THE ISLAMIC AGE OF CONSENT

[The Monk]

The bloke arrested yesterday with a 13 year old “wife” believes he has done nothing wrong, he believes WE are wrong and strangely, so does his “wife”. Both will always believe that!

http://i.imgur.com/CUC1Wwt.jpg


Islam brandishes its endemic paedophelia as a badge of honour, but we try desperately to protect our children from sexual abuse while turning our backs on the Islamic outrage rather than risk the “racist” label.
So, what’s new? Most already know the wife of Mohammed himself was a 6 year-old girl, A’isha…(nice, eh?) Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: “Allah’s apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old and I was admitted to his house (that means bonked) when I was nine years old.”

Religion is about the power of numbers. Islam demands the ovarian cycle must be used to its maximum and at the earliest possible age. Catholicism merely bans condoms, but both edicts are designed to have the same effect... an increase in numbers!

Cannot one appreciate the incompatibility of the weak, compliant Christian to the person born to Islam? Congregational reinforcement is the reason there is still a Flat Earth Society.

If your parents tell you, when you are young, that the colour red is actually blue or the World is actually flat, you will believe everyone else is wrong. You will have no choice but to believe your parents. This is the power of religious indoctrination of a child.

Christian “christening” is performed before the child has developed the art of choice or the power of reason. And this is where Muslim bigots have an omnipotent advantage:

They believe every person on earth was already born a Muslim. They skip the christening bullshit. They (and they believe everyone else) are BORN a Muslim.

Therefore their base culture demands the total destruction of non-believers. The non-believers are dangerous apostates likely to convert others to their evils and must be eradicated at all cost.

This is what they are taught from birth and this is what they believe with a passion that has no equal.


Everyone who does not practise Islam is a heretic who has already denounced Allah. Everyone who is not a practising Muslim is an enemy of the faith by virtue of being born.

The congregational togetherness (mosque) is designed to reinforce the disgusting policies of inhumanity toward anyone who is of a different faith. Christianity uses its congregational churches in the same way. There are many fiercely competitive Christian churches but there is only one Islamic mosque... can you see why we are losing?

The Islamic preoccupation with decapitation is also clear! If you don’t believe what I believe, my prophet’s command is to behead you, that is my scriptural command. I am commanded by Allah and the Prophet Mohammed to do this! I cannot disobey, I am Muslim!

The Koran teaches:
Koran, Sura 8:12 reads: "I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads, then, and strike off all of their fingertips."

Sura (chapter) 47 contains the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."

It is written: The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself:

Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Mohammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him.

Islamic leaders from Mohammad's time until today have followed his model. Examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead, in Islamic history are myriad:

Yusuf b. Tashfin (d. 1106) led the Al-Murabit (Almoravid) Empire to conquer from western Sahara to central Spain. After the battle of Zallaqa in 1086, he had 24,000 corpses of the defeated Castilians beheaded:

"…and piled them up to make a sort of minaret for the Muezzins who, standing on the piles of headless cadavers, sang the praises of Allah.

"He then had the detached heads sent to all the major cities of North Africa and Spain as an example of Christian impotence. The Al-Murabits were conquered the following century by the Al-Muwahhids, under whose rule Castilian Christian enemies were beheaded after any lost battle.”

Islam is the only World religion (if religion is the correct word) that is cited by both State and non-State bodies to legitimise beheadings.

Islam pervades every corner of the Islamic State: It IS the judiciary, it IS the government, it IS the penal system, it IS the education department, it IS the armed forces.

There is no separation we demand, but don’t actually get, from our State. [Our Constitution demands separation of Church and State, yet surprise surprise, we open Parliament with prayers.]

Two major aspects of decapitation in an Islamic context should be noted: First, the practice has both Koranic and historical sanction... it is not the product of a fabricated tradition.

Second, in contradiction to the assertions of apologists of Islam, these beheadings are not simply a brutal method of drawing attention to the Islamic political agenda. Nor are they merely designed to weaken opponents' will to fight.

The infamous (now dead, thank god) Zarqawi and other Islamic bigots regularly practised decapitation of infidels for the TV cameras.

Islam is anything but a "religion of peace". It is a way of life, a barbaric, base culture born of Mongolian inspired historic violence and inhumanity toward non-believers, and women.

When will we recognise (as Europe now rues) that our culture of religious tolerance is not remotely a part of their agenda?

Even the Islamic apostate, provided he is pronounced sane, must be executed (beheaded) under Koranic law. The implication of course is that one must be certified as insane to reject Islam and therefore can justifiably retain his mixed up head.

The terms “extremist” and “fundamentalist” are misnomers of the weak apologists for Islam. There are no extremists, they don’t exist... just faithful, obedient, adherents to the one blind Islamic faith.


There are those who actively play for Collingwood and those who blindly barrack for Collingwood, both pray Collingwood wins.

