I am away. Hopefully I shall plague this forum with my incomprehensible wittering upon my return. In the mean time I have a few hours to kill, so I beg your forbearance.

Tin-Man's picture
Hey, Shelly, be safe and have

Hey, Shelly, be safe and have a blast. Take a couple of shots for me while you're at it, if you don't mind... *grin*... Looking forward to your return.

And now, for the benefit of those who may still be "on the fence" concerning that fabulous chess game analogy, please allow me to elaborate a bit more. Aside from it being incredibly ludicrous in the first place to compare the rules of a man-made game to the "absolute" laws of some all-powerful/all-knowing entity, here is a little breakdown to help in better understanding why the analogy fails.

1. As already mentioned, even though there is a standard set of rules for chess used for "official" playing purposes, those rules are still arbitrary in a general sense. In other words, any two people anywhere could sit down to play each other in a game of chess and make up any rules they want, as long as they both agree to them. For instance, they could play beer chess. Every time a piece is captured, the player of the captured piece takes a drink. Or maybe they agree that the bishops are to be moved like pawns, while all the pawns are allowed to move as bishops. (Wow! That would be a helluva game to watch!... *chuckle*...) And over time, the "official" rules of the game could even change completely according to the changes in society. In stark contrast, however, the teachings/laws/rules in the Bible and Koran were (supposedly) dictated by perfect and supremely all-knowing/all-powerful entities, and they are meant to be followed by ALL of humanity throughout ALL of time/history across ALL cultures without being changed in ANY WAY by Man. That means that two or more people should NEVER be able to get together and say, "Hey, yeah, we know the Bible/Koran tells us to follow this particular rule. But, you know what, how about today we do it our own way? Because the rule in the book is just too inconvenient for this day and age. And, honestly, we would all likely end up in jail for trying to follow some of those rules, anyway." The hypocrisy reeks.

2. Generally, in the game of chess, nobody gets physically hurt or emotionally scarred for life. It's just a game. And if you happen to fondle one of the chess pieces or stick it in inappropriate places, the chess piece does not care. It is an inanimate object. A small innocent defenseless child, on the other hand.... well, I do believe that should require no explaining to most any decent person. (Although, it is apparent there is at least ONE person on this site who somehow does not understand the repulsive nature of certain acts toward children.)

Oh, speaking of which, I could not help but notice that individual still sidestepped the question about whether or not he would be okay with having a 9 year old daughter of his being married to and having sex with a 50+ year old man. For those who may have missed it, he replied that the reason he would not marry off his young daughter as such is because he is "more concerned about her education." Okay, fine. But in no way did that address whether or not he would be okay with the idea. Very subtle, but evasive, nonetheless. So, basically, we still do not know if this individual would be totally fine or not if a 9 year old daughter of his was being used as a sex toy for a 50+ year old man, even if she was "married" to him. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..." ...*gag*...

ROYISM 's picture
@Tin Man

@Tin Man

You said: “In other words, any two people anywhere could sit down to play each other in a game of chess and make up any rules they want, as long as they both agree to them.”

That’s a desperate attempt to derail the argument. Yes, two people can cook up their own rules. But that wouldn’t be a chess game anymore. Similarly, if a muslim makes his own moral rules, that wouldn’t be islam anymore. And that’s true of any system.

You said: “Hey, yeah, we know the Bible/Koran tells us to follow this particular rule. But, you know what, how about today we do it our own way? Because the rule in the book is just too inconvenient for this day and age. And, honestly, we would all likely end up in jail for trying to follow some of those rules, anyway." The hypocrisy reeks.

This example is a misrepresentation of my argument. I never said that rules can be changed based on changing times. What I said was that the flexibility offered by the rule can be made use of according to the situation. Like the choice to move the bishop in one of the many directions (prescribed by the rule). Applying one of those choices is not violation of the rule.

You said: “Generally, in the game of chess, nobody gets physically hurt or emotionally scarred for life. It's just a game. And if you happen to fondle one of the chess pieces or stick it in inappropriate places, the chess piece does not care….”

LOL! You are taking an example to its extreme ends. I gave the example of the chess only to highlight the difference between objective and subjective. And sensible people don’t pursue an example beyond its stated purpose. If I told you that a warrior fights like a lion on the battlefield, you mustn’t go looking for his tail.

You said: “For those who may have missed it, he replied that the reason he would not marry off his young daughter as such is because he is "more concerned about her education." Okay, fine. But in no way did that address whether or not he would be okay with the idea.”

I won’t be okay with the idea in the current times. To go back to the chess example, ‘I WON’T BE OKAY with moving the bishop in a certain direction given the situation of the game. But that doesn’t mean I am against the rule, because the alternate move I am applying is also part of the rule. I don’t understand why you find it so hard to comprehend. I am sure you apply this principle even in your moral standard. It’s true of any rule that gives you a range of options to choose from. A woman chooses to have an abortion, because she is not okay with the idea of a baby in her situation. That doesn’t mean that she is not okay with the rule in general that prescribes two options (have a baby or have an abortion).

