France wtf!?

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
@Marin,

But let's humor the idea for a bit. Since you have the Bible, the Quran and the Torah on your side, I choose the seven books of Harry Potter to form my own religion.

The Prophet Joanne Rowling, more commonly known as J. K. Rowling, was chosen as the messenger of God and wrote down God's revelations in seven different books. These stories tell us about a secret world beyond ours, the world of different magical creatures, such as gnomes, giants, witches and wizards. The young Prophet, Harry Potter, survived a horrible and cowardly assassination attempt by the evil Voldemort, sent by the Devil himself. In the end, many years later, in the name of God, the Prophet Harry Potter defeated this evil and brought peace to the world once again.

This is all real, because these seven books told me that. "You have no snow ball chance in hell to prove me wrong", as you would put it.
I was going to stay out of this, but this is plain wrong and based off of a flawed analogy. I'm not going to address the rest of the nonsense in the post. A messenger brings with them proofs of their propehethood. The book itself is the book of law, to live your liefe by, once the messenger is accepted. When somebody would claim propehethood, the sceptics would ask for proof, and they would present miracles as proof. Miracles are that which defies the natural law of the universe, the law of cause an effect. The people would then know this is not of the natural world and would believe that the person is a messenger. The fact that you assume 10s of thousands people witnessed it are retarded that they believed because somebody just said it and then decided to spread the message is wrong.

JK Rowling doesn't fulfill the conditions and therefore can't be taken as a Prophet, writing a book isn't enough she would need to provide proof of propehethood.

As for homosexuals, there's two ways to look at them. If you don't want to believe in God as the source of morality then that only leaves nature. And if we're being real, then know they're natures rejects. A deficient species, nature decided to cast aside, they weren't worthy of passing on their genes so made them obsolete via turning them to homosexuality. They should be treated as such under the principles of survival of the fittest and natural selection. If you want to know more on this you can go through the threads. There exist threads on these issues, I'm too lazy(lazy and busy I don't have time for debates) to look for them and link them.

Both of you can carry on with your debate now, but a word of advice for both of you:

@ArabianLuffy if you're going to debate somebody start by defining something And setting the rules. A debate can never reach a conclusion or start unless definitions are provided. That way confusion can be avoided and it doesn't become a circular debate.

@ArabianLuffy Hudd is not applicable to somebody who's not baligh, Aaqil(sound rational faculty) and muslim. A mental illness automatically removes the sound rational faculty. Are you arguing for real or just trolling, Akhi?
 
Last edited:

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I was going to stay out of this, but this is plain wrong and based off of a flawed analogy. I'm not going to address the rest of the nonsense in the post. A messenger brings with them proofs of their propehethood. The book itself is the book of law, to live your liefe by, once the messenger is accepted. When somebody would claim propehethood, the sceptics would ask for proof, and they would present miracles as proof. Miracles are that which defies the natural law of the universe, the law of cause an effect. The people would then know this is not of the natural world and would believe that the person is a messenger. The fact that you assume 10s of thousands people witnessed it are retarded that they believed because somebody just said it and then decided to spread the message is wrong.
What you said about the prophets proving themselves may be nice and dandy for the people who have been around at the time of the prophet but does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of people who either died before the prophet, were born after his death or were simply not around when the prophet did these miracles. You certainly weren't around back then nor has anyone here so none of us have witnessed any of these miracles. You are aware of this and go on to say that we should believe they really happened because a large number of people believed these miracles back in the day. But this leaves a lot to be desired.

First of all, a christian such as myself could easily say the same for Jesus. Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, turned water into wine and rose from the dead after being tortured and crucified. Considering how Christianity is a religion much older than Islam and since it has a lot more people following it you would be silly to claim all these people who believed Jesus were gullible right? Before you retaliate that muslims accept Jesus, I have to tell you that the vast majority of muslims reject the view that Jesus was killed and rose from the dead (instead it merely appeared to the romans that they killed Jesus but it was somebody else while Jesus was lifted to the heavens alive).

We have two religions claiming different things, both talking about miracles yet they're both claiming that we should believe them because many people found these miracles persuasive. In case you misunderstood the muddy relationship between Jesus' crucifixion and claims of ressurection and Islam I'm going to give a different example. How about Buddhism or Hinduism. Plenty of gods, plenty of miracles and certainly plenty of people who found them persuasive yet they were all there long before Islam or any other abrahamic religion. Shouldn't we believe their followers to be reasonable?

