|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2018 2:29:35 GMT
There's a lot of that going around. The last time you mentioned that I challenged you to show that more people of faith believe the sun will explode tomorrow than there are "scientists" who do. Where is that data? Aha, well chosen words, more or less what I live for these days. Why can't you see that is my point though? I actually agree with everything you say about science. The only glitch is that mine is science and yours is not. Most of the confusion lately comes from using statistical analysis, which I have explained is not the same as the "science" that deserves your accolades. I have studied both and made excellent grades in both. I know whereof I speak. Amateurs note differences in data so small that it only shows up after twenty years then try to dictate which factor caused the change. That is not science. Way too many things change way too much in twenty years to say which "one" factor is responsible. The science you mean to applaud eliminates other factors in order to correctly identify the effects of the one factor of interest. That is ordinarily impossible in statistical analysis scenarios in the news. Do you think the sea will rise drastically tomorrow? It might, you just don't why yet. The "invisible dragon" of religion does not use the power of the state to force you at gunpoint to pay for its medical treatments. The invisible dragon of false science shouldn't do that either, but it does. Medical costs are insanely high and it is because people continue to believe in false science. 2. The sun rising/exploding is merely an extreme example to illustrate the point about your "fallacy of gray." All faiths are not the same. Some are rational, some are irrational. Some are based on overwhelming evidence, some are based on none. So trying to lump science and religion into the same category because believing in them both requires faith is stupid. Science has proven itself time and again; religion has not. So there's evidence for believing that science knows what it says it knows; there's no such evidence for religion. These faiths are not equal. 3. You are not a scientist. You don't get to decide what's science and what's not. That's for scientists to decide. If you want to claim anything is/isn't a science, then take it up with other scientists. But, yet again, you seem to not actually be addressing anything in that article and quote, but merely using it to go off on another Arlon-sequitor. The invisible dragon of religion may not use the "power of the state," but they still use the power of human irrationality to get people to donate thousands--probably millions in total--of dollars every year that primarily goes into the pockets of the preachers and/or into building fancy churches or into promoting the "word," while promising the moon and delivering nothing (except, perhaps, psychological comfort). That money would be much better spent... on just about anything, including state-based medical costs. The entire reason that medicine has become a matter for states and taxes is precisely because it works. If it didn't work, nobody would care about paying for it, much less trying to allow everyone access to it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2018 9:12:17 GMT
1. The sun rising/exploding is merely an extreme example to illustrate the point about your "fallacy of gray." All faiths are not the same. Some are rational, some are irrational. 2. You are not a scientist. You don't get to decide what's science and what's not. 3. If [medical treatments] didn't work, nobody would care about paying for it, much less trying to allow everyone access to it. 1. When my opponents make a good point I try to respond. Sometimes it's difficult to find anything worth a response. Here's one. The statement, "not all faith is the same," is true. I'm not denying that. Faith in something true is obviously very different from faith in something false. Faith in something true has all the benefits I mentioned elsewhere. Faith in something false can obviously be detrimental. I understand all that. What I'm trying to say is that it does not matter whether it is faith in science or faith in religion how often that faith will be in something "true" or "false." You seem to think that when people believe in "science" they are less likely to make a mistake. In a better world that might be true, but please notice that there is no reason for it to necessarily be true. People acting in faith alone have an equal chance of being mistaken about religion and science. I suspect that because people with faith in religion realize theirs is a faith they are less likely to make a mistake than people who suffer from the delusion that they "lack" faith. 2. We'll see. 3. Saying whether medical treatments "work" is not so easy as you think. I've seen lots of people on television say they had cancer but thanks to treatments are now healthy. It might be true, but it isn't necessarily true. Sometimes people recover from illness without treatment. The specific problem I see today is that the "cancer survival rate" makes it appear treatments are working better than the "cancer death rate" does. How could there be a discrepancy? If cancer is detected earlier and earlier then some cancer will be "cured" by treatments that would not have led to death anyway, that the patient would have recovered from even without treatments. That is mathematical. You like math, right?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 11:49:07 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? Faith in the Christian sky god is good, faith in the Muslim sky god is bad. Well the Christian God loves unconditionally whereas the Islamic god loves only Muslims. So yeah probably makes more sense to go with the Christian God, especially considering Allah doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 26, 2018 12:14:18 GMT
Faith in the Christian sky god is good, faith in the Muslim sky god is bad. Well the Christian God loves unconditionally whereas the Islamic god loves only Muslims. So yeah probably makes more sense to go with the Christian God, especially considering Allah doesn't exist. Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Mark 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 13:11:49 GMT
Faith in the Christian sky god is good, faith in the Muslim sky god is bad. Well the Christian God loves unconditionally whereas the Islamic god loves only Muslims. So yeah probably makes more sense to go with the Christian God, especially considering Allah doesn't exist. Muslims consider Allah and Jehovah are the same. And they have scriptures, dictated directly, not just inspired by, to prove it...