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Responses from our Muslim

Re: Responses from our Muslim friend

...*chuckle*.... *shaking head in amusement*... Ahhh... Well, at least he is consistent... *chuckle*... Ya know, while the mentality of our dear ol' pal is quite disturbing (to say the least), at the exact same time I cannot help but be just a little bit impressed by how he "sticks to his guns." (Even though both seem to be unloaded and non-functional.) And I do have to admit it certainly does take a considerable talent of sorts to say the same thing over and over and over again in multiple different ways in the hopes that nobody will notice you are desperately trying to avoid answering direct questions that would contradict your beloved and sacred book and compromise your belief in same said book. Yep, by golly, there is indeed some skill there. Sadly, however, those skills are decidedly lacking. Such a shame. Which brings an interesting thought to mind... What if he is here only to use us to sharpen his apologetic maneuvering talents? Hmmmm... *scratching chin*... Would certainly make sense to some degree. For he has been on this site for so long now that he should KNOW there are no "veteran" members here who will buy any of the junk he is hawking, yet he keeps returning with the same ol' stuff each time. But each time it seems a tad more polished and refined. Yes, he knows his woven webs of silky slime are not strong enough to ensnare even so much as an atheist gnat on this particular site. However, one has to admit that some of his tap dancing tapestries could very much be convincing to those naive and impressionable folks in other places who are not as experienced or as educated or as strong of mind. Anyway, just a bit of speculation on my part. Yeah, probably nothing to it at all... *waving hand in dismissal*... But enough about that. Back to the good stuff...

Re: "Yes, two people can cook up their own rules. But that wouldn’t be a chess game anymore. Similarly, if a muslim makes his own moral rules, that wouldn’t be islam anymore. And that’s true of any system."

Thankfully, I got all the laughing out of my system when I read this earlier in the day. Not sure what was funnier, to be honest. The fact that you actually said it, or the fact that I was pretty damn sure you would actually say it. Eh, maybe a bit of both... *shrugging shoulders*... So, if a Muslim uses the Koran and makes up his own rules according to how he interprets it, then it would no longer be Islam?.... *pausing a moment trying to control urge to laugh again*.... Uh, 'scuse me. Pardon that. But, uh, anyway, so would somebody be so kind as to tell me is it the Sunnis or the Shia who are not practicing true Islam? And, hey, while we are on the subject, which of the thousands of Christian sects are not practicing true Christianity? Wait, better yet, which is the ONE that IS practicing true Christianity? (Much shorter list that way.) Oh, and if the Koran is the perfect words of Allah written by his devilishly handsome Mohammad such that ALL who read it should follow those words without any doubt or hesitation, then please explain to me why it is so necessary to have such an incredible number of "scholars" (Imam, right?) to interpret those words for the common folk? And, oddly enough, even those Imam are known to have disagreements among themselves about the meaning of most of the texts. But I digress... What it all amounts to is this... Once again you have failed to understand you cannot compare the changeable man-made rules of a man-made game to the UNchangeable rules/laws/teachings dictated by a "perfect" god in a "perfect" book that is supposedly required to be followed TO THE LETTER throughout ALL OF TIME. (Well, except for all those millions of years before it was ever written.) And, YES, I and another player CAN alter the rules of a chess game between ourselves and STILL BE PLAYING CHESS. (In case you were wondering.)

Re: "I never said that rules can be changed based on changing times."

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. Because I never did say you said that. I was simply demonstrating what OTHER PEOPLE DO by the millions every single day in regards to their respective religions. Furthermore, you are absolutely CORRECT in that (according to your religion/faith) the rules in your "holy" book are indeed NOT SUPPOSE TO CHANGE based on the changing times. And THAT is my point. But you and I both know that anywhere outside of a strictly Islamic controlled country, if you or anybody else were to attempt to follow the Koran in EVERY manner it dictates, you would very likely have your ass tossed in prison and/or executed rather swiftly. And just so you don't get your panties in a wad, the exact same thing goes for the Bible if people were to TRULY follow that as required by its teachings. (A little FYI, though... I STRONGLY discourage anybody from trying to take a bible into an Islamic country and walking around in public talking about Jesus and telling people they should "get saved". May not end well for you.)

Re: "I won’t be okay with the idea in the current times.... But that doesn’t mean I am against the rule, because the alternate move I am applying is also part of the rule."

LOL... Remember what I said about somebody saying the same thing over and over and over again in different ways and hoping nobody notices you are trying to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question?... *deep sigh*.... Well, here we go again. Like I said, at least he is consistent... *shaking head in amusement*... And in case you haven't caught on yet, you STILL did not answer the question that was asked. By the way, did anybody else catch that? Here it is put together more simply: "I am not okay with the idea, but I am not against the rule." Double-speak much? Hmmm... So, just to be sure I am understanding this correctly, let me see if I can figure out what that means. Just a shot in the dark here, by the way. Um, you would not be okay with your 9 year old daughter being married off to a 50+ year old man to become his sex toy, but you are NOT against the rule that says it is okay to do exactly that. In which case one can only deduce that you would gladly send your 9 year old daughter off to wed some old geezer should a situation arise that required you to do so. And you would do that DESPITE the fact that every fiber of your being says it is wrong, but you would do it nonetheless because some anachronistic book written by a misogynistic barbarian says it is okay..... *tilting head to one side curiously*.... Ummmmm.... Yeah, I think I will allow others to draw their own conclusions from that.... *hand over tummy*... I think I'm feeling a bit too nauseated right now to type much more.

ROYISM 's picture
@Tin Man

@Tin Man

YOU SAID: But each time it seems a tad more polished and refined. Yes, he knows his woven webs of silky slime are not strong enough to ensnare even so much as an atheist gnat on this particular site.

That’s a lovely piece of literature. I may not agree with you, but certainly look up to your language skills with a lot of admiration.