Why do you accept the miracles of Islam but reject those of Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion when they all satisfy your criteria of many people finding the supposed miracles plausible?

As for homosexuals, there's two ways to look at them. If you don't want to believe in God as the source of morality then that only leaves nature. And if we're being real, then know they're natures rejects. A deficient species, nature decided to cast aside, they weren't worthy of passing on their genes so made them obsolete via turning them to homosexuality. They should be treated as such under the principles of survival of the fittest and natural selection. If you want to know more on this you can go through the threads. There exist threads on these issues, I'm too lazy(lazy and busy I don't have time for debates) to look for them and link them.
Homosexuals aren't a species of their own but members of existing species... They're not cast aside at all since there doesn't really seem to be much of a discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual members of a pack in the animal kingdom. A homosexual member may be just as dominant or strong as a heterosexual one so its survival isn't going to be affected by its sexual orientation. The only difference is that they won't be able to leave offspring, but that's not really going to "cast homosexuality aside" since homosexuality isn't transferred from a parent to child and heterosexual parents can have a homosexual child. (That's how things are most of the time.) There's really no negative impact of natural selection on homosexuality in itself. As far as nature is concerned, homosexual members of a species are an efficient mechanism for balancing the conflicts when it comes to mating.

Even if homosexuality was somehow disadvantageous why should that mean anything here? We're talking about legal rights in this thread, which are a part of a program for building a more stable and comfortable society. Why should some biological disadvantage make someone a second class citizen?
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
What you said about the prophets proving themselves may be nice and dandy for the people who have been around at the time of the prophet but does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of people who either died before the prophet, were born after his death or were simply not around when the prophet did these miracles. You certainly weren't around back then nor has anyone here so none of us have witnessed any of these miracles. You are aware of this and go on to say that we should believe they really happened because a large number of people believed these miracles back in the day. But this leaves a lot to be desired.
They witnessed them and had no reason to lie, especially in a mass numbers. Do you take them to be retarded? It's the same way we believe a work of literature attributed to an author is legitimate because we have testimony for it. The reason we accept their trustworthiness is because those before us did and transmitted it to us. That's how we receive knowledge so yes it does a lot for us.

First of all, a christian such as myself could easily say the same for Jesus. Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, turned water into wine and rose from the dead after being tortured and crucified. Considering how Christianity is a religion much older than Islam and since it has a lot more people following it you would be silly to claim all these people who believed Jesus were gullible right? Before you retaliate that muslims accept Jesus, I have to tell you that the vast majority of muslims reject the view that Jesus was killed and rose from the dead (instead it merely appeared to the romans that they killed Jesus but it was somebody else while Jesus was lifted to the heavens alive).
I normally don't address deflected points because they lead to a tangent, but I'll address this one. There's a difference between following and mass testimony/witnessing. The whole of the church is based upon the teaching of Paul's doctrines, who didnt witness nor is a disciple(this is why I didn't want to address it because we'll end up going on a tangent). The Muslims believe In Jesus, yes they believe in his miracles, but they don't accept the crucifixion and believe God raised him up without it. Then there's a group that believe he was tortured and crucified but God raised him up he didn't die. Both believe in his return, but again this is quite point. Age has no bearing on the validity of a truth, something older is likely more corruptable though. And you find the corruption in the textual differences and versions of the bible. There's nothing preserving it's integrity, the muslims don't have that issue with the book.

We have two religions claiming different things, both talking about miracles yet they're both claiming that we should believe them because many people found these miracles persuasive. In case you misunderstood the muddy relationship between Jesus' crucifixion and claims of ressurection and Islam I'm going to give a different example. How about Buddhism or Hinduism. Plenty of gods, plenty of miracles and certainly plenty of people who found them persuasive yet they were all there long before Islam or any other abrahamic religion. Shouldn't we believe their followers to be reasonable?
Except the difference is Paul was the founder of the doctrine(and he wasn't a disciple), and then you have multiple versions of the bible when you decide which ones correct then we could debate it. The corruptability factor of the book also plays a factor on deciding whether somethings acceptable or not. The only certainty is Jesus did exist and had miracles and was met by the people. They believed in him and his call to the father(God). You're confusing the two for one another.

Buddhism and Hinduism, I won't comment on as I'm not one of them. But the debate will go to is there one God or multiple Gods. Do Hindus believe in one God and the avatars represent different aspects of his power, etc. Can God be born etc? Can the uncreated exist within creation? etc. Theologically, and rationally such beliefs are flawed and unacceptable.