Certainly there are the more outrageous activists but note the non-activist’s passive lack of protest when atrocities occur! They silently high-five each other behind closed doors so as not to offend the neighbours.

The people next door who you would borrow a cup of sugar from (as the 9/11 bombers were described to be) have been ordered by Allah to kill you.

It’s not important who’s right and who’s wrong. What is important in this theistic World War is an incompatibility of minds; minds that can never be aligned. One mind cannot be compromised, the other can... and the one that can is the certain loser.

“I fight to live!” sayeth the Christian.

“I fight to die!” sayeth the Muslim, “... it is therefore a war that I can never lose.”

[Muddy]

And everyone thiugbt the Nazis were the worst thing out there..

[lost in melb.]

The Christian first testament is just as bad. They need Koran 2.0

[Muddy]

Is it? Does it call for us to kill all non-believers?

[DemonGeminiX]

The Christian first testament is just as bad. They need Koran 2.0

You need to go back and read the Old Testament again, bud. Quit being an apologist for these cocksuckers.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Is it? Does it call for us to kill all non-believers?


You need to go back and read the Old Testament again, bud. Quit being an apologist for these cocksuckers.


It all the same shit, dont fool yourselves












Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

[Muddy]

I still missed where it says all non-believers of Christianity need to be beheaded..?

[Hugh_Janus]

It all the same shit, dont fool yourselves












Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

well, waddya know....

[Hugh_Janus]

I still missed where it says all non-believers of Christianity need to be beheaded..?

I think porky's pirst quote covers that..... :shrug:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)




I still missed where it says all non-believers of Christianity need to be beheaded..?

Its close enough

[Muddy]

I think porky's pirst quote covers that..... :shrug:

I dont think so. Even the liberal ass Bill Maher agrees Islam is way out of line and fundamentally fucked up.

Read the quote more carefully. "Anyone who rejects the verdict".. That's hardly a call to behead all non-believers.

[Muddy]

Its close enough

It's not.. :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

[Muddy]

Porky... Who is committing these daily acts of violence against non-believers across half the fucking globe??? Is it the Christians? :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

They were the original group to commit murder for religion. Maybe not so much today. But, I can guarantee the middle east views us bombing them as Christians

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I remember when I was a kid and still being made to go to church (Catholic) how the priest would be up at the pulpit instructing us how to build suicide vests and how to work a machete to kill all the non-believers......no wait, I don't remember that because it doesn't happen.

[Muddy]

They were the original group to commit murder for religion. Maybe not so much today. But, I can guarantee the middle east views us bombing them as Christians

You should go join Isis and be their spokesperson...

[PorkChopSandwiches]

You guys go ahead and pick what you like out of your book and then ignore what you dont, but dont go around talking like its any different than the koran

[Muddy]

The Jews were the original group to commit murder for religion.

Fixed that for you.

[DemonGeminiX]

It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What happens today is all that matters. Jews still follow the OT and you don't see Dee running around killing people.

Nope, it's only Muslims.

[Muddy]

You guys go ahead and pick what you like out of your book and then ignore what you dont, but dont go around talking like its any different than the koran

And you go ahead and keep defending every third world religion that stands against Christianity... It's not my book.. There's a fundamental difference in the two groups. Right here, right now.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What happens today is all that matters. Jews still follow the OT and you don't see Dee running around killing people.

Nope, it's only Muslims.

That we know of :shock:

[DemonGeminiX]

You guys go ahead and pick what you like out of your book and then ignore what you dont, but dont go around talking like its any different than the koran

:-k

So you'd rather we all be fundamentalists? The population would drop quite a bit. California would be a bloodbath.

[Muddy]

"Dee" :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

That we know of :shock:

:hand:

He's too busy watching 300,000 movies on transAtlantic flights.

[Pony]

You guys go ahead and pick what you like out of your book and then ignore what you dont, but dont go around talking like its any different than the koran

In the past, yes there was a lot of similar stuff done. But in today's society, in practice, there is overwhelmingly one group more violent than the rest. If Christians were STILL slaughtering thousands in the name of God this whole conversation would be different.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

In the past, yes there was a lot of similar stuff done. But in today's society, in practice, there is overwhelmingly one group more violent than the rest. If Christians were STILL slaughtering thousands in the name of God this whole conversation would be different.

I understand that, but the question was


The Christian first testament is just as bad. They need Koran 2.0


Is it? Does it call for us to kill all non-believers?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:-k

So you'd rather we all be fundamentalists? The population would drop quite a bit. California would be a bloodbath.

I would rather we all got rid of religion all together

[Hugh_Janus]

I would rather we all got rid of religion all together

:clap:

[redred]

I would rather we all got rid of religion all together
We'd only find something else to fight about

[Muddy]

I would rather we all got rid of religion all together

I'm not sure the general population is smart enough to not be ruled by some form of ultimate law. I really think morality is what keeps you white boys alive out there in Cali. these days..