You said: “But, uh, anyway, so would somebody be so kind as to tell is it the Sunnis or the Shia who are not practicing true Islam?"

That’s an important point you’ve raised. Yes, you are right. There are mutually conflicting interpretations of Islam, like Shia and Sunnis. But that does not make it non-objective/subjective. Let me explain. Differences of opinion/interpretation exists in all fields of studies. There are differing schools of thought even in the theory of evolution. Ranging from Neo Darwinism, Neo Lamarckism to Third way and more. All these are mutually conflicting ideas. That does not make it subjective. So long as there is a system by which we can logically judge these theories and pick one as the correct explanation to the exclusion of others, then it must be deemed objective. Otherwise, nothing at all in this world is objective. There are differing interpretations even with regard to the shape of the earth, some still say that it’s flat. But a rationalist would discount that interpretation in the light of logical analysis based on the available data, right? Of course, you may not be able to convince the whole world about your interpretation, but there is a formal system which anyone who is interested can apply and arrive at similar conclusion.

What’s happening in Islam is similar to that. Any interpretation of Islam must satisfy two conditions: It must be founded in the Quran and expounded in the authentic hadith (traditions of prophet). Any difference in interpretation can be resolved based on this system. And those who continue to differ, do so only by violating this interpretive system. They are akin to the ‘Flat Earth’ theorists.

You said: Oh, and if the Koran is the perfect words of Allah written by his devilishly handsome Mohammad such that ALL who read it should follow those words without any doubt or hesitation, then please explain to me why it is so necessary to have such an incredible number of "scholars" (Imam, right?) to interpret those words for the common folk?

Why do you have scientists to explain the universe to the common folk if science is relaying objective truths? The imams are there to apply the interpretive system of Islam and explain things to people.

You said: “And, oddly enough, even those Imam are known to have disagreements among themselves about the meaning of most of the texts.”

Just as scientists also differ among themselves. In addition to that sometimes, you have people claiming to be scientists but are not doing science. For an outlier, it may look like science is in a state of terrible confusion. But you just need to get a grip on the basics of science and immediately the counterfeits will be exposed. So, if you want to know which of the imams are playing by the interpretive system of Islam, you just need to get a grip of the basics of Islam.

You said: “And, YES, I and another player CAN alter the rules of a chess game between ourselves and STILL BE PLAYING CHESS. (In case you were wondering.)

Oh yes, you sure can. You can also decide among your friends to play football by carrying the ball in your hand… and yet call it football! That’s all your convenience. But I don’t know how much acceptance that would have in FIFA!

You said: “But you and I both know that anywhere outside of a strictly Islamic controlled country, if you or anybody else were to attempt to follow the Koran in EVERY manner it dictates, you would very likely have your ass tossed in prison and/or executed rather swiftly.”

The rules of Islam expounds what a muslim is supposed to do under such circumstances. One must strive to the best of one’s ability to practice all the tenets. But if you are oppressed for practicing it, then you can make compromises. Of course, there is more to it, but this would suffice for a 101. Why oppression, let’s say you’re sick in Ramadan (month of fasting), then you can give up fasting. That’s all within the bounds of the rules.

You said: “Here it is put together more simply: "I am not okay with the idea, but I am not against the rule." Double-speak much?

I don’t know how much further I can dumb it down. IF the law gives a woman the right to abort the fetus or to continue the pregnancy and have a baby, and she decides to do an abortion… what exactly is she saying? That she is not ‘okay’ with having a baby, right? But at the same time, she has not gone against the rule, because both options are prescribed by the rule. That’s all it is… when I say, I am not okay with the idea, what I mean is that in my given situation, I wouldn’t do it. Just as the lady decides to discontinue her pregnancy.

Tin-Man's picture
Yay! Here we go again...

Yay! Here we go again...

Re: "That’s a lovely piece of literature. I may not agree with you, but certainly look up to your language skills with a lot of admiration."

Awww... That's so sweet of you. Thanks... *blushing*... Although, in all fairness and in the interest of full disclosure, I have a confession to make. Honestly, it does not matter to me one way or the other whether you agree with me or not. Just like I will tell anybody else, you are free to believe whatever you want. As long as your belief does not cause undue harm to me or others, and as long as you are not trying to force your beliefs on me or society in general, then you can believe a massive space rhinoceros took a giant shit that caused the universe to form and that your god is a green hermit crab named Fred who requires you to whistle the theme song to "Phantom of the Opera" three times a day. Makes no difference to me whatsoever. To each his own... *shrugging shoulders*... In other words, I am not trying to convince you of ANYTHING. But while I do fully admit it is a bit of fun keeping my writing skills up to speed (such as they are... *rolling eyes*...), the fact is that the main reason I take time to post the things I do is primarily for the benefit of those "lurkers" on here who might read these threads in an effort to gain information to help them make definitive critical decisions that could potentially drastically change the entire course of their lives. Allow me to explain a bit more...

You see, I spent a vast majority of my life being miserable most of the time due to a severe conflict within my psyche. Despite being raised in a strong Christian environment, the whole religious game of worship/god/devil/heaven/hell never made any real sense to me, even as a little kid. Nevertheless, I became severely indoctrinated such that the concept of heaven and hell got deeply seated within my young little brain, and it stayed there for several decades before I was finally able to dislodge it. In part, I have this marvelous AR site to thank for helping me make that absolute full break. Once that break was made, it was as if I was finally SEEING for the very first time in my life. And all of that anxiety, doubt, and second-guessing I had been dealing with all those years seemed to completely vanish almost overnight. And for all of the information, help, and support I received from the members of this site during those early months of my joining, I am indeed truly grateful. As such, I am somebody who likes to make even on favors done for me. Therefore, I hang around here as much as daily life allows in an effort to help others who may be going through the same things I experienced during my transition. For I KNOW just how difficult, scary, and sometimes painful it can truly be.