Why do you accept the miracles of Islam but reject those of Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion when they all satisfy your criteria of many people finding the supposed miracles plausible?
Already addressed above, I said it before there's a difference between witnesses and followers. There's also the rational aspect to it + the corruptability factor of the texts. These are deflections and they'll draw away from the dsicssuion so I'm not going to be addressing any of them


Homosexuals aren't a species of their own but members of existing species... They're not cast aside at all since there doesn't really seem to be much of a discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual members of a pack in the animal kingdom. A homosexual member may be just as dominant or strong as a heterosexual one so its survival isn't going to be affected by its sexual orientation. The only difference is that they won't be able to leave offspring, but that's not really going to "cast homosexuality aside" since homosexuality isn't transferred from a parent to child and heterosexual parents can have a homosexual child. (That's how things are most of the time.) There's really no negative impact of natural selection on homosexuality in itself. As far as nature is concerned, homosexual members of a species are an efficient mechanism for balancing the conflicts when it comes to mating.
The primary purpose of life under the theory of evolution is to evolve, become superior to the previous form and survive to further the species. Those that nature strips of the ability to pass on their genes are defunct. Nature deemed them unworthy of passing on their genes, their genes will die out with them unless they mate with one that can carry on their genes. In otherwords they have to engage in the natural bioligical processes.

I should've been clearer and said a defunct branch of the species. Anyway the questions are should a defunct creature have the same rights as one which isn't defunct. Why should the two be treated the same or have equality? Which part of natural selection or survival of the fittest allows for this? Why should we be inclusive towards that which is deemed unworthy?

Even if homosexuality was somehow disadvantageous why should that mean anything here? We're talking about legal rights in this thread, which are a part of a program for building a more stable and comfortable society. Why should some biological disadvantage make someone a second class citizen?
Already addressed above, giving equal rights to deficient creature undermines the survival of the fittest and natural selection. It removes the disticntion between the one chosen to pass on it's lineage(favoured by nature) and one who isn't(not favoured by nature/discriminated against). Nature deems them unworthy and we're(some of us) trying to make them feel worthy(that itself is deficiency). If anything we're(some of us) trying to undermine the fabric of society and the natural order.
 
Last edited:

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
They witnessed them and had no reason to lie, especially in a mass numbers.
How do you know they had no reason to lie? There are plenty of reasons people lied about supernatural claims to take advantage of the gullible or even as a power play. Regardless, I could say the same about every other religion's prophet and his followers. It's an easy claim to make and not at all persuasive.

It's the same way we believe a work of literature attributed to an author is legitimate because we have testimony for it. The reason we accept their trustworthiness is because those before us did and transmitted it to us. That's how we receive knowledge so yes it does a lot for us.
Nope, textual criticism is a very real discipline that determines the nature of a text on far more than just there being a testimony for it. A text being referred to as true by a lot of people is also not a sign of its trustworthiness. Rather the question is who is writing it, in what context, for what reason etc. Most scholars would recognize the writings of roman historians which enjoyed a good reputation, had corroborating material etc as reliable while the writings of an ambiguous self-proclaimed prophet who couldn't even write and was drawing inspiration from an unverifiable event such as divine revelation will be taken with a grain of salt.

I normally don't address deflected points because they lead to a tangent, but I'll address this one. There's a difference between following and mass testimony/witnessing. The whole of the church is based upon the teaching of Paul's doctrines, who didnt witness nor is a disciple(this is why I didn't want to address it because we'll end up going on a tangent). The Muslims believe In Jesus, yes they believe in his miracles, but they don't accept the crucifixion and believe God raised him up without it. Then there's a group that believe he was tortured and crucified but God raised him up he didn't die. Both believe in his return, but again this is quite point. Age has no bearing on the validity of a truth, something older is likely more corruptable though. And you find the corruption in the textual differences and versions of the bible. There's nothing preserving it's integrity, the muslims don't have that issue with the book.
Funny because Islam itself originated from a private revelation to the prophet. The prophet certainly wasn't there when the universe was created, when Adam and Eve existed and so on which means he wasn't a witness either. This situation is the same as with Paul who too had become a convert through divine revelation and not by witnessing all these things. The difference, of course, is that Paul was a Roman/Jewish citizen who lived at the time of early Christianity and had a lot more contact with it and it's followers than Muhammad ever could which actually makes Paul a more credible source on events regarding Jesus' life than the Quran.