[DemonGeminiX]

I would rather we all got rid of religion all together

:hand:

Your kids wouldn't have the benefit of being enrolled in better schools then.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:lol:

That was temporary, my son is in a charter school now and my daughter in public.

[DemonGeminiX]

:-s

They don't have charter schools for girls out there? Where's the equality, California?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:-s

They don't have charter schools for girls out there? Where's the equality, California?

LOL, anyone can go. This works for him. He went from not passing high school to probably finishing 8 months early with a 3.5.

[deebakes]

Fixed that for you.

:fu:

[deebakes]

That we know of :shock:

:shhh:

[Godfather]

I'm not sure the general population is smart enough to not be ruled by some form of ultimate law. I really think morality is what keeps you white boys alive out there in Cali. these days..

As someone who hasn't believed in God for a long time I'm sort of insulted by the notion that you need to subscribe to a religion to have a firm set of morals, but I guess that's a really philosophical debated that won't be much fun either way :lol:

[deebakes]

:hand: heathen

[DemonGeminiX]

As someone who hasn't believed in God for a long time I'm sort of insulted by the notion that you need to subscribe to a religion to have a firm set of morals, but I guess that's a really philosophical debated that won't be much fun either way :lol:

Your statement implies that you believed in God at some point in your life.

[Muddy]

As someone who hasn't believed in God for a long time I'm sort of insulted by the notion that you need to subscribe to a religion to have a firm set of morals, but I guess that's a really philosophical debated that won't be much fun either way :lol:

Id like to think you are a cut above the general pop and wouldnt be included in their group..

[RBP]

Your statement implies that you believed in God at some point in your life.

And Santa.

[RBP]

As someone who hasn't believed in God for a long time I'm sort of insulted by the notion that you need to subscribe to a religion to have a firm set of morals, but I guess that's a really philosophical debated that won't be much fun either way :lol:

I think that's exactly the debate we need to have. If you combine the rate at which we are becoming more secular with the speed at which we are moving to "respect" all individual choices, you come an intersection. That intersection is where there are no societal standards, no civility, no individually understood code of conduct governing restraint. What is there to replace the moral compass? We all like to pay lip services to "humanism", but the current political and social justice climate seems to clearly demonstrate there is no consensus, and it may indicate there is such a cavernous divide that it may not ever be bridged.

I do not have to respect individual choice, but I do have to respect societal guardrails or there is no society. The question becomes, on what do we base those guidelines if we lack the Judaeo-Christian foundation of this nation? You seem to imply that it is obvious - we all have an inherent understanding of proper societal expectations. It's a nice platitude, but I've never seen anything to support that being true.

[redred]

And Santa.
:lol:

[deebakes]

And Santa.

:shock: spoiler that :sad2:

[The Monk]

All of the above and even more is why if I had my way, I would ban ALL religion!!

All religion has done for the past few thousand years is cause pain, suffering and conflict.

[Muddy]

All of the above and even more is why if I had my way, I would ban ALL religion!!

All religion has done for the past few thousand years is cause pain, suffering and conflict.

You mess with peoples personal freedom when you do that..

[DemonGeminiX]

RBP alluded to this: Religion, and more notably, the Judeo-Christian form of religion, is the reason why we have morals. Religion itself helped create societal structure. What we have today wouldn't exist without it, and before you atheists say "Yeah, we wouldn't have all this bad shit", you're right, but we wouldn't have any of the good shit either. We wouldn't have a sense of right and wrong, nor a sense of rewards and punishments. Religion is the reason why we have the golden rule. If everyone that ever existed never believed there would be something waiting for them in the afterlife based on what they did in this life, then there would be people scattered throughout history that would make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. A lot of things we take for granted wouldn't exist, and a lot of people probably wouldn't exist. Deny it all you want, but the truth is religion helped develop human existence, and without it, things could look a whole lot worse.

[Hugh_Janus]

why was dee getting shit? If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the deliciousness that are easter eggs :facepalm:

[DemonGeminiX]

why was dee getting shit? If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the deliciousness that are easter eggs :facepalm:

I was just illustrating the point that Jews aren't running around killing nonbelievers in the name of YHWH.

[Hikari Kisugi]

I think porky's pirst quote covers that..... :shrug:

No, thats all old testament, the pregospel pre jesuss book.
The Jewish books.
They were all superseded by airy fairy forgiveness stuff.
Mostly bland get along, look at your own issues before criticising others etc.

[The Monk]

You mess with peoples personal freedom when you do that..

Wouldn't that be better than wars..... ??

God is no different than Santa - both are imaginary to supposedly make our lives better.

If there is a God, why does he allow such suffering and pain?