So, with that in mind, I will remind you that YOU are the one who chooses to come HERE to an atheist site and present your beliefs to us as if that are absolutely true and beyond reproach. At the same time, there are untold numbers of people who visit this site who may never make a single post or even become a member at all. By no real fault of their own, it stands to reason there are many of those folks who may not have the same intellectual advantages as others, meaning they might read some of the things you post and potentially be persuaded by some of the arguments you make. And that is where I come in..... You see, along with being mentally "handicapped" by religion for a majority of my life, I have also been a "protector". Between the military and the police department, it is pretty much all I have ever known. It is simply how I am hard-wired. And though I may not be out there "in the mix" so much anymore since my retirement, that "protector" mentality has never left me. It is still very strong, as a matter of fact. That is why when somebody comes in here spewing a bunch of theistic propaganda and weaving words in such a misleading manner that might cause confusion or uncertainty to those who are not as adept at detecting deceit and inconsistencies, I will gladly place myself between that individual and those who are not as capable of defending themselves. And I will do my absolute best to SHRED every single thing that individual attempts to claim as fact if I detect ANY amount of misleading or deceitful intentions in what they write. Oh, and one more little thing to keep in mind.... I spent over 20 years on the streets of a major city questioning/interrogating a wide range of people in more situations than you can even imagine. As a result, I became fairly good at detecting bullshit when it was present. Matter of fact, my very life often depended on being able to do exactly that. Just so you know....

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "Yes, you are right.

Re: "Yes, you are right. There are mutually conflicting interpretations of Islam, like Shia and Sunnis. But that does not make it non-objective/subjective. Let me explain. Differences of opinion/interpretation exists in all fields of studies. There are differing schools of thought even in the theory of evolution. Ranging from Neo Darwinism, Neo Lamarckism to Third way and more."

Ugh!... *double face palm*.... Um... No.... No-no-no-no, no.... No-no, no, no, no, no-no-no.... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no-no-no-no-nooooooo.... NO. Once again you are trying to compare the dictates of a supremely PERFECT all-powerful and all-knowing entity to the NOT all-knowing and NOT all-powerful and definitely NOT perfect trials, research, testings, and studies of humans who are trying to figure out how the world around them truly works. Ever heard of "Trial and Error"? A little hint for you: THAT is how we (humans and even other animals) LEARN SHIT. How the hell else do you think you have the computer or phone you are using to make your posts on an internet site??? We have an idea. We test that idea and it doesn't work. We try another method, and that does not work. Then we finally try a method that does work. SWEET! Okay, cool! And we keep using that method until it fails for some reason. At which point, we try to figure out why it failed, and then we modify that method as necessary to prevent that failure if possible. OR, somebody else sees that method and thinks, "Hey, I think I can do the same thing, but with a better method." And so on and so on and so on.... That is how our technology and our knowledge about our world advances. Understanding that concept ain't rocket surgery.

On the other hand, a supremely perfect and all-knowing/all-powerful entity should not have to learn ANYTHING. It should already KNOW EVERYTHING. Meaning that whatever instructions it has for its human pets should be INSTANTLY understood without ANY confusion or need for translation/interpretations by OTHER humans. That same all-powerful entity should also have the ability to transmit its supremely vital message INSTANTLY to every single human on this planet (past, present, or future) such that there is absolutely ZERO misunderstandings as to exactly what it wants its human pets to do. However, if this entity in unable to do that, then it is obviously not as powerful as portrayed, and therefore not worth worshiping. In that same respect, if that entity IS able to do that but chooses NOT to do it (KNOWING all along the confusion it causes will result in unimaginable numbers of deaths and other atrocities committed in its name), then that entity is a complete fucking douche and ABSOLUTELY not worthy of worship. Either way, that entity's communication skills truly SUCK. I'm not sure I can make that any more simple.

Re: "Any difference in interpretation can be resolved based on this system. And those who continue to differ, do so only by violating this interpretive system."

Once again, in a PERFECT book dictated by a PERFECT entity...... (wait for it)...... (wait for it)..... There..... should.... be... NO DIFFERENCE... in..... ANY.... interpretations. More to the point, there should be absolutely NOTHING to interpret, MUCH LESS a need for an "interpretive system". (WTF?) It should be spelled out very simply in plain, straightforward language that can be immediately understood by any and all persons no matter the language, culture, or intelligence level. PERIOD. And - I repeat - an all-knowing/all-powerful entity should be way more than capable of making that happen. Why, oh why, oh WHY is that such an incredibly difficult thing for people to understand???

Re: "And those who continue to differ, do so only by violating this interpretive system."

Ahhhh... Yes.... *sleepy smile*... They are not true Muslims/Christians/Scotsmen/etc.... Only those who interpret the perfect holy sacred scriptures in the correct way dictated by the human "experts" who have the inside track to their respective god(s) in their particular sect/denomination are the TRUE believers/followers of Islam/Christianity/Scotsmenship/etc. out of all the other thousands of sects/denominations. Of course! Why didn't I think of that???