Except the difference is Paul was the founder of the doctrine(and he wasn't a disciple), and then you have multiple versions of the bible when you decide which ones correct then we could debate it. The corruptability factor of the book also plays a factor on deciding whether somethings acceptable or not.
The biblical texts haven't been corrupted in any significant way and they certainly haven't been corrupted to the extent that historical a private testimony which comes 600 years later would count as a more valuable historical source on events reported in them.

The only certainty is Jesus did exist and had miracles and was met by the people. They believed in him and his call to the father(God). You're confusing the two for one another.
As a matter of fact, scholars unanimously agree that Jesus was crucified. As far as history is concerned Jesus died on the cross and that's it. What happened afterwards may be up to debate (one can still be a confident atheist and deny the resurrection without denying the historical facts) but the death by crucifixion which your religion denies is certain to have happened.

Buddhism and Hinduism, I won't comment on as I'm not one of them. But the debate will go to is there one God or multiple Gods. Do Hindus believe in one God and the avatars represent different aspects of his power, etc. Can God be born etc? Can the uncreated exist within creation? etc. Theologically, and rationally such beliefs are flawed and unacceptable.
So you're going to resort to reason to determine what is and isn't rationally acceptable now that your argument from authority has failed you? Cool, at least we agree that it takes more than just hear-say to convince someone that your views are true.

Already addressed above, I said it before there's a difference between witnesses and followers. There's also the rational aspect to it + the corruptability factor of the texts. These are deflections and they'll draw away from the dsicssuion so I'm not going to be addressing any of them
I do wonder where you are getting the information that your prophet's miracles had so many witnesses? And if you didn't want to deflect you shouldn't have brought up religion in general tbh.

The primary purpose of life under the theory of evolution is to evolve, become superior to the previous form and survive to further the species.
Nope, there is no "primary purpose of life" under evolution. Life is an accidental byproduct and the following forms need not be superior to the previous at all. Did you know chicken are modern day descendants of dinosaurs? They survived, but they hardly are superior.

Those that nature strips of the ability to pass on their genes are defunct. Nature deemed them unworthy of passing on their genes, their genes will die out with them unless they mate with one that can carry on their genes. In otherwords they have to engage in the natural bioligical processes.
And this has nothing to do with nature weeding out homosexuality as the passing of genes has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality will keep existing even if no homosexual ever leaves any offspring.

Anyway the questions are should a defunct creature have the same rights as one which isn't defunct. Why should the two be treated the same or have equality? Which part of natural selection or survival of the fittest allows for this? Why should we be inclusive towards that which is deemed unworthy?

Already addressed above, giving equal rights to deficient creature undermines the survival of the fittest and natural selection. It removes the disticntion between the one chosen to pass on it's lineage and one who isn't. Nature deems them unworthy and we're(some of us) trying to make them feel worthy(that itself is deficiency). If anything we're(some of us) trying to undermine the fabric of society and the natural order.
But my point was why should we care for what happens in nature when creating our society? It's ours after all.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
How do you know they had no reason to lie? There are plenty of reasons people lied about supernatural claims to take advantage of the gullible or even as a power play. Regardless, I could say the same about every other religion's prophet and his followers. It's an easy claim to make and not at all persuasive.
The same is true for everybody else who claims it, you're right. Anyhow none of that makes somebody a liar, a claim they have plenty of reasons to lie, requires objective evidence so I'll wait for it.



Nope, textual criticism is a very real discipline that determines the nature of a text on far more than just there being a testimony for it. A text being referred to as true by a lot of people is also not a sign of its trustworthiness. Rather the question is who is writing it, in what context, for what reason etc. Most scholars would recognize the writings of roman historians which enjoyed a good reputation, had corroborating material etc as reliable while the writings of an ambiguous self-proclaimed prophet who couldn't even write and was drawing inspiration from an unverifiable event such as divine revelation will be taken with a grain of salt.
Who said he was ambiguous, substantiate the claim? When there's mass testimony on his existence, people had met him and documented his life? Again you can't distinguish between a Prophet and a common man. If you claim a person is sent by God, he produces miracles and people beleive in him, they beleive in the reveleation he receives. A Prophet isn't writing something down on hearsay, he's meant to be receiving revelation(from the unseen). Your point on "the Roman historian" holds no weight. As you clearly missed the point, his existence is verifiable by transmition of knowledge. Knowledge is transmitted and then verified. You're indirectly acknowledging his existence but denying the scripture, that itself is flawed reasoning.