[The Monk]

RBP alluded to this: Religion, and more notably, the Judeo-Christian form of religion, is the reason why we have morals. Religion itself helped create societal structure. What we have today wouldn't exist without it, and before you atheists say "Yeah, we wouldn't have all this bad shit", you're right, but we wouldn't have any of the good shit either. We wouldn't have a sense of right and wrong, nor a sense of rewards and punishments. Religion is the reason why we have the golden rule. If everyone that ever existed never believed there would be something waiting for them in the afterlife based on what they did in this life, then there would be people scattered throughout history that would make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. A lot of things we take for granted wouldn't exist, and a lot of people probably wouldn't exist. Deny it all you want, but the truth is religion helped develop human existence, and without it, things could look a whole lot worse.



I will concede that aspects of "religion" has given a moral compass to some but over the centuries that "moral compass" has been way off the mark. Look at Catholic heritage as well as Islam. Neither can claim a moral high ground but I will at least give the Catholics a bit of praise as that in the main, they have evolved with the passage of time whereas as Islam tends to sit in the past.

As for "afterlife".... once you're dead, you're dead!! There is no more an afterlife for Christians than there are virgins awaiting the martyrs of Islam.

I'm sorry but in this day and age of science, how anyone can think that there is a God controlling everything, to me that is just ludicrous. People have been committed to asylums for having imaginary friends... :lol:

[Muddy]

Wouldn't that be better than wars..... ??

God is no different than Santa - both are imaginary to supposedly make our lives better.

If there is a God, why does he allow such suffering and pain?

You go ahead and convince the believers of that.. :lol:

[RBP]

I will concede that aspects of "religion" has given a moral compass to some but over the centuries that "moral compass" has been way off the mark. Look at Catholic heritage as well as Islam. Neither can claim a moral high ground but I will at least give the Catholics a bit of praise as that in the main, they have evolved with the passage of time whereas as Islam tends to sit in the past.

As for "afterlife".... once you're dead, you're dead!! There is no more an afterlife for Christians than there are virgins awaiting the martyrs of Islam.

I'm sorry but in this day and age of science, how anyone can think that there is a God controlling everything, to me that is just ludicrous. People have been committed to asylums for having imaginary friends... :lol:

I think you're missing the point. If religion is not the source of the moral compass, what is? And please, if you have an answer for that, provide some evidence that it actually exists. That only seems fair given your position on Gods.

[DemonGeminiX]

I will concede that aspects of "religion" has given a moral compass to some but over the centuries that "moral compass" has been way off the mark. Look at Catholic heritage as well as Islam. Neither can claim a moral high ground but I will at least give the Catholics a bit of praise as that in the main, they have evolved with the passage of time whereas as Islam tends to sit in the past.

As for "afterlife".... once you're dead, you're dead!! There is no more an afterlife for Christians than there are virgins awaiting the martyrs of Islam.

I'm sorry but in this day and age of science, how anyone can think that there is a God controlling everything, to me that is just ludicrous. People have been committed to asylums for having imaginary friends... :lol:

1st point: As a wayward Catholic finding my way back to a spirituality all my own, thank you. But then again, there are skeletons in everybody's closets, from every individual that has ever existed, except maybe Jesus and Mother Theresa, and the same goes for institutions. But just like we can't be held responsible for the institution of slavery from 150 years ago, the Catholic institution can't be held for the sins of their past from way before our lifetimes. Those were human beings committing those sins long ago under different circumstances believing different things. Those human beings need to be held accountable. All human beings need to be accountable for their own deeds. It boils down to people. Period.

And I have said over and over again that Islam needs to catch up and find enlightenment, but it needed to catch up and find it yesterday. And it's not. Which is a serious problem for an offshoot Abrahamic religion that has existed since 610 CE/A.D.

Now, between those 2 paragraphs you might be noticing a hypocrisy, but I will come out and say it: Islam at large is to blame for all of the woes that its adherents have visited upon this world today. The institution as a whole has not moved far enough into intellectual and philosophical enlightenment to absolve itself of its past and current sins. And it has had plenty of time to reasonably do it.

2nd point: Afterlife: You don't know that. No one knows that. While I and others choose to believe that there is an afterlife, well there's this thing of a sticking point: no one lives to talk about it. We don't know what happens when we pass from this mortal coil. Is there a soul that lives on? Or is Shirley McClaine right? Or is there nothing at all? Who knows? It's one of those things that boils down to faith: You either believe or you don't. And seriously, what's the problem with a guy like me choosing to believe that there is if it guides my choices to the moral high ground?

And furthermore, not to be a smartass, but since you can't prove that there isn't an afterlife, your belief that there isn't one constitutes a tenant in and of itself, making your Atheism a religion in and of itself. Think about it.

I'll tell you this much: If you're right and there's not, then I'm losing nothing by believing that there is. However, if I'm right and there is... you're gonna be surprised, Bubba. And you might have some explaining to do. Or maybe not. Maybe it would be more like Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld. Not preaching or anything. Just saying, in the absence of certainties don't be so quick to discount possibilities.