Re: "The rules of Islam expounds what a muslim is supposed to do under such circumstances. One must strive to the best of one’s ability to practice all the tenets. But if you are oppressed for practicing it, then you can make compromises."

Soooo... Basically, in order to avoid potential prison time, you would somehow have to coax a homosexual person back into an Islamic-ruled country before you are allowed to cut off his/her head or toss them off a tall building? Check. It must be terribly frustrating when man-made laws prevent you from practicing the commands of your supremely perfect all-knowing/all-powerful entity. Sorry about that. But - hey - we can't ALL be perfect like your god.

Re: "I don’t know how much further I can dumb it down. IF the law gives a woman the right to abort the fetus or to continue the pregnancy and have a baby, and she decides to do an abortion… what exactly is she saying?"

Hmmm... Not sure what a grown woman having an abortion has to do with a 9 year old child getting fucked by a 50+ year old man. A bit of a non-sequitur, to say the least. I must say, your tap dancing skills make Gregory Hines look like an amateur. Hmmm.... let me see if I can dumb it down for you a bit more. I will make it multiple choice. Maybe that will help. The question: "Would you be okay with your 9 year old daughter being married to a 50+ year old man who is likely to be fucking her and molesting her in multiple other horrible ways." Before I list your choices, keep in mind that YOUR perfect god condones that practice DESPITE the time period or culture. Therefore, your conscious can be free and clear if you were to ever have to send your 9 year old daughter off to such an arrangement. Oh, and in the interest of taking away as much wiggle room as possible, let's say your divine Allah actually ordered you to send your daughter away to such an arrangement. Here are your choices.

A. "I fully believe in the holy words of my loving prophet Mohammad who speaks for the all-knowing and all-powerful Allah who commands my life. Therefore, I would joyfully send my 9 year old daughter to wed a 50+ year old man if Allah should ever command me to do so. For Allah is all-powerful and all-loving and knows exactly what is good for me in my life."

B. "I fully believe in the holy words of my loving prophet Mohammad who speaks for the all-knowing and all-powerful Allah who commands my life. Therefore, I would send my 9 year old daughter to wed a 50+ year old man if Allah should ever command me to do so. However, it would be with a heavy heart and with troubling doubts. For even though I truly believe and support the rules of our loving Allah permitting such arrangements, I do not know how to reconcile my personal feelings/beliefs as they conflict with the written laws of Allah and my Islamic faith. Nevertheless, I will trust that Allah knows best and still send my precious daughter to her destiny."

C. "I fully believe in the holy words of my loving prophet Mohammad who speaks for the all-knowing and all-powerful Allah who commands my life. However, I would refuse to send my 9 year old daughter into such a situation despite my beliefs in the perfect wisdom of Allah. My personal feelings and opinions about such matters would not allow me to do such a thing under any circumstances."

D. "Fuck that motherfucking Allah and his antiquated bullshit rules! That son of a flea-bitten camel bitch can lick my balls and take his perverted misogynistic teachings and shove them up his divine ass if thinks for even ONE second that I would EVER submit ANY child of mine to such a nauseatingly deplorable situation. And if he doesn't like that, then tough shit."

Okay, in all fairness, "D" was my own personal answer. Not that it matters, because I know you will not be choosing any of the others anyway. Because if you answer "A" or "B" you, I, and everybody else would know you are a despicable brown lump of sewage waste. But if you choose "C", at least you have at least SOME small sense of decency about you. At the same time, unfortunately, you would also be admitting your precious book is not all perfect as it is touted as being. Moreover, you would also be admitting that your PERSONAL sense of what is moral is far superior to what you claim to be the perfect "objective" morality dictated by your "perfect" book.

Eagerly awaiting your next evasive response...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM

Applause.

D would be my answer as well... it seems the only people who have a difficulty in answering that question you posed are theists....

ROYISM 's picture
@Tin Man

@Tin Man

Thanks for the questions. I enjoyed the challenge thoroughly... they pushed my grey cells into overdrive mode.

You said: “NO. Once again you are trying to compare the dictates of a supremely PERFECT all-powerful and all-knowing entity to the NOT all-knowing and NOT all-powerful and definitely NOT perfect trials, research, testings, and studies of humans who are trying to figure out how the world around them truly works.”

No. I am not comparing it in the way you make it sound. I am taking the example of science to prove just one thing: that there can be differences of views even on what is objective.

You said: “Ever heard of "Trial and Error"? A little hint for you: THAT is how we (humans and even other animals) LEARN SHIT.

This is a strawman. You talk as if I have a dispute with the methods of science. I agree fully with you on all these points. I am just saying that everything objective need not function on the same methodology as science. The rules of chess are not scientific… but they are objective.

You said: “On the other hand, a supremely perfect and all-knowing/all-powerful entity should not have to learn ANYTHING. It should already KNOW EVERYTHING. Meaning that whatever instructions it has for its human pets should be INSTANTLY understood without ANY confusion or need for translation/interpretations by OTHER humans.”

The essence of religion is based on human freewill. Otherwise reward and punishment would be meaningless. Therefore God has given humans the freedom to understand the scripture as man chooses to. If I want to misinterpret the text with an evil intent, God will not intervene to make it impossible for me to do so. Lest it would curb my freewill. And since humans have a multiplicity of intents and purposes, there are a multiplicity of interpretations. However, to know which of those interpretations is correct, you just need to apply the objective standard.