Funny because Islam itself originated from a private revelation to the prophet. The prophet certainly wasn't there when the universe was created, when Adam and Eve existed and so on which means he wasn't a witness either. This situation is the same as with Paul who too had become a convert through divine revelation and not by witnessing all these things. The difference, of course, is that Paul was a Roman/Jewish citizen who lived at the time of early Christianity and had a lot more contact with it and it's followers than Muhammad ever could which actually makes Paul a more credible source on events regarding Jesus' life than the Quran.
Again you don't even know the difference between a messenger and Paul. The messenger is sent by God with proofs(miracles) and calls to God and the book. He doesn't need to witness he's shown by God, because God sends him Jesus had miracles Paul didn't, Moses had miracles Paul didn't, Paul even challenged one of direct disciples if I'm not mistaken. Being closer to the follower of a religion doesn't make your claim more valid. Being a messenger and receiving a book does. So I'll give you an example, let's say the Jews say something about Moses. David comes with the psalms and says something contrary to them about Moses. David over rules them because he's a messenger. And the same is true if Jesus says something about either of them, it would be more accurate than their followers(latter days) since he's a messenger.


The biblical texts haven't been corrupted in any significant way and they certainly haven't been corrupted to the extent that historical a private testimony which comes 600 years later would count as a more valuable historical source on events reported in them.
Of course they have, they can't even agree on Jesus's last words on the cross or how many angels came to the tomb. And to dismiss something as a "private testimony" 600 years later is a pathetic claim. Moses received the commandments in "private" is doesn't invalidate their legitimacy. Try not to be petty. You can't even agree on which version of the Bible is right, this is why I didn't want to talk about such things.


As a matter of fact, scholars unanimously agree that Jesus was crucified. As far as history is concerned Jesus died on the cross and that's it. What happened afterwards may be up to debate (one can still be a confident atheist and deny the resurrection without denying the historical facts) but the death by crucifixion which your religion denies is certain to have happened.
Actually they don't unanimously agree on it. But, anyway if you must know muslims believe in a crucifixion, they believe that the one that came to kill him was transformed into Jesus and crucified while Jesus was raised to heaven. They don't believe the messiah was crucified.



So you're going to resort to reason to determine what is and isn't rationally acceptable now that your argument from authority has failed you? Cool, at least we agree that it takes more than just hear-say to convince someone that your views are true.
God's existence must be supported through reason. Following of a messenger then goes into other territory.

I do wonder where you are getting the information that your prophet's miracles had so many witnesses? And if you didn't want to deflect you shouldn't have brought up religion in general tbh.
I didn't bring it up, Brandy did and I was distinguishing between JK and a Prophet/messenger. The only one who took it off on a tangent was you.


Nope, there is no "primary purpose of life" under evolution. Life is an accidental byproduct and as far the following forms need not be superior to the previous at all. Did you know chicken are modern day descendants of dinosaurs? They survived, but they hardly are superior.
They believe it came into existence by chance, but it's primary purpose is to survive to live on and pass on the genes. I'm not going to go into transitional species as that'll be another topic altogether. But nevertheless for argument sake, I'll accept if for now. The Chicken is superior to the dinosaur it took the form necessary to survive to live on while the defunct species became extinct.


And this has nothing to do with nature weeding out homosexuality as the passing of genes has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality will keep existing even if no homosexual ever leaves any offspring.
Of course it does, they're natures rejects Nature doesn't want them to pass on their genes, case in point.


But my point was why should we care for what happens in nature when creating our society? It's ours after all.
We should care if we believe in the evolution of the species, and Darwinian theory. I've already answered why we should care in the previous post. It doesn't matter which way you learn in reasoning if God doesn't consider it worthy, for those who believe in scripture, and for eveloutionist nature doesn't give biological functions for furthering of their lineage. Why then should we support it and make it normal in our societies, why should we encourage the spread of deficiency which is against the natural order.

I'm done here, I don't really have time for debates which is why I don't engage in them. I was highlighting to the other two have rules in place for a debate.
 
Last edited:

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The same is true for everybody else who claims it, you're right. Anyhow none of that makes somebody a liar, a claim they have plenty of reasons to lie, requires objective evidence so I'll wait for it.
Ah, I'm not claiming they did lie. I'm just saying you need to back up your claim that there was no reason to lie.

