|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 29, 2019 0:24:16 GMT
Hmmm... I wonder if Arlon even knows what QED means? Q.E.D.
Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation—and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.
I wonder if you know what "you are not the teacher here" means? I do know what QED means and have long before you came along. I also know what a "straw man" argument is. You have plenty of them. "Oh look, people throwing coins into jet engines for luck! See how stupid religion is!" No religion encourages anyone to throw coins into jet engines for luck. There might be some stupid people who think that is what religion is all about. However there are no documents whatever to support such a view. I have never used that 'metaphor', coins into jet engines for luck. You must have me confused with another poster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 0:28:07 GMT
I wonder if you know what "you are not the teacher here" means? I do know what QED means and have long before you came along. I also know what a "straw man" argument is. You have plenty of them. "Oh look, people throwing coins into jet engines for luck! See how stupid religion is!" No religion encourages anyone to throw coins into jet engines for luck. There might be some stupid people who think that is what religion is all about. However there are no documents whatever to support such a view. I have never used that 'metaphor', coins into jet engines for luck. You must have me confused with another poster. Several of the things some "religious" people do, and you blame religion for, are similarly not really encouraged by religion as clear from their documents. Go ahead and list them all to be fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 29, 2019 0:33:13 GMT
I have never used that 'metaphor', coins into jet engines for luck. You must have me confused with another poster. Several of the things some "religious" people do, and you blame religion for, are similarly not really encouraged by religion as clear from their documents. Go ahead and list them all to be fair. WTF are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 29, 2019 0:46:12 GMT
In the Jewish faith, the body is the temple of god and to mutilate it deliberately in any way is a desecration and profanation of the image of its' creator.
I'm not saying I necessarily accept this myself, but it is Orthodox law. I have no tattoos myself, but it's out of personal aesthetic preference, not religious scruples. Errr! Circumcision. I guess like all religions the Jewish one is just as much full of its own foibles, contradictions and hypocrisies.
I don't get the tattoo thing, or why people would want to do it. People can go overboard and it is born out of negative mindset and image of self\body for the most part I feel. They don't look so good once the skin ages.
* response before I read through the rest of the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 29, 2019 0:49:54 GMT
I can only speak for myself but I have always thought that the mutilation of the genitals of those who cannot give consent (children) for ritual purposes is something which will eventually need looking at. Circumcision is reversible. Not the same Arlon, so don't talk piff. It need not be reversible, if it wasn't carried out at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 29, 2019 0:52:15 GMT
Several of the things some "religious" people do, and you blame religion for, are similarly not really encouraged by religion as clear from their documents. Go ahead and list them all to be fair. WTF are you talking about? He doesn't really know, he just pretends to know what he is talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 1:06:37 GMT
Several of the things some "religious" people do, and you blame religion for, are similarly not really encouraged by religion as clear from their documents. Go ahead and list them all to be fair. WTF are you talking about? For example where in official Islamic documents is FGM stipulated? And why does the vast majority of the Islamic world ignore such documents?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 29, 2019 1:20:25 GMT
WTF are you talking about? For example where in official Islamic documents is FGM stipulated? And why does the vast majority of the Islamic world ignore such documents? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 1:26:18 GMT
For example where in official Islamic documents is FGM stipulated? And why does the vast majority of the Islamic world ignore such documents? was trying to make the point that FGM is a "religious" problem and thought he did when you jumped in.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 29, 2019 1:34:09 GMT
FilmFlaneur was trying to make the point that FGM is a "religious" problem and thought he did when you jumped in. Well, then, you two just keep on discussing that point. That wasn't the point I was making. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 1:37:19 GMT
FilmFlaneur was trying to make the point that FGM is a "religious" problem and thought he did when you jumped in. Well, then, you two just keep on discussing that point. That wasn't the point I was making. Perhaps what you should have wondered is whether FilmFlaneur knows what QED means.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 4:43:05 GMT
I can only speak for myself but I have always thought that the mutilation of the genitals of those who cannot give consent (children) for ritual purposes is something which will eventually need looking at. Circumcision is reversible. That sounds suspiciously like 'science' a la Planet Arlon. 'Ok you delve either your fishing box or your curtains and get a few lead weights. Attach them to the end of your penis for a year and 'voila' reversible circumcision.' I saw it happen folks and the statistics prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...no laboratory required. I was good at debating Math and Science 100 years ago so you don't need a computer, 'dicktionary' or Google or Wiki just some good old common sense science.