Third point: Science, God, and Asylums with Imaginary friends: As a mathematician, engineer, physicist, astronomer, and computer scientist (I actually only have a degree in applied math, but I study everything related and/or resulting when and where the opportunity presents itself and when time permits, and CS was my minor in college and at current count I can use 7 different programming languages with proficiency), science can't prove everything. In fact, it can't prove how the universe started. It has theories, but theories aren't fact, and they're definitely not proof. Now assuming that we accept that the theory known as the Big Bang to be true, we still don't know what caused it. Therefore, we can't say it wasn't God. Sure, I can't say definitively that it was, but seeing as how no one's ever going to find a reason for the Big Bang and proof of that reason in our lifetimes, what's the problem with me and/or other people saying that God set it in motion? It still leaves the whole "how did it get started" question open. You need to be reminded that when science answers a question, it doesn't settle an issue, it just opens the door to more questions. Such is the nature of understanding. You know that there are molecules, but what are they made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Atomic particles. What are they made of? Sub-atomic particles. What are they made of? It's just gonna keep going. That's the true nature of science.

Furthermore, who said God's controlling everything? There is this thing called freewill. You kind of have to have choice and freewill, or the idea of faith becomes meaningless.

[Godfather]

I'll hop back in :lol: For whatever it's worth, I strictly joined the debate to stand up for the strength of morality absent of religion, not denounce anyone's faith. I was raised Catholic and have a complicated relationship with it, but I don't hate or denounce Christian beliefs.

What I will say is that even if I came back around to believing in God, I'll remain a firm believer that morality doesn't rely on religion as its compass. If God fell dead from the sky, both atheists and theists alike would by and large continue on being good people, not bound by fear of eternal damnation but by our species, sociology and neurophysiology. This stance has been denounced and belittled for thousands of years by religions, even with thinkers from Plato to Einstein refuting it. The knock on atheist's ability to have inherent, or adherence to, morality will probably always persist. As for proof... it's no easier to prove than God, but guys like Frans De Waal certainly have compelling evidence to show morality exists even in the primate world absent of religion. Social experiments seem to point out that atheists as a whole have lower rates of violence, teen pregnancy and abortion to name a few indicators of morality that religions (and everyone) holds in high esteem [1] (Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, Maryland. 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.), particularly lower violence in largely atheistic countries (Scandinavia). I'm not saying that to argue we abolish religion, just that atheists can and will hold themselves to the sames standards within the rule of law as Christians. Because ultimately faith and the Bible doesn't seem to me to be how we learn to be good or why.

Plato asked, are the actions approved by God ‘good’ to us because God commanded them and He is ultimate good? If that were the case, then anything could have been considered good – and you would not have been able to tell ‘infanticide’ from ‘love thy neighbor'? Personally I don't think that's so, partly because I don't believe religion owns the monopoly on morality, I think morality came first.


Plato argued that if you follow an ethical rule because God indicates it is good to do so, then you are not truly being ethical. The moral person would instead do that thing because it is good, and not because God informed her that it is good. Hence, if ethics is based in religion, then ethics is ultimately meaningless. Plato’s argument starts by pointing out that the gods say that some things are good. Either the gods deem them good because they have better knowledge of what is good and are therefore relating that knowledge to people, or the gods deem them good because they are the source of the goodness. If the former, then ethics does not arise from divine influences; moral truths are true regardless of what God happens to relate to people. Yet if the latter is true, then whatever the gods happen to choose as good is entirely arbitrary. According to Plato, this means that either ethics is ultimately secular and meaningful, or it is religious and ultimately arbitrary.

There are a few more main arguments around secular morality, that morality and religion are separate tenets (again, not to detract from the good that Judaeo-Christianity has done for the world)... but what can I say that you haven't heard around the dinner table at Thanksgiving? This to me is one of those debates we're all pretty dead-set on.

[The Monk]

You go ahead and convince the believers of that.. :lol:


Santa or God :?:

[The Monk]

1st point: As a wayward Catholic finding my way back to a spirituality all my own, thank you. But then again, there are skeletons in everybody's closets, from every individual that has ever existed, except maybe Jesus and Mother Theresa, and the same goes for institutions. But just like we can't be held responsible for the institution of slavery from 150 years ago, the Catholic institution can't be held for the sins of their past from way before our lifetimes. Those were human beings committing those sins long ago under different circumstances believing different things. Those human beings need to be held accountable. All human beings need to be accountable for their own deeds. It boils down to people. Period. - Do we actually know Jesus existed? To me, it's just stories from a bygone age - most recorded centuries after the death of the so called Christ!

And I have said over and over again that Islam needs to catch up and find enlightenment, No argument there! but it needed to catch up and find it yesterday. And it's not. Which is a serious problem for an offshoot Abrahamic religion that has existed since 610 CE/A.D.