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 13:45:30 GMT
Well the Christian God loves unconditionally whereas the Islamic god loves only Muslims. So yeah probably makes more sense to go with the Christian God, especially considering Allah doesn't exist. Muslims consider Allah and Jehovah are the same. And they have scriptures, dictated directly, not just inspired by, to prove it... Muslims also consider their prophet Muhammad, a guy who at the age of 54 married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, to be the perfect model of moral conduct. So I wouldn't take much notice of what Muslims think.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 14:06:38 GMT
captainbryce These are sins God hates and does not tolerate. Loves the sinner, hates the sin. Ask parents if they're loving towards their children. Chances are the vast majority will say they are. Ask them if they believe in disciplining their children for wrong doing and the answer is again likely to be yes. This rings true with God. He is loving but he's also just. He's not going to cast the sin into hell, he's going to cast the sinner. This verse is essentially warning that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is essentially forfeiting the possibility of their sins being forgiven because they're rejecting the only basis of God's salvation.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 14:10:16 GMT
Muslims consider Allah and Jehovah are the same. And they have scriptures, dictated directly, not just inspired by, to prove it... Muslims also consider their prophet Muhammad, a guy who at the age of 54 married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, to be the perfect model of moral conduct. So I wouldn't take much notice of what Muslims think. In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – the majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older. There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl of 8 or 9 being married off.
And ... your Christian deity once supposedly killed the entire world, except for a chosen few.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 14:23:00 GMT
Muslims also consider their prophet Muhammad, a guy who at the age of 54 married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, to be the perfect model of moral conduct. So I wouldn't take much notice of what Muslims think. In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older. There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off.
And your Christian deity once supposedly killed the entire world, except for a chosen few.
Do you have evidence that in biblical times it was common for 50 year old men to marry 6 year old kids? Tell me what is it about this Islamic ideology that compels supposed non-believing skeptics like yourself to handle it with kid gloves and defend it vigorously? I've noticed this about you before FilmFlan. I know you're a brainwashed liberal but I still find your inconsistency baffling. Seems like you're one step away from taking your shahada.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 14:29:42 GMT
Do you have evidence that in biblical times it was common for 50 year old men to marry 6 year old kids? Was there law against it? No, there was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off. The Bible forbids lust (Matthew 5:28). However, lust is allowable within marriage (Proverbs 5:19). There seems to be no explicit statement of age of consent in the Bible. Hence, if an adult male wanted to marry a 10-year-old girl and also engage in sexual intercourse with that girl, there was nothing to condemn or stop it. As for the specific instance of 50 year old men and girls, if I ever make a specific claim about this, and how common it was, then be sure and raise it again. I was not defending Islam (although in the case of his wife Aisha, taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19 and so it is impossible to know with any certainty how old she was.) I was stating historical truths about marriage in Biblical times by way of comparison. Can you disprove what I have stated, factually speaking? A personal attack is not an argument. But I forgive you for you know not what you do.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 14:48:58 GMT
So no evidence. Gotcha.