|
|
|
|
Post by TutuAnimationPrincess on Sept 29, 2019 4:48:32 GMT
I didn't ask directly, but last I checked, she has no issues with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 10:23:56 GMT
As you can see though, examples of non-consensual genital mutilation, whether FGM or MGM in being justified by religious reasons and cultural practice a lot of the time are broadly similar after all, and not "totally non comparable" - which is the point. QED. I suspect you're confusing third world trends with "religion" unfairly. I suspect that's because you assume religion is nothing more than a primitive social phenomenon found only in the third world. I suspect that's because you are not capable of understanding religion, it being far above the plain notions you have of it. You keep telling me I have to accept that stupid people do in fact represent religion and that you may criticize them and religion for it. Then you complain when I point out you are not so smart yourself. I suppose some stupid people think they should represent religion but reject your claim that religion itself is stupid or the cause of their activities. There are plenty of superior scientists who believe in a god and practice religion. Science is totally inadequate to deal with all life's problems as has been explained to you many times in many ways. You will have to give it up. Your war against religion is over and you lost. None of which mitigates the observation that, broadly speaking, FGM and MGM share their roots and justification in religious and cultural practices and are very often enacted on those unable to give consent. Which is, still, the point. BTW: Please quote when I have told you that "stupid people do in fact represent religion". Otherwise this is just another straw man.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 10:33:39 GMT
No religion encourages anyone to throw coins into jet engines for luck. There might be some stupid people who think that is what religion is all about. However there are no documents whatever to support such a view. This may or not be true but then: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6798979/Two-passengers-China-detained-throwing-coins-plane-engine-good-luck.html The first major incident of engine-targeted coin throwing apparently occurred back in June of 2017, when an 80-year-old Buddhist woman tossed nine coins at the engine of China Southern Airlines flight CZ380. In the wake of this debacle, numerous media outlets, including the Telegraph and the Independent, noted the woman’s Buddhist faith and that the passenger was superstitious. One can accept that throwing coins here was done in the name of superstition and not religion per se. But while not exactly the same, there are similarities between religion and superstition. For instance both superstition and traditional religions are non-materialistic in nature. They do not conceive of the world as a place controlled by sequences of cause and effect between matter and energy. Instead, they presume the added presence of immaterial forces which influence or control the course of our lives, the requirements of which need attention. They both demonstrate a desire to provide meaning and coherence to otherwise random and chaotic events. And one can be reasonably sure, given the other unique observances which characterise the difference faiths around the world that, if their god(s) had ever supposedly commanded the throwing of coins, then it would be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 10:38:58 GMT
Well, then, you two just keep on discussing that point. That wasn't the point I was making. Perhaps what you should have wondered is whether FilmFlaneur knows what QED means. Q.E.D. or QED (sometimes italicized) is an initialism of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum", literally meaning "what was to be shown". I hope that helps. But I doubt it, as I remember having to explain it to you before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 19:23:09 GMT
I suspect you're confusing third world trends with "religion" unfairly. I suspect that's because you assume religion is nothing more than a primitive social phenomenon found only in the third world. I suspect that's because you are not capable of understanding religion, it being far above the plain notions you have of it. You keep telling me I have to accept that stupid people do in fact represent religion and that you may criticize them and religion for it. Then you complain when I point out you are not so smart yourself. I suppose some stupid people think they should represent religion but reject your claim that religion itself is stupid or the cause of their activities. There are plenty of superior scientists who believe in a god and practice religion. Science is totally inadequate to deal with all life's problems as has been explained to you many times in many ways. You will have to give it up. Your war against religion is over and you lost. None of which mitigates the observation that, broadly speaking, FGM and MGM share their roots and justification in religious and cultural practices and are very often enacted on those unable to give consent. Which is, still, the point. BTW: Please quote when I have told you that "stupid people do in fact represent religion". Otherwise this is just another straw man. It had been (and sometimes still is) a common complaint by atheists that "religious" people perform less well in statistical surveys of things like divorce rates, income levels, education levels, and other metrics. I pointed out that such results required counting many "Christians" who are not really very religious. I noted correctly that if you exclude Christianity and count only every other religion in surveys they perform better than Christians and atheists. I suggested we need a term for "religious" people that correctly categorizes them with like types. You being oblivious of practical and meaningful terminology demanded that I must accept such "Christians" in my definition of religion. So I present no straw man. You on the other hand demand I accept your definition of religion, which is very much a straw man, and not my definition at all. You appear to have no talent for categorizing things. Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other than with either Christians or atheists. Christians and atheists have more in common with each other than with either Jews or Arabs. You need categories that group similar things in the same category, different things in different categories. Perhaps one day it will occur to you that you are not the sole arbiter of all meaning, and cannot be, and have no talent for it anyway. Neither do you represent the sole arbiter of meaning since there isn't one.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 19:25:00 GMT