You said: Only those who interpret the perfect holy sacred scriptures in the correct way dictated by the human "experts" who have the inside track to their respective god(s) in their particular sect/denomination are the TRUE believers/followers of Islam/Christianity/Scotsmenship/etc. out of all the other thousands of sects/denominations. Of course! Why didn't I think of that???

If that’s your idea of ‘not a true Scotsman’ fallacy, then I can point the finger at you as well. What do you tell the ‘flat earth’ proponents when they supposedly bring their scientific evidence for their theory? You call it pseudo-science, don’t you? Meaning, they are not TRUE SCIENTISTS!!!! When you have an objective basis to dismiss one’s views, you don’t call it a fallacy.

You said: “Soooo... Basically, in order to avoid potential prison time, you would somehow have to coax a homosexual person back into an Islamic-ruled country before you are allowed to cut off his/her head or toss them off a tall building?

You have got it wrong. In Islam, there are clearly defined responsibilities for each individual, and you will not be questioned (by God) for things that are NOT part of your responsibilities. For example, if I am not rich, I will not be questioned about my charities. If I am not a parent, I will not be questioned about the proper raising of children. Similarly, if I am not a ruler, I will not be questioned about executing the Islamic penal code. So, I don’t have to worry about homosexuals and thieves. However, if am a sane adult, then fasting in the month of Ramadan becomes compulsory on me. But if the country where I live has put a ban on fasting, and forces me to eat during the day, then I can give up fasting as I am allowed to make compromises under duress. I will not be held answerable for not fasting.

You said: “Check. It must be terribly frustrating when man-made laws prevent you from practicing the commands of your supremely perfect all-knowing/all-powerful entity.”

The commands of the supreme entity includes what I am supposed to do when man-made laws prevent me from following his commands. Thereby I am following his commands. A muslim can be a 100% satisfied muslim in any situation in life.

You said: “Hmmm... Not sure what a grown woman having an abortion has to do with a 9 year old child getting fucked by a 50+ year old man.”

I was giving the ‘abortion’ example to make you understand that when a law gives you some options, and you pick one of the options to the exclusion of the rest, it does not mean that you are going against the law.

You said: "Would you be okay with your 9 year old daughter being married to a 50+ year old man who is likely to be fucking her and molesting her in multiple other horrible ways."

Here it is again for you. I will NOT be okay – and the reason for that is because in the current times that’s not an optimal solution for my daughter for a multiplicity of reasons (starting from the fact that daughter may not hit puberty at 9, education, university, career etc).

Another point to note is your use of terms like “who is likely to be fucking her and molesting her in multiple other HORRIBLE ways”… if any guy were to treat my daughter (even if let’s say she were 25, I would not be okay with that). So, if it’s some brute who is bent upon harming my daughter, then no matter what their age compatibility, I WILL NOT BE OKAY with it. The way you have worded your question is wrong.

You said: “Before I list your choices, keep in mind that YOUR perfect god condones that practice DESPITE the time period or culture.”

What makes you think God has condoned the practice despite time period or culture? The very fact that there are multiple options shows that it’s to be used with flexibility according to one’s discretion… so it’s not just culture or time, there could also be other reasons such as the emotional maturity of girl to handle a family etc.

You said: “Oh, and in the interest of taking away as much wiggle room as possible, let's say your divine Allah actually ordered you to send your daughter away to such an arrangement. Here are your choices.”

Now that’s a hypothetical question. If you are asking me to imagine a situation where God sends me a revelation and asks me to get my 9 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, then yes, I will get her married off.
Now before you fly off your handle in rage at that, just wait until you hear me out fully. This is a hypothetical question you have framed (which is never going to happen in real life). And you have used the foundation of my moral axiom (namely God) to frame your hypothetical question. And hence my answer.
I can turn the same question at you using your foundational axiom (namely science). Imagine, tomorrow science discovers with the highest standards of proof that if you do NOT marry off girls at 9 to 50 year old men, then the girls are going to suffer in some terrible way. Further, WHO (world health organization) endorses it strongly and runs campaigns to coax parents to do so. All the scientists from every conceivable discipline back it up. And they say, those who desist from doing so are putting their daughters in great peril. Question: Would you then get your daughter married off at 9?
Do you see, what happens when you cook up hypothetical questions asking people to assume things based on their foundational axioms? That’s exactly what you have done with your hypothetical question.

You said: “But if you choose "C", at least you have at least SOME small sense of decency about you.”
As I have explained in detail what exactly I would do with my daughter and why I can do that without an iota of guilt or moral conflict, your choices are redundant.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: “Thanks for the questions

(***Edit to add***: It was brought to my attention there are moments I seem to be "angry" and/or "raging" due to a few sentences that contain all-caps words in the following post... *chuckle*... I would like to assure the reader that at no time in the writing of this post was I ever even remotely upset or "frazzled". Truth be known, I was actually quite relaxed and enjoying myself during the writing of the entire post... *grin*... The only reason for the all-caps words was simply to highlight/stress/emphasize important points. And, sadly, I am not smart enough to figure out how to italicize or make words bolder on this site. My sincerest apologies for any misunderstandings. Please enjoy...)

Re: “Thanks for the questions. I enjoyed the challenge thoroughly... they pushed my grey cells into overdrive mode.”