Now, between those 2 paragraphs you might be noticing a hypocrisy, but I will come out and say it: Islam at large is to blame for all of the woes that its adherents have visited upon this world today. The institution as a whole has not moved far enough into intellectual and philosophical enlightenment to absolve itself of its past and current sins. And it has had plenty of time to reasonably do it.

2nd point: Afterlife: You don't know that. No one knows that. While I and others choose to believe that there is an afterlife, well there's this thing of a sticking point: no one lives to talk about it. We don't know what happens when we pass from this mortal coil. Is there a soul that lives on? Or is Shirley McClaine right? Or is there nothing at all? Who knows? It's one of those things that boils down to faith: You either believe or you don't. And seriously, what's the problem with a guy like me choosing to believe that there is if it guides my choices to the moral high ground? Why should it be faith that gives you access to the moral highground. Cannot a person just be a good and righteous person without the interference of religion?

And furthermore, not to be a smartass, but since you can't prove that there isn't an afterlife, your belief that there isn't one constitutes a tenant in and of itself, making your Atheism a religion in and of itself. Think about it.

I'll tell you this much: If you're right and there's not, then I'm losing nothing by believing that there is. However, if I'm right and there is... you're gonna be surprised, Bubba. And you might have some explaining to do. Or maybe not. Maybe it would be more like Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld. Not preaching or anything. Just saying, in the absence of certainties don't be so quick to discount possibilities.Isn't this just a Christian belief? What about all those other religions? Some believe that you return to another life back on earth....

Third point: Science, God, and Asylums with Imaginary friends: As a mathematician, engineer, physicist, astronomer, and computer scientist (I actually only have a degree in applied math, but I study everything related and/or resulting when and where the opportunity presents itself and when time permits, and CS was my minor in college and at current count I can use 7 different programming languages with proficiency), science can't prove everything. In fact, it can't prove how the universe started. It has theories, but eothries aren't fact,
theories aren't factIsn't it just a theory that there is a God - can't be proven...and they're definitely not proof. Now assuming that we accept that the theory known as the Big Bang to be true, we still don't know what caused it. Therefore, we can't say it wasn't God. Sure, I can't say definitively that it was, but seeing as how no one's ever going to find a reason for the Big Bang and proof of that reason in our lifetimes, what's the problem with me and/or other people saying that God set it in motion? It still leaves the whole "how did it get started" question open. You need to be reminded that when science answers a question, it doesn't settle an issue, it just opens the door to more questions. Such is the nature of understanding. You know that there are molecules, but what are they made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Atomic particles. What are they made of? Sub-atomic particles. What are they made of? It's just gonna keep going. That's the true nature of science.

Furthermore, who said God's controlling everything? There is this thing called freewill. You kind of have to have choice and freewill, or the idea of faith becomes meaningless. But isn't freewill supposedly given to us by God?


I'll hop back in :lol: For whatever it's worth, I never joined the debate to get into an argument over religion which is where this has turned, just the existence of morality outside of it. I was raised Catholic and have a complicated relationship with it all, but I don't hate or denounce or even question Christians personal beliefs.

That said, even if I came back around to believing in a God, I'll remain a firm believer that morality doesn't rely on religion as its compass. If God fell dead from the sky, The SKY??? Why is this belief that Heaven is in the sky?? both atheists and theists alike would by and large continue on being good people, not bound by fear of eternal damnation but by our species, sociology and neurophysiology. This stance has been denounced and belittled for thousands of years by religions, even with thinkers from Plato to Einstein refuting it. The knock on atheist's ability to have inherent, or adherence to, morality will probably always persist. As for proof... it's no easier to prove than God, but guys like Frans De Waal certainly have compelling evidence to show morality exists even in the primate world absent of religion. Social experiments seem to point out that atheists as a whole have lower rates of violence, teen pregnancy and abortion to name a few indicators of morality that religions (and everyone) holds in high esteem [1] (Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, Maryland. 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.), particularly lower violence in largely atheistic countries (Scandinavia). I'm not saying that to argue we abolish religion, just that atheists can and will hold themselves to the sames standards within the rule of law as Christians. Because ultimately faith and the Bible doesn't seem to me to be how we learn to be good or why.

Plato asked, are the actions approved by God ‘good’ to us because God commanded them and He is ultimate good? If that were the case, then anything could have been considered good – and you would not have been able to tell ‘infanticide’ from ‘love thy neighbor'? Personally I don't think that's so, partly because I don't believe religion owns the monopoly on morality even among the religious.



There are a few more main arguments around secular morality, that morality and religion are separate tenets (again, not to detract from the good that Judaeo-Christianity has done for the world)... but what can I say that you haven't heard around the dinner table at Thanksgiving? This to me is one of those debates we're all pretty dead-set on.