Actually you were. You jumped into this thread specifically to point out to me how much more reliable the Islamic message is to the bible's. Then you attempted to shamefully justify Muhammad's pedophilic marriage with a straw man by trying to compare it to biblical marriages where girls got married at young ages. When challenged to bring evidence the best you could muster was "well there was no law against it".
So why the inconsistency? Why do you as a self professed liberal atheist always try to handle islam with kid gloves? Is your hatred for Christianity that strong that you have to side with a religion so at odds with every principle you pretend as leftist to stand for? To the point where you feel the need to justify its 50 year old founder sleeping with a little girl.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 15:07:38 GMT
tpfkar Muslims consider Allah and Jehovah are the same. And they have scriptures, dictated directly, not just inspired by, to prove it... Muslims also consider their prophet Muhammad, a guy who at the age of 54 married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, to be the perfect model of moral conduct. So I wouldn't take much notice of what Muslims think. "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." "And I will kill her children with pestilence and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds."Not to mention drowning them outright. And of course the torture porn of either sadism or masochism of slaughtering his own son/himself for gruesome titillation. As well as instilling the crass immorality of scapegoating and not being responsible for your own deeds. Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2018 15:32:50 GMT
History and historical texts are plain enough on this subject. For instance the rabbis in the Mishnah declare that a girl may be legally betrothed by intercourse as early as age three (Niddah 5:4). The age that a boy can contract a valid marriage appears to be age nine (Niddah 5:5 and other passages), even if extremes were largely hypothetical. Can you show me a law which proscribes child marriages, either in the Bible or Jewish history of the times? The Roman age of consent was apparently only 12. I hope that helps. I only pointed out the difference in the respective sources of the Bible and the Qu'ran. So your misrepresentation is a straw man. Personally I would think something which was dictated to one man was likely to be more accurate than that which was 'inspired' over a long time, to many - then edited and interpolated, then ultimately given final form by a committee. But both the Qu'ran, (for which there is no critical edition and which is more of a non-linear jumble that the Xian book) and Bible have their problems and I defend neither of their doctrines. I note though that you did not disagree with the fact that Muslims see Allah and Jehovah as one and the same. That's because there was indeed no law against it and young marriage was possible in biblical times. Just because with have an issue with it today does not mean it was not happening then even if not common. I am sorry you missed my late edit about Aisha (the wife in question) above. You may wish to check it out. So why the inconsistency? Why do you as a self professed liberal atheist always try to handle islam with kid gloves? As I said this is not a defence of Islam, merely setting things in an historical context. I actually posted here a while ago (or on the old board) a critical thread about what are in effect Qu'ran textual variants and associated problems with a range of interpretation according to differing readings. Looks like you missed that. I certainly hold no candle for Islam, so don't fret. But do for fairness in representation. So, see above about Mohammed's wife. There is no certainty of her age, so give your unpleasant and noxious claims around paedophilia a rest. Do I claim your Christ was gay since he never married, was keen on love, not war and had a lot of close men friends?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 26, 2018 16:39:27 GMT
Faith in the Christian sky god is good, faith in the Muslim sky god is bad. Well the Christian God loves unconditionally whereas the Islamic god loves only Muslims. So yeah probably makes more sense to go with the Christian God, especially considering Allah doesn't exist. I'll have to get new batteries for the irony meter. It always amazes me how the religious faithful often criticize competing religions and have such a blind spot for the identical traits in their own.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 26, 2018 16:42:30 GMT