None of which mitigates the observation that, broadly speaking, FGM and MGM share their roots and justification in religious and cultural practices and are very often enacted on those unable to give consent. Which is, still, the point. BTW: Please quote when I have told you that "stupid people do in fact represent religion". Otherwise this is just another straw man. It had been (and sometimes still is) a common complaint by atheists that "religious" people perform less well in statistical surveys of things like divorce rates, income levels, education levels, and other metrics. I pointed out that such results required counting many "Christians" who are not really very religious. I noted correctly that if you exclude Christianity and count only every other religion in surveys they perform better than Christians and atheists. I suggested we need a term for "religious" people that correctly categorizes them with like types. You being oblivious of practical and meaningful terminology demanded that I must accept such "Christians" in my definition of religion. So I present no straw man. You on the other hand demand I accept your definition of religion, which is very much a straw man, and not my definition at all. You appear to have no talent for categorizing things. Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other than with either Christians or atheists. Christians and atheists have more in common with each other than with either Jews or Arabs. You need categories that group similar things in the same category, different things in different categories. Perhaps one day it will occur to you that you are not the sole arbiter of all meaning, and cannot be, and have no talent for it anyway. Neither do you represent the sole arbiter of meaning since there isn't one. I think this was covered before, and it is not clear what it has to do with this thread and the current subject. (I did say then that it is best to take at face value the claims of the religious, and so when they say they perform genital mutilation for religious reasons then one ought to take them at their word, as they would best placed to know.) It certainly does not affect my point about FGM and MGM being broadly comparable, something which you deny, for no reason given. You will also need to quote where I have 'defined religion', other than making out some very general similarities with superstition, or that will be a second straw man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 19:50:48 GMT
It had been (and sometimes still is) a common complaint by atheists that "religious" people perform less well in statistical surveys of things like divorce rates, income levels, education levels, and other metrics. I pointed out that such results required counting many "Christians" who are not really very religious. I noted correctly that if you exclude Christianity and count only every other religion in surveys they perform better than Christians and atheists. I suggested we need a term for "religious" people that correctly categorizes them with like types. You being oblivious of practical and meaningful terminology demanded that I must accept such "Christians" in my definition of religion. So I present no straw man. You on the other hand demand I accept your definition of religion, which is very much a straw man, and not my definition at all. You appear to have no talent for categorizing things. Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other than with either Christians or atheists. Christians and atheists have more in common with each other than with either Jews or Arabs. You need categories that group similar things in the same category, different things in different categories. Perhaps one day it will occur to you that you are not the sole arbiter of all meaning, and cannot be, and have no talent for it anyway. Neither do you represent the sole arbiter of meaning since there isn't one. I think this was covered before, and it is not clear what it has to do with this thread and the current subject.. It certainly does not affect my point about FGM and MGM being broadly comparable. You will also need to quote where I have defined religion, or that will be a second straw man. I don't need to do anything. Religious people are better scientists, earn more money, are better educated, have lower divorce rates and generally perform better in most metrics. Those are the facts. That you still have difficulty facing this truth is not my problem. The group often described as "Christians" presents a problem with terminology. By some definitions, if only their own, they are "religious." By most other definitions quite large numbers of them do not fit well, are not religious. If you want to say that "religion" is a problem you could be correct if by "religion" you mean Christianity, but that is ignoring the obvious difference between much "Christianity" and all other religion. Why do you believe you have any point? You obviously do not. Islam and other religions in very underdeveloped countries might also have people with terribly misinformed notions of their religion. That is no excuse for you to blame religion for their problems. Their problem is poverty, not religion. People who imagine "science" is the only means to settle differences in society are obviously seriously mentally retarded. They are not scientists at all. See my first paragraph. You may join their ranks if you like. First you should know that they are particularly inept at science. They are particularly inept at making any case for any policy, which is the reason Trump is president. I'm sorry that happened. I hope a better leader is found soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 20:07:22 GMT
I think this was covered before, and it is not clear what it has to do with this thread and the current subject.. It certainly does not affect my point about FGM and MGM being broadly comparable. You will also need to quote where I have defined religion, or that will be a second straw man. I don't need to do anything. Then it was another straw man. None of which affects my point about the similarities of FGM and MGM either. It just shows your continuing propensity to go off on a tangent when you have no real answer, based on definitions which you admit are necessarily arbitrary. You are also using the word "retarded" again gratuitously, knowing that I have a seriously autistic brother. That's neither big nor clever.
|
|