:?:

[Godfather]

Monk, I don't want none of the shit you're stirring up :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

Do we actually know Jesus existed? To me, it's just stories from a bygone age - most recorded centuries after the death of the so called Christ!

Did Jesus exist? I don't know. I can't prove that He did, but I believe He did. I have faith that He did. Do I need you to believe that He did? No, but I'm gonna keep talking like He did. You can either accept that about me, or you can choose not to. Either way, I'm not gonna care what you think. I made that choice for me, myself, and I.

Hey, have you heard? Maybe those stories have been edited over centuries of being recopied over and over and over again, and all the original and earlier copies disappeared. Maybe the language changed over time as the texts were all being recopied, and the text changed over time, unintentionally changing the original meaning to something either slightly or completely different. Or maybe copiers just blatantly changed shit just for the hell of it while they were recopying the texts. Did you know that these texts weren't actually originally written down? They were originally passed down orally over generations before people started writing shit down, especially in the case of the Old Testament. How often did Genesis change before it was actually written down the first time?

Bakes your noodle, doesn't it? It's maddening that people could ever believe in this crap, isn't it? That's why it's faith. It's a choice. It's not supposed to make sense. It makes sense for the person who chooses to believe it.


Why should it be faith that gives you access to the moral highground. Cannot a person just be a good and righteous person without the interference of religion?

I'm sure they could. But why do you give a shit? You're micromanaging people's reasons for doing the right thing? Who the hell made you God?


Isn't this just a Christian belief? What about all those other religions? Some believe that you return to another life back on earth....

Is Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld a Christian belief? I don't think so. I thought it was a Sci-fi book, actually... Yes, there are a whole mess of religions with a whole mess of different beliefs. And they all believe in different shit happening to you when you die. Again, you don't know for certain what happens. I don't know for certain what happens.
Just saying, in the absence of certainties don't be so quick to discount possibilities.

Who knows? Maybe Shirley MacClaine is right.

Isn't it just a theory that there is a God - can't be proven...You're asking questions challenging the concept of faith.

The difference between faith and theory: Faith is the belief in something without evidence. You have no reason to believe it at all. It's a choice. But it's a choice that has personal meaning for you.

Theories are hypotheses formulated based on past observations. They're not just thrown out there willy-nilly. They're tested over and over. You've got something to back the postulations up, you just can't say that it holds for all cases, because you haven't tested for every single possible case. In many cases you'll never prove most theories because it's not conceivably achievable. You'll never be able to test for every possible case. You're never going to prove that the Big Bang happened for certain. It's a theory that's constantly being revised, like most theories are. Every once in a blue moon, a theory becomes scientific law. But it's few and far between.

Anyway, faith and theory are two completely different animals.

God is not just a theory that can't be proven. At least it's not to me. You choose to believe that God exists. You have no real evidence that He exists. Sure there's stories and all that, but that's not reliable evidence per say. That's why it's called having faith.


But isn't freewill supposedly given to us by God?

Yes, and? How's a creator giving you the ability to make your own decisions and map out your own destiny a fundamental problem? Your noodles' really going to get baked when the machines become self-aware and Skynet starts killing everybody.

Hang on. So you're believing that God's giving us junk now? I thought you were an Atheist?

[lost in melb.]

RBP alluded to this: Religion, and more notably, the Judeo-Christian form of religion, is the reason why we have morals. Religion itself helped create societal structure. What we have today wouldn't exist without it, and before you atheists say "Yeah, we wouldn't have all this bad shit", you're right, but we wouldn't have any of the good shit either. We wouldn't have a sense of right and wrong, nor a sense of rewards and punishments. Religion is the reason why we have the golden rule. If everyone that ever existed never believed there would be something waiting for them in the afterlife based on what they did in this life, then there would be people scattered throughout history that would make Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. A lot of things we take for granted wouldn't exist, and a lot of people probably wouldn't exist. Deny it all you want, but the truth is religion helped develop human existence, and without it, things could look a whole lot worse.

Another theory is that religion arises when humanity becomes denatured and weak - and needs 'rules' for moral guidance, rather than intuition. But, carry on...

[The Monk]

Did Jesus exist? I don't know. I can't prove that He did, but I believe He did. I have faith that He did. Do I need you to believe that He did? No, but I'm gonna keep talking like He did. You can either accept that about me, or you can choose not to. Either way, I'm not gonna care what you think. I made that choice for me, myself, and I.

Hey, have you heard? Maybe those stories have been edited over centuries of being recopied over and over and over again, and all the original and earlier copies disappeared. Maybe the language changed over time as the texts were all being recopied, and the text changed over time, unintentionally changing the original meaning to something either slightly or completely different. Or maybe copiers just blatantly changed shit just for the hell of it while they were recopying the texts. Did you know that these texts weren't actually originally written down? They were originally passed down orally over generations before people started writing shit down, especially in the case of the Old Testament. How often did Genesis change before it was actually written down the first time?