Wow… Really? Gee, sorry about that. And here I was thinking I was taking it easy on you so far. I haven’t even really been trying all that hard, honestly. Just goofin’ around mostly. And in general, I usually try to keep my posts and explanations simple enough so that even a 9 year old kid can understand them. Thanks for the heads-up, though. I’ll do my best to maintain this level for you if it helps. Or I could even dumb it down for you a bit more if necessary. After all, we certainly wouldn’t want you to have an aneurysm or stroke or anything like that while trying to understand simple explanations.

Re: “I am taking the example of science to prove just one thing: that there can be differences of views even on what is objective.”

Ummmm… Once again… No.... No-no-no-no, no.... No-no, no, no, no, no-no-no.... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no-no-no-no-nooooooo.... NO. Please allow me to repeat what you obviously missed (or did not understand) the first time: In a PERFECT book dictated by a PERFECT entity...... (wait for it)...... (wait for it)..... There... should... be... NO DIFFERENCE... in..... ANY... interpretations. More to the point, there should be absolutely NOTHING to interpret, MUCH LESS a need for an "interpretive system". (By the way, my sincerest apologies for not being smart enough to make that any more simple to understand. It worries me that you might blow a few cerebral gaskets trying to comprehend it.)

Re: “The essence of religion is based on human freewill.”

… *beaming smile*… Holy shit! I must be a fucking fortune telling prophet! I absolutely KNEW it was only a matter of time before the whole “Free Will” excuse reared its decapitated head! Where’s my cookie!?!... I deserve a COOKIE!

Re: “Therefore God has given humans the freedom to understand the scripture as man chooses to. If I want to misinterpret the text with an evil intent, God will not intervene to make it impossible for me to do so.”

Ohhhhhh… I get it now! Your god is a totally fucked up maliciously masochistic moron! Well, by golly, THAT certainly does explain a few things. Thank you so much for clearing up that confusion for me.

Re: “If that’s your idea of ‘not a true Scotsman’ fallacy, then I can point the finger at you as well. What do you tell the ‘flat earth’ proponents when they supposedly bring their scientific evidence for their theory?”

…*deeeeeep sigh*… Oh, dear… *chuckle*… I totally did not give you enough credit for your tap dancing skills. Gregory Hines doesn’t even know how to TIE a pair of tap dancing shoes compared to your expertise. I am in awe. Now, you may not be aware of it, of course, but I am willing to bet pretty much every regular member on this site sees it as clearly as a neon sign on a pitch black night. Allow me to demonstrate how you sound to us with a non-religious related scenario…

Me: “It is a good practice to buckle your seatbelt while driving a car, because it can help prevent serious injury to you if you are involved in a traffic accident.”

You: “Sure, that is your subjective opinion. But what if a naked guy is roller skating backwards down his concrete driveway and rolls into the street in front of oncoming traffic and is struck by a car? If he is not wearing any elbow pads, then he could very easily suffer from severe road rash on his naked ass cheeks. So, please explain to me how that could have been prevented just because the driver of that vehicle was wearing a seatbelt?”

Yep. That pretty much sums it up. (Oh, by the way, if a “flat-Earther” does happen to approach me like that, it is very likely I will not tell him/her anything at all. I will probably be laughing too hard to speak.)

Re: “You have got it wrong. In Islam, there are clearly defined responsibilities for each individual, and you will not be questioned (by God) for things that are NOT part of your responsibilities.” (This is in response to cutting off the heads of homosexuals or pushing them off tall buildings.)

Oh, my bad. So pushing homosexuals off buildings or cutting off their heads is the responsibility of some of your OTHER Muslim friends. Silly me. I just figured it was the responsibility of ALL true followers of Islam to uphold the laws of Allah. Dang, I’m such an idiot sometimes. (On a side note, though, I do find it interesting that in NO WAY did you say or even so much as INFER as to how TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG it is to do such things. That’s okay, though. I’m sure nobody else will notice.)

Okay, that’s it. I’m done here for the evening. Getting late, and I’m getting bored. Quite frankly, there just really is no challenge here, anyway… *yaaaaaaaaaaawn*… Oh, excuse me. Anyway, hope you don’t strain too many neurons over this. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

ROYISM 's picture
@Tin Man

@Tin Man

You said: “More to the point, there should be absolutely NOTHING to interpret, MUCH LESS a need for an "interpretive system".”

That’s just your take. As long as we have been given the faculty to study and understand things objectively using the interpretive system, then we should not have anything to complain about. If you go down this route, you can question just about anything. You can argue that God should not have made fruits to grow on trees, because they are so hard to pick.

You said: “Your god is a totally fucked up maliciously masochistic moron!”

I think 50% of your post is just vacuous expletives. I understand that our worldviews are very different. But can’t we keep it a little more civil. If you avoided the taunts and expletives (which only serves to undermine your arguments) your posts would be shorter and easier to read. Just suggesting. Of course, the choice is yours.

You said: Me: “It is a good practice to buckle your seatbelt while driving a car, because it can help prevent serious injury to you if you are involved in a traffic accident.”

You accuse me of ‘Scotsman’ fallacy because I call those people who don’t play by the interpretative method in Islam as not being ‘True Muslims.’ But then you call those people who don’t play by the scientific method as not being ‘True Scientists.’ But somehow, what you are doing is not a fallacy!!!!

Therefore, your example doesn’t sit well with the situation at hand.

You said: (On a side note, though, I do find it interesting that in NO WAY did you say or even so much as INFER as to how TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG it is to do such things.”

As stated already, emotionally hyperventilating is not very helpful. You have to prove based on what moral standard are you saying that it is wrong.