FilmFlaneur I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The objection i raised was against Islam's 54 year old founder marrying a 6 year old and consummating the marriage at 9. How does creepy ancient rabbis and their man made self-serving laws excuse Muhammad of marrying and sleeping with a child? I don't doubt that it was more common for girls to be married off at younger ages in biblical times. From what I've researched the cultural tradition was 12-16 and onwards. What I have an issue with is a 54 year old man marrying and sleeping with a little child. So should you be! Thats your opinion. Here's the thing, the Quran is supposedly the uncreated eternal words of Allah dictated to Muhammad word for word. In it lies two falsification tests to allegedly prove it's divine inspiration. One of the challenges is if it isn't the word of God one could find contradictions and discrepancies. That means that if just one minor error can be found, the whole thing collapses. But when one inspects the Quran we find apocryphal stories about Jesus copied from gnostic forgeries, the trinity being described as Allah, Jesus and Mary, The sun setting in a pool of murky water, and the denial of Jesus' crucifixion, described by even liberal scholars as one of the most certain historical events in the life of Christ. So the Quran can be dismissed on this basis alone as it shoots itself in the foot. The most authentic traditions, accepted by the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims and scholars teaches that Aisha was 6 during the marriage and 9 at the consummation. Just take your shahada and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 26, 2018 17:31:22 GMT
tpfkar I tend to think of God™ the Creator as separate from God™ the personal saviour. God™ the creator set up a creation which has certain rules, rather he set up the rules that would result in creation, but did not fine tweak when things went a certain way, I feel the same about evolution, God set up the rules for evolution and let them run their course, the rules that set up nature are the same. Are you familiar with the concept of spiritual warfare and the corruption of creation? That suffices as an answer as well (if you're looking for something that can be drawn from the biblical texts). The basic idea is that angelic forces (often referred to as the "principalities and powers" in Scripture) are able to exercise their free will in such a way that it affects nature itself. That's not to say that there is a specific angel/demon behind every specific event that happens in nature, but it's rather a blanket statement about why the "natural" order of things doesn't always seem to reflect God's intended design. And the theory concludes that all of creation itself will be redeemed in the age to come. I find it rather interesting. So God is weak after all? Who mourns for Adonais?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2018 23:42:39 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. James Bishop's Theological Rationalism James Bishop
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 23:57:34 GMT
FilmFlaneur I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The objection i raised was against Islam's 54 year old founder marrying a 6 year old and consummating the marriage at 9. How does creepy ancient rabbis and their man made self-serving laws excuse Muhammad of marrying and sleeping with a child? I don't doubt that it was more common for girls to be married off at younger ages in biblical times. From what I've researched the cultural tradition was 12-16 and onwards. What I have an issue with is a 54 year old man marrying and sleeping with a little child. So should you be! Thats your opinion. Here's the thing, the Quran is supposedly the uncreated eternal words of Allah dictated to Muhammad word for word. In it lies two falsification tests to allegedly prove it's divine inspiration. One of the challenges is if it isn't the word of God one could find contradictions and discrepancies. That means that if just one minor error can be found, the whole thing collapses. But when one inspects the Quran we find apocryphal stories about Jesus copied from gnostic forgeries, the trinity being described as Allah, Jesus and Mary, The sun setting in a pool of murky water, and the denial of Jesus' crucifixion, described by even liberal scholars as one of the most certain historical events in the life of Christ. So the Quran can be dismissed on this basis alone as it shoots itself in the foot. The most authentic traditions, accepted by the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims and scholars teaches that Aisha was 6 during the marriage and 9 at the consummation. Just take your shahada and be done with it. It's amaze balls how much atheist liberals love Islam. What I especially love is when a liberal has to poo poo criticism of Islam whilst waving a rainbow flag. It's like that scene in Forgetting Sarah Marshall where the significance of Russell Brand's tattoos are being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 27, 2018 0:13:01 GMT