Who said he was ambiguous, substantiate the claim?
I did. Ambiguous as in nobody cared to write much about him nor did he create any work until he came out as a prophet.

When there's mass testimony on his existence, people had met him and documented his life?
I'm not denying his existence.

Again you can't distinguish between a Prophet and a common man. If you claim a person is sent by God, he produces miracles and people beleive in him, they beleive in the reveleation he receives. A Prophet isn't writing something down on hearsay, he's meant to be receiving revelation(from the unseen). Your point on "the Roman historian" holds no weight. As you clearly missed the point, his existence is verifiable by transmition of knowledge. Knowledge is transmitted and then verified. You're indirectly acknowledging his existence but denying the scripture, that itself is flawed reasoning.
Why does my point hold no weight? It's a fact that the writings of Roman historians are universally accepted as historical while the contents of Quran, especially those reporting miracles are not.

Again you don't even know the difference between a messenger and Paul. The messenger is sent by God with proofs(miracles) and calls to God and the book. He doesn't need to witness he's shown by God, because God sends him Jesus had miracles Paul didn't, Moses had miracles Paul didn't, Paul even challenged one of direct disciples if I'm not mistaken. Being closer to the follower of a religion doesn't make your claim more valid. Being a messenger and receiving a book does.
First off, different religions have different criteria for what makes a messenger so kindly stop acting out on that point. Second, the distinction is irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that the source of knowledge for both was divine revelation. Paul was reported to have had a direct encounter with the risen Christ while your prophet was greeted by an angel. Neither were witnesses to the events or "truths" they proclaimed. It was an answer to your claim that Paul was somehow in an inferior position of knowledge compared to your prophet.

Of course they have, they can't even agree on Jesus's last words on the cross or how many angels came to the tomb.
That's an example of two different texts written by two different authors on two separate occasions contradicting each other. Furthermore, they contradict each other in secondary details while the core event is common to them all. Scholars don't see this as a problem at all, in fact they expect it.

And to dismiss something as a "private testimony" 600 years later is a pathetic claim.
The Quran was revealed in private to your prophet by an angel. It happened 600 years after the event it talked about. That's a fact, not a pathetic claim.

Moses received the commandments in "private" is doesn't invalidate their legitimacy. Try not to be petty. You can't even agree on which version of the Bible is right, this is why I didn't want to talk about such things.
The story of Moses is widely contested among historians so that's not a good example of historical accuracy. There is no way to determine historically that Moses did actually get those commandments from God.

Regardless, it's a basic principle that the earlier the source is to the event the more reliable it is. If you don't like that you'll have to take it up with historians, not me.

Actually they don't unanimously agree on it.
The vast majority of the academia considers it a certain fact. Just like how a vast majority of biologists consider evolution a fact. Sure, you'll find people claiming Jesus wasn't crucified or never even existed just like you'll find people claiming that the world was created in 6 days or that the Earth is flat but these are all irrelevant minorities serving up crackpot theories rather than actual scholarship so if you wanna side with them you kinda end all meaningful conversation.

But, anyway if you must know muslims believe in a crucifixion, they believe that the one that came to kill him was transformed into Jesus and crucified while Jesus was raised to heaven. They don't believe the messiah was crucified.
Which is an unverifiable ad-hoc theory that goes against all evidence we have and which no scholar that amounts to anything accepts. You'll have to excuse the nonbelievers for not accepting it.

God's existence must be supported through reason. Following of a messenger then goes into other territory.
Ok, so someone bringing up the story of Lot to an atheist will amount to nothing unless they first prove their God exists. Basically what @Brandy has been saying. Cool.

I didn't bring it up, Brandy did and I was distinguishing between JK and a Prophet/messenger. The only one who took it off on a tangent was you.
Pretty sure one of you two brought up Islamic laws first. Regardless, I only joined in the discussion that was already in place. I warned everyone that it could be off-topic which will probably get us all in trouble but w/e.

Of course it does, they're natures rejects Nature doesn't want them to pass on their genes, case and point.
But as I said, not passing on genes will not stop homosexuality from occuring in other members, so it's not true that nature is aimed in supressing it in any particular way.

We should care if we believe in the evolution of the species, and Darwinian theory.
Not really. We can believe evolution happened (as we should) along with it being completely unguided and random (as many people do) and we can still not base our legal systems on it (as is the case).

