Religion IS crazy!

[Value Collector]

Pull the other leg.

If you think you are being trolled, can you give some examples of where this has happened.

It is you who is doing the judging purely on the flimsy basis that I prefer a Christian society to a Muslim society.

That's not what you said, you said you prefer Christians, not Christian society.

I thought you were an atheist anyway, Why wouldn't you prefer a society with religious freedom.

The Christians certainly didn't treat atheists well when they had all the power, If your truly an atheist you should want a secular society.

Do you really want to be surrounded with a society where people like this have the power.

 

[bunyip]

Here’s a link to Part 2 of ‘The Legion’ that was aired on ABC’s Compass program last weekend – the story of the Mexican priest who was well known within the Catholic church as a fraudster, junkie and pedophile, and yet with the blessing of five sucessive popes including the much-admired Pope John Paul 11, was allowed to operate the ‘Legionnaires of Christ’ organization which in reality was just a front that facilitated his criminal doings, including his disgraceful sexual abuse of boys and young men.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s4018718.htm

Pope John Paul 11 was given evidence of exactly what this Mexican priest was up to, and yet instead of shutting him down, he heaped praise upon him and helped him to continue.
It almost beggars belief that the Catholic church canonized John Paul 11 as a saint despite being fully aware that he aided and abetted this Mexican criminal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/popes-john-xxiii-and-john-paul-ii-made-saints-vatican/5414130

 

[Calliope]

If you think you are being trolled, can you give some examples of where this has happened.
That's not what you said, you said you prefer Christians, not Christian society.

Your continual nitpicking and harping on the same theme over and over is trolling. Butt out.

 

[DB008]

ALI SINA’S Open Challenge To All Muslim’s – $50,000 REWARD - (a must read)

Sina's Challenge​

I receive many emails from angry Muslims, who sometimes beg me, and sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider both, pleading and bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies.

If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay $50,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad.

I accuse Muhammad of being:

• a narcissist
• a misogynist
• a rapist
• a pedophile
• a lecher
• a torturer
• a mass murderer
• a cult leader
• an assassin
• a terrorist
• a mad man
• a looter

I have debated with many Muslims. Their defense of Islam can be summarized in two categories:

a- Denial of the authenticity of Islamic sources that report the stories of crimes of Muhammad (example: debate with Edip Yukssel, a leader of the Submitters)

b- Moral relativism and situational ethics, e.g., “In those days, pedophilia, assassination, rape, raid, pillage, massacre and lying, were common practices, so Muhammad is innocent because he did what everyone else was doing.” Muslims even go as far as to question the legitimacy of the Golden Rule to claim I do not have any basis to condemn Muhammad. In other words, who can say what is good and what is evil? That is up to the messenger of God to decide. (Example: debate with Yamin Zakaria)

These are the main two arguments that Muslims present in defense of Islam. Any rational person can see they are logical fallacies.

These charges are irrefutable. You simply can't disprove them because they are reported in Islamic sources and as such they are as good as confession. You can't acquit a criminal after he has confessed, unless you plead insanity, which is my point.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

 

[McLovin]

McLovin, you raised the issue. I'd be interested to hear your view on this very fraught and difficult issue.

I don't have an answer, I imagine it would be a very difficult thing to do. My grandparents were fortunate enough that when they got to an age where the couldn't properly look after themselves they were able to have a 24/7 nurse at home.

I raised it only because I don't believe that morality is set in stone and the differing views within different cultures on this issue kind of makes that point.

 

[Value Collector]

We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral.

We look at it and think it was NEVER moral,.

So your god is immoral. Because the The Bible says that women are property and should be silent in church and obey their husbands, says it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them, says to kill your children if they talk back to you, and orders you to kill witches.

These things are immoral today and always have been, So your god (atleast as described in the bible) is immoral, and the bible teachings them selves are immoral.

Offcourse you will probably come back with excuses of how it doesn't actually mean what it says etc etc. But to me that's like a nazi apologist trying to tell me Mein Kampf is all about love, and its just been misinterpreted.

 

[pavilion103]

So your god is immoral. Because the The Bible says that women are property and should be silent in church and obey their husbands, says it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them, says to kill your children if they talk back to you, and orders you to kill witches.

These things are immoral today and always have been, So your god (atleast as described in the bible) is immoral, and the bible teachings them selves are immoral.

Offcourse you will probably come back with excuses of how it doesn't actually mean what it says etc etc. But to me that's like a nazi apologist trying to tell me Mein Kampf is all about love, and its just been misinterpreted.

If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?

I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.

 

[Julia]

If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?

I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.

Is that really fair? Your responses so far have tended to be just as VC says, where you find a way of justifying tracts from the Bible and also your own pronouncements as to what is right and wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

If that is what you will think of my response. Then what would be the purpose of me continuing conversation further?

I haven't checked this thread since my previous response until now for that exact reason. This is one of the more pointless threads on this forum.

I was more interested in how you would reconcile a god which it's followers claim is 100% perfect and 100% moral, can command things which are demonstrably immoral according to the beliefs of its modern followers.

I have heard Christians make claims that things were different back then, but your saying that morality is unchanging, which makes the Bible and its commands immoral and have always been immoral since the day it was written.

 

[Value Collector]

An interesting discussion on morality.

 

[pavilion103]

Is that really fair? Your responses so far have tended to be just as VC says, where you find a way of justifying tracts from the Bible and also your own pronouncements as to what is right and wrong.

When the presupposition is that the Bible has inconsistencies

and

Whatever answer I give is percevied as a "justification"

then there is no point posting.


It's the same with any topic.
If you want are going to deliver a guilty verdict no matter what the answer, there is no purpose for a trial.

 

[pavilion103]

I was more interested in how you would reconcile a god which it's followers claim is 100% perfect and 100% moral, can command things which are demonstrably immoral according to the beliefs of its modern followers.

I have heard Christians make claims that things were different back then, but your saying that morality is unchanging, which makes the Bible and its commands immoral and have always been immoral since the day it was written.

You need to ask for what society were these "rules" intended?

Were these "rules" the desire of God or measures for facilititating a livable society?

Were these intended as moral laws? Or rules under the conditions in which they lived?


If you want to go into more detail look this up online.

If you don't want to look this up and go into more detail, then there is no point in my posting is there?

 

[pavilion103]

An interesting discussion on morality.

There cannot be objective morals unless there is an "outside" moral lawgiver.

If there is no actual law giver, then all "morality" is subjective. It is opinion.
How do you determine who's opinion is right?
What is someone disagrees with you?
What is all of society decided they wanted to gas Jews? Does consensus win?


Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche understood this.
Most other atheist philosophers do also.

The one thing I admire about him is that he had the balls to recognise this and state is unequovically.
He was a consistent atheist in his world view.

 

[pavilion103]

I'm done guys.

 

[Value Collector]

There cannot be objective morals unless there is an "outside" moral lawgiver.

If there is no actual law giver, then all "morality" is subjective. It is opinion.

Even then you are stuck with subjectivity, Because who's law giver do we accept, Is it your version or god or the hindu's or muslims, and is it your brand of Christian morality or westborrow Baptist Christian morality. and then there is still subjectivity in the application of the rules.

I think it is possible for the laws of morality to exist just like the laws of physics, in any given situation there probably is a 100% correct moral outcome, but whether or not individuals come up with that answer depends on their understanding, their own opinions and beliefs, and their own experiences.

Just like the laws of physics we continue learning more as we go on, So basing our beliefs on an unchanging book is silly, as you can see by the immorality in the bible.

 

[Calliope]

It's a pity more Western leaders didn't have the guts to tell it like it is.

Former president Vaclav Klaus courageously spoke out against the climate change hysteria, knowing full well the smears and attacks that would come his way as a result. And now current president Miloš Zeman speaks out about the real cause of Islamic aggression around the world.

The libtard media are forever pussyfooting around the issue, cowed by threats of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, endlessly repeating the myth that continual terrorist attacks in the name of Islam have ‘nothing to do with Islam’ and that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. Anyone with half a brain knows that is complete bull****, but the media does such a good job of shifting the blame on to the West that most people are completely in the dark. Islam is a violent, supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion, which is wholly incompatible with Western democracy and freedoms.

Political correctness is the reluctance to speak the truth for fear of causing offence, in other words it is, as Zeman says, a euphemism for cowardice, and it is slowly destroying our society from within. In the climate arena, it is the fear of being labelled a ‘denier’ and to be judged morally bankrupt (‘think of the children and grandchildren’) if one dares to question the alarmist narrative, which is causing harm and poverty to millions. In relation to Islam, it is fear of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’, ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, or some other equally offensive term, in the face of a significant threat to our Western freedoms – freedoms which in the past we fought hard to preserve, and which now, apparently, we are happy to give up, a little at a time, without a struggle.

(My bolds)
Read More
http://australianclimatemadness.com...nt-political-correctness-political-cowardice/

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/u...employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html?_r=0

In the ruling, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, gained the right not to include certain contraceptive goods and services in the insurance bought for employees, because use of these services conflicts with the owner’s Christian beliefs. Although the justices argue that their ruling is narrowly confined to contraceptive services, one must wonder what other items other business owners in the future may seek to jettison from benefit packages on the basis of this or that professed religious belief.

Bet it wont take long for the fundamentalists to start demanding larger companies follow down the same path. Not good in a country that spends nearly twice as much on health care as Australia and has far inferior health statistics. Likely the same people supportive of banning contraceptives would also likely be against abortion and any form of support for single parents.

Funny how a Christian owner forcing these kinds of decisions onto workers is accepted, but if say a Muslim business owner was trying to do something similar it would likely be front page news with street protests.

 

[Calliope]

Bet it wont take long for the fundamentalists to start demanding larger companies follow down the same path...
Funny how a Christian owner forcing these kinds of decisions onto workers is accepted, but if say a Muslim business owner was trying to do something similar it would likely be front page news with street protests.

There is no religion on earth more fundamentalist than Islamism. I imagiine that workers in Muslim businesses in Australia, few as they are, would be well indocrinated. The main Muslim business is breeding. The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them.

 

[sydboy007]

There is no religion on earth more fundamentalist than Islamism. I imagiine that workers in Muslim businesses in Australia, few as they are, would be well indocrinated. The main Muslim business is breeding. The average Muslim family in Australia has over 4 children compared to the infidel familiy size of 1-2. That's why they don't need to work. The taxpayer supports them.

Right. Not like fundamentalist Christians have no indoctrination. It's the basis of pretty much every organised religion.

As for your view of Muslim families in Australia, just shows how racist your views are on this subject. I know you believe what you say, but belief is not proof.

 

[sydboy007]

get around the humour side and it's quite thought provoking