Bakes your noodle, doesn't it? It's maddening that people could ever believe in this crap, isn't it? That's why it's faith. It's a choice. It's not supposed to make sense. It makes sense for the person who chooses to believe it.



I'm sure they could. But why do you give a shit? You're micromanaging people's reasons for doing the right thing? Who the hell made you God?



Is Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld a Christian belief? I don't think so. I thought it was a Sci-fi book, actually... Yes, there are a whole mess of religions with a whole mess of different beliefs. And they all believe in different shit happening to you when you die. Again, you don't know for certain what happens. I don't know for certain what happens.

Who knows? Maybe Shirley MacClaine is right.
You're asking questions challenging the concept of faith.

The difference between faith and theory: Faith is the belief in something without evidence. You have no reason to believe it at all. It's a choice. But it's a choice that has personal meaning for you.

Theories are hypotheses formulated based on past observations. They're not just thrown out there willy-nilly. They're tested over and over. You've got something to back the postulations up, you just can't say that it holds for all cases, because you haven't tested for every single possible case. In many cases you'll never prove most theories because it's not conceivably achievable. You'll never be able to test for every possible case. You're never going to prove that the Big Bang happened for certain. It's a theory that's constantly being revised, like most theories are. Every once in a blue moon, a theory becomes scientific law. But it's few and far between.

Anyway, faith and theory are two completely different animals.

God is not just a theory that can't be proven. At least it's not to me. You choose to believe that God exists. You have no real evidence that He exists. Sure there's stories and all that, but that's not reliable evidence per say. That's why it's called having faith.



Yes, and? How's a creator giving you the ability to make your own decisions and map out your own destiny a fundamental problem? Your noodles' really going to get baked when the machines become self-aware and Skynet starts killing everybody.

Hang on. So you're believing that God's giving us junk now? I thought you were an Atheist?



Fair enough.... You put forward good points to support your views.

I do not wish to denigrate your faith, I just find it difficult to accept.

We'll agree to disagree ??? :lol:

[RBP]

I'll hop back in :lol: For whatever it's worth, I strictly joined the debate to stand up for the strength of morality absent of religion, not denounce anyone's faith. I was raised Catholic and have a complicated relationship with it, but I don't hate or denounce Christian beliefs.

What I will say is that even if I came back around to believing in God, I'll remain a firm believer that morality doesn't rely on religion as its compass. If God fell dead from the sky, both atheists and theists alike would by and large continue on being good people, not bound by fear of eternal damnation but by our species, sociology and neurophysiology. This stance has been denounced and belittled for thousands of years by religions, even with thinkers from Plato to Einstein refuting it. The knock on atheist's ability to have inherent, or adherence to, morality will probably always persist. As for proof... it's no easier to prove than God, but guys like Frans De Waal certainly have compelling evidence to show morality exists even in the primate world absent of religion. Social experiments seem to point out that atheists as a whole have lower rates of violence, teen pregnancy and abortion to name a few indicators of morality that religions (and everyone) holds in high esteem [1] (Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society. Baltimore, Maryland. 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.), particularly lower violence in largely atheistic countries (Scandinavia). I'm not saying that to argue we abolish religion, just that atheists can and will hold themselves to the sames standards within the rule of law as Christians. Because ultimately faith and the Bible doesn't seem to me to be how we learn to be good or why.

Plato asked, are the actions approved by God ‘good’ to us because God commanded them and He is ultimate good? If that were the case, then anything could have been considered good – and you would not have been able to tell ‘infanticide’ from ‘love thy neighbor'? Personally I don't think that's so, partly because I don't believe religion owns the monopoly on morality, I think morality came first.



There are a few more main arguments around secular morality, that morality and religion are separate tenets (again, not to detract from the good that Judaeo-Christianity has done for the world)... but what can I say that you haven't heard around the dinner table at Thanksgiving? This to me is one of those debates we're all pretty dead-set on.

I understand the ancient philosophy. I am just not sure I see the modern practicality, in that there is an assumption in that philosophy the goodness and morality have one definition. This is particularly evident in modern economic systems that didn't exist for Plato to contemplate. Secular society based on a common sense of morality and goodness is Marxism, where there are no social class struggles. Marx would argue that the reason we don't have the utopian social systems is that morality developed to reflect ruling class objectives to control, not the innate and collective morality of humans. When attempted, communist models clearly didn't work.

I'll stop there to give you time to pull up statistics (from Bernie?) on the clear superiority of Scandinavian democratic socialist models.

[Muddy]

Ya'll be way over my head now.. Im going to look at some tacos. :lol:

[lost in melb.]

https://rlv.zcache.com/taco_jesus_iphone_cover-r436647e72b864d1b8fe50e333d2ce71e_vx34d_8byvr_324. jpg