I've already answered why we should care in the previous post. It doesn't matter which way you learn in reasoning if God doesn't consider it worthy, for those who believe in scripture, and for eveloutionist nature doesn't give biological functions for furthering of their lineage. Why then should we support it and make it normal in our societies, why should we encourage the spread of deficiency which is against the natural order.
But again, nature isn't supressing homosexuality at all. Homosexuality has been around and will remain around. It's a perfectly natural phenomenon and the closest thing you've done to making an argument against that is you've said that homosexuals can't reproduce. This simply has nothing to do with it being unnatural tho, that simply doesn't follow.

I'm done here, I don't really have time for debates which is why I don't engage in them. I was highlighting to the other two have rules in place for a debate.
Fine by me, but you don't really get to choose how other people will debate.
 
Last edited:

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Ah, I'm not claiming they did lie. I'm just saying you need to back up your claim that there was no reason to lie.
Why would I need to back up the claim, when there's no need for them to lie? Only when they're accused of lying is evidence required. It's called innocent toll proven guilty.


I did. Ambiguous as in nobody cared to write much about him nor did he create any work until he came out as a prophet.
Of course, everybody is ambiguous until they're worth writing about. Why would they hold relevance to the world at large before that point?



I'm not denying his existence.[/QUOTE

Good then there's no argument.

Why does my point hold no weight? It's a fact that the writings of Roman historians are universally accepted as historical while the contents of Quran, especially those reporting miracles are not.
Because you're trying to compare restricted historical reports with scripture. The two share no similarity. Scripture by its nature is meant to be divine(discussed God, morality, ethics, divine laws, some events of the past to teach you something, miracles etc) and not time limited. While somebody writing about what he's seeing is just that a historical record Why would it include miracles?


First off, different religions have different criteria for what makes a messenger so kindly stop acting out on that point. Second, the distinction is irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that the source of knowledge for both was divine revelation. Paul was reported to have had a direct encounter with the risen Christ while your prophet was greeted by an angel. Neither were witnesses to the events or "truths" they proclaimed. It was an answer to your claim that Paul was somehow in an inferior position of knowledge compared to your prophet.
I would accept what you're saying, but Paul didn't bring with him proof his inspiration was from the divine? That he was a divine messenger? Instead the gospels(divinely inspired) are full of holes, disagreements, there are numerous versions of the bible even.


That's an example of two different texts written by two different authors on two separate occasions contradicting each other. Furthermore, they contradict each other in secondary details while the core event is common to them all. Scholars don't see this as a problem at all, in fact they expect it.
It is a problem when the Gospel is supposed to be the source of knowledge, it brings its accuracy into account. That's just the tip of the iceberg by the way.


The Quran was revealed in private to your prophet by an angel. It happened 600 years after the event it talked about. That's a fact, not a pathetic claim.
That's not what happened he received revelation and was told to start his mission. The same way Moses was alone and was told to start his mission. The revelation of the Qur'an happened differently sometimes in Public, sometimes in private. It was revealed as when required. That's why yours is a pathetic claim, I hope it's clearer now.


The story of Moses is widely contested among historians so that's not a good example of historical accuracy. There is no way to determine historically that Moses did actually get those commandments from God.
I would agree with you if the Gospel contested it, does it? Nobody was with Moses when he received the commandments and Jesus says he didn't come to abrogate the old law(new testament). You may search it up if you like.

Regardless, it's a basic principle that the earlier the source is to the event the more reliable it is. If you don't like that you'll have to take it up with historians, not me.
I never disagreed with the principle, I gave you an example that if a messenger comes with something then he overrules any narrative. The reason were already given in my previous post, so I'm not going to repeat them.


[QUOTS]The vast majority of the academia considers it a certain fact. Just like how a vast majority of biologists consider evolution a fact. Sure, you'll find people claiming Jesus wasn't crucified or never even existed just like you'll find people claiming that the world was created in 6 days or that the Earth is flat but these are all irrelevant minorities serving up crackpot theories rather than actual scholarship so if you wanna side with them you kinda end all meaningful conversation.
Well they clearly don't since there's dispute on his existence and not by fringe minorities. As for Biologist they work off of the premise evolution took place and base there studies off of it. A theory doesn't equal fact even if some may believe it.


Which is an unverifiable ad-hoc theory that goes against all evidence we have and which no scholar that amounts to anything accepts. You'll have to excuse the nonbelievers for not accepting it.
Well clearly your evidence is disputed by the non believers who don't believe he existed. So forgive