Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I have discovered indisputable evidence that mentally deficient people. unable or unwilling. to understand the most basic elements of human knowledge have existed throughout time and in nearly every country of the world.
Moving from Right to Left we have an example of a normal skull. In the middle we have a skull of a normal human being exposed to people like SFT. And finally, on the left is someone who ended up spending a lifetime interacting with SFT.
Palm to head is the culprit responsible for elongated skulls. The mystery is solved.
I almost spilt the last 2 litres of ice cream that Tin Man was feeding when I read that...oh? No, I was hiding under his rug...just errrr...servicing my trike...yes...that's it...servicing...anyway in clanks old oil canister and disturbs me and...aaahhh, yes reading your comment made me laugh a lot..thank-you.
Is there anyone on here other than SFT and ROYISM who doesn't condemn the rape of a nine year old child by Muhammed as the actions of a sadistic paedophile?
Well......... um.......... er............ ahhhhhhhhhh...........do you need an answer today? Okay, what the fuck..... I will go out on a limb here and say "I CONDEMN MUHAMMAD FOR BEING A SADISTIC PEDOPHILE."
Here at AR? I cannot think of anyone who would not condemn such and act.
And joining Cognostic, I shall also say that Muhammad was nothing more than a tyrannical war lord who probably got so horny from "battle frenzy" that he grabbed the closest female in order to have someplace to stick his prick.
Lets not forget the other complicit shits in this story...Aisha's parents.
So nobody, apart from SFT and ROYISM that is, thinks it is objectively moral for a 50 year old adult to have sex with 9 year old children then?
@Sheldon: I don't know why people get on about Muhammad molesting a 9 year old. There were likely a whole lot of 9 year olds molested during that period in history. Hell, there are a lot of 9 years olds being molested today. "In the west, child marriages and sex with children are illegal. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Muslim countries." Islam is a fucked up religion.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-...
The horror of Muhammad is that he molested a 6 year old child. He married the girl when she was 6 and thighed her until she was 9. Imagine some old man massaging his privates with a 6 year old child. Thighing" Aisha
Muhammad placed his penis between the thighs of Aisha and he massaged it to orgasm since he could not have sexual intercourse with her until she was nine. Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet.
" Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting."
"Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet.
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shemary, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following:
It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children (mufa’khathat literally translated means "placing between the thighs" which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, also practiced the "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be please with her.
After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply:
It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed his [male] member between her thighs and massaged it softly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers."
I agree wholeheartedly, but the point was specifically a rebuttal that without an Islamic diety objective morality was impossible, and by implication it was only possible too be moral if you were a Muslim, a claim both SFT and Royism made, and the only reason I asked that question, is it ever moral for a man in his fifties to rape a nine year old child? The inference of both the question, and the fact that they both became angry, aimed ad hominem rebuttals at me, and refused to even acknowledge, let alone answer the question is such an obvious refutation of their claim, and that is why I keep asking it, whenever SFT sneaks back in to post something, but leaving the question unanswered.
Again I can only agree with your post, and the sentiment behind it.
@Sheldon: Agreed! My point was to expand on the point you made. Muhammad was a child molesting fucktard who began forcing his six year old wife to masturbate him while he sucked on her tongue. MUHAMMAD IS A SICK FUCKING BASTARD.
In the US, the general lower age of marriage is 18 (Nebraska 19, Mississippi 21), but there are exceptions. In Alaska, children as young as 14 can marry with special permission. In California, there seems to be no lower limit, but
For Colorado: "No minimum age with judicial approval and parental consent."
And there are more, mostly with parental and judicial concent.
As of 2019, several states have closed some loopholes, but the US is not quite there yet.
Here is X-Files Man's response to a PM about Sheldon's questions.
Still no sign of the "lion" showing some integrity then? I have to admit I held little hope. Why do theists breeze in here, make claims for moral ascendancy, then shoot the messenger when someone points out they are wrong?
SHELDON: Don't give them any ideas. One Breezy is enough.
Time to politely enquire if our self professed Lion (I always see lying tbh), has developed any integrity?
SFT and Royism
If your magic book is inerrant, why is so much effort invested to silence or kill its critics?
Is it ever moral for 50+ year old man to have sex with a nine year old child?
What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support your belief that a deity exists?
Bump....lying....Sorry I meant lion, you there?
Can they really not want to offer a single syllable in defence of the actions of their prophet?
Very well made and thought out YouTube video on the thread OP subject matter.
The religious apologists in the video used the same tired old canard of trying to justify the rape of a nine year old child as contextual, which of course directly contradicts the claim from SFT, Royism and other Muslims that their prophet is the source of perfect, or objective morality through divine revelation.
The history of child and abuse and the abuse of women is longstanding sadly. The point of course is that one cannot view a religion or it's deity as objectively moral, if it makes claims at any point in its history that are demonstrably immoral in any given context.
As both SFT and Royism tried to claim moral objectivity is derived from Islam, and of course then refused to say if there was any context in which raping a nine year old child could be considered moral? The fact they refused point blank to even address the question can only infer rank dishonesty on their part as well, as they must know the inference is a rational one, or why not address it with a cogent answer.
Once again, the stark contrast between supernaturalists and the rest of us is made manifest.
If several of us here are called upon to provide an explanation for various postulates, that explanation is usually forthcoming, along with citations of the requisite literature in which the primary research was first expounded. For example, when I stated that there exists an abundant scientific literature, covering the evolutionary and biological basis for both our capacity for ethical thought, and our motivation to act thereupon, I provided a detailed exposition of some of the literature in question. Likewise, when covering the Steinhardt-Turok model for the origin of the observable universe, I provided the papers, and an exposition of the import of their contents. Before any of the usual suspects launch into duplicitous forays in the realm of amateur Freudian psychology, instances of which I've observed being deployed by a number of people elsewhere, those two examples just cited were provided with the intent that they be treated as bare fact. I'm sure several other individuals here have their own examples to call upon, in support of the proposition that the veterans of this place exert a certain level of diligent effort, with respect to the matter of supporting any statements requiring this.
On the other hand, the observational data from supernaturalist contributors points in an entirely different direction. When asked to provide substance to support their assertions, the picture that rises from the relevant raw data, is one of evasion, fabrication, and a suppurating disdain for the proper rules of discourse. When asked to support their frequently fantastic assertions, the void that results is breathtaking to behold, for reasons of scale, audacity and mendacity. The few observable occupants of that void tend to fall into tiresomely recognisable classes, namely rhetorical spells, excuses rooted in indolence and insincerity, failed attempts at humour clothed in the raiment of ad hominem, and, most specious of all, blatant attempts at inversion of the rules of discourse to suit apologetic convenience.
Yet supernaturalists frequently regard us as being purportedly 'deficient', because we question the validity not only of their assertions, but their discoursive approach as described above. How badly a robust irony meter is needed.
What just happened...damn, am I trapped in one of those pesky temporal loops again?