tpfkar FilmFlaneur I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The objection i raised was against Islam's 54 year old founder marrying a 6 year old and consummating the marriage at 9. How does creepy ancient rabbis and their man made self-serving laws excuse Muhammad of marrying and sleeping with a child? I don't doubt that it was more common for girls to be married off at younger ages in biblical times. From what I've researched the cultural tradition was 12-16 and onwards. What I have an issue with is a 54 year old man marrying and sleeping with a little child. So should you be! Thats your opinion. Here's the thing, the Quran is supposedly the uncreated eternal words of Allah dictated to Muhammad word for word. In it lies two falsification tests to allegedly prove it's divine inspiration. One of the challenges is if it isn't the word of God one could find contradictions and discrepancies. That means that if just one minor error can be found, the whole thing collapses. But when one inspects the Quran we find apocryphal stories about Jesus copied from gnostic forgeries, the trinity being described as Allah, Jesus and Mary, The sun setting in a pool of murky water, and the denial of Jesus' crucifixion, described by even liberal scholars as one of the most certain historical events in the life of Christ. So the Quran can be dismissed on this basis alone as it shoots itself in the foot. The most authentic traditions, accepted by the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims and scholars teaches that Aisha was 6 during the marriage and 9 at the consummation. Just take your shahada and be done with it. It's amaze balls how much atheist liberals love Islam. What I especially love is when a liberal has to poo poo criticism of Islam whilst waving a rainbow flag. It's like that scene in Forgetting Sarah Marshall where the significance of Russell Brand's tattoos are being discussed. Tsk tsk, always trolling. What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 27, 2018 2:09:33 GMT
1. The sun rising/exploding is merely an extreme example to illustrate the point about your "fallacy of gray." All faiths are not the same. Some are rational, some are irrational. 2. You are not a scientist. You don't get to decide what's science and what's not. 3. If [medical treatments] didn't work, nobody would care about paying for it, much less trying to allow everyone access to it. 1. When my opponents make a good point I try to respond. Sometimes it's difficult to find anything worth a response. Here's one. The statement, "not all faith is the same," is true. I'm not denying that. Faith in something true is obviously very different from faith in something false. Faith in something true has all the benefits I mentioned elsewhere. Faith in something false can obviously be detrimental. I understand all that. What I'm trying to say is that it does not matter whether it is faith in science or faith in religion how often that faith will be in something "true" or "false." You seem to think that when people believe in "science" they are less likely to make a mistake. In a better world that might be true, but please notice that there is no reason for it to necessarily be true. People acting in faith alone have an equal chance of being mistaken about religion and science. I suspect that because people with faith in religion realize theirs is a faith they are less likely to make a mistake than people who suffer from the delusion that they "lack" faith. 2. We'll see. 3. Saying whether medical treatments "work" is not so easy as you think. I've seen lots of people on television say they had cancer but thanks to treatments are now healthy. It might be true, but it isn't necessarily true. Sometimes people recover from illness without treatment. The specific problem I see today is that the "cancer survival rate" makes it appear treatments are working better than the "cancer death rate" does. How could there be a discrepancy? If cancer is detected earlier and earlier then some cancer will be "cured" by treatments that would not have led to death anyway, that the patient would have recovered from even without treatments. That is mathematical. You like math, right? 1. It's not just "faith in something true is good and faith in something false is bad;" if I were to define "faith" in the loosest way possible, I'd call it trust in and/or acts done under uncertainty. The real question with "faith" is: are some things less uncertain than others? Are some things more worthy of faith than others? Are some faiths based on substantial evidence while others are based on none? When it comes to science and religion, both make claims about reality. The former has proved its claims numerous times. It's done this by, in part, giving us all the technology we enjoy today, while also doing amazing feats like walking on the moon. OTOH, when has religion ever proved ANY of its extraordinary claims? It's like Yudkowsky said, if we're just going to consider science a religion, then it's clearly the best religion base on merits, based on what it's achieved. So, fine, I'll just go with your "science also requires faith, so it's also a religion," and I'll just counter that with "science is clearly the best religion." Saying "faith in science is no more likely to be true or false than religion" is is just blatantly false. Again, religion has never prove ANY of its extraordinary claims, science has proved many of its. So it's a false equivalency. 3. Apparently you're unaware of controlled double-blind tests done with medications and treatments. What, do you think the medical community just randomly decided to start blasting cancer patients with radiation without any evidence that it helped, and cancer patients agreed to do this (and pay for it) even knowing that it made them deathly ill? Are you crazy? Likewise, how in the world do you explain the eradication of certain diseases like small pox and polio? Coincidence?
|
|