Tin-Man's picture
...*lazily stretching while

...*lazily stretching while scanning posts*... Ah, what have we here?... *clapping happily*.... Oooooo, goodie-goodie! A response to my last post! Excellent! Let's see what we have today...

Re: "I think 50% of your post is just vacuous expletives."

...*puzzled look on face*... Gee, that's odd. Hmmm... Hang on a sec. Let me check something real quick... *elevator music playing while you wait, for your listening enjoyment*... Ah-ha! Got it! I see where your problem is. The post to which you are referring contains 990 words as it is currently written. Out of those 990 words, 5 of those words are what many people would consider to be "expletives." (Specifically: shit, fucking, fucked, ass, and fucking) Therefore, that brings the percentage of expletives in that post to 0.50505%, NOT 50%. Honest mistake on your part, though. Those dang pesky decimal places can be a real brain-bender sometimes. But you were close. Sooooooo close!... *snapping fingers*...

Re: " If you avoided the taunts and expletives (which only serves to undermine your arguments) your posts would be shorter and easier to read."

Hey, are you trying to imply that I'm a sarcastic smart-ass?... *look of suspicion on face*... If so, then thanks. Be advised, though, while your compliment is noted, flattery does not work on me. Anyway, enough about that. Let's see if we can resolve this issue you mentioned. Ummm... The, "Holy shit! I must be a fucking fortune telling prophet!" remark I made. Well, the "Holy shit" was an exclamation of joyful surprise, so I'm not sure how that could have been taunting to anybody. And the "...fucking fortune telling prophet" was directed toward myself. Sooooo... Taunting??? Taunting who?... *shrugging shoulders*...

Ah. The remark I made about, "Your god is a totally fucked up maliciously masochistic moron!" Yeah, my apologies. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote it. Ideally, I would have said, "Based on my analysis of the information you have provided about your god thus far, I have determined it to be a psychologically unbalanced egotistical narcissist with severe insecurity issues. Your god also exhibits extreme misogynistic and homophobic tendencies to the point of maliciously lashing out toward females and those persons of alternative sexual preferences, as well as ordering its faithful followers to do the same, with brutal execution being the preferred punishment for homosexuals. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that this god is woefully lacking in even the most rudimentary communication skills in regards to providing clear and concise instructions to those it claims to love and cherish so dearly. History has shown this has caused heated disagreements between the various sects this miscommunication has caused to form, resulting in several centuries of bloody and brutal wars and the loss of countless innocent lives that continues into modern day society. All the while, the supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful god responsible for this has made zero attempts to correct the communication errors. This indicates a willful intent to perpetuate violent behaviors and conflicts with little or no regard for those victims of such acts. An alternate explanation is to speculate the god in control of such matters is dreadfully inept and dangerously unfit to wield such tremendous power that has been allocated to it."

Phew!... *wiping forehead with back of hand*... There. Is that better? Really, though, if it's all the same to you, I think "totally fucked up" is a much easier way to say all of that. Just my opinion, of course. Plus, my wife keeps telling me I need to work on being more brief when I write. Well, hell. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't, I suppose.... *shrugging shoulders*...

Let's seee... I suppose next would be the "ass cheeks" remark. C'mon, man. Really? You're gonna get all butt-hurt over THAT? (Look, I made a punny!... *giggle*...)

Last but not least, the remark I made about "...TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG it is to do such things," in regards to pushing homosexuals off tall buildings or chopping off their heads. Ummm... Yeah, I could do the whole analyzing thing the same way I did with the "fucked up god" remark I made. But I am confident that anybody else understands it well enough just like it is, and there most definitely is no taunting in that statement. So I'm perfectly fine with that one.

Re: "You accuse me of ‘Scotsman’ fallacy because I call those people who don’t play by the interpretative method in Islam as not being ‘True Muslims.’ But then you call those people who don’t play by the scientific method as not being ‘True Scientists.’ But somehow, what you are doing is not a fallacy!!!!"

Honestly, I have NO IDEA what that even means.... *scratching head*...

Re: "As stated already, emotionally hyperventilating is not very helpful."

Oh, hey, thank you for pointing that out to me. Thanks to you I went back and added an explanation at the beginning of the post to make sure anybody reading it understands that the all-caps words in a few sentences have zero to do with being upset or angry. It is simply the only way I know how to stress/highlight words on this site. I'm still too stupid to figure out how to italicize words or put them in bold print on here. Anyway, I just wanted to put your mind at ease and let you know I was totally relaxed and at ease (and even having a bit of fun) while writing that post. So, please, don't worry yourself unnecessarily about me. I promise I am okay. Thank you for your concern, though.... *smooch*...

Re: "You have to prove based on what moral standard are you saying that it is wrong." (In regards to the brutal execution methods of homosexuals.)

Hmmmm.... Just gonna leave that one alone and let it speak for itself... *slowly backing away with worried look on face*....

Cognostic's picture
@ROYISM: That’s a desperate

@ROYISM: That’s a desperate attempt to derail the argument. Yes, two people can cook up their own rules. But that wouldn’t be a chess game anymore.

OF COURSE IT WOULD BE CHESS: How in the fk do you think the game was invented?
he July 1, 2014 FIDE Laws of Chess, as they are officially called, were adopted at the FIDE Congress in Tallinn, Estonia in October 2013 and are now the rules that chess arbiters (and players!) need to follow.

YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE!

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.