Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,238
- Reactions
- 8,485
Pull the other leg.
It is you who is doing the judging purely on the flimsy basis that I prefer a Christian society to a Muslim society.
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.
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.
McLovin, you raised the issue. I'd be interested to hear your view on this very fraught and difficult issue.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(My bolds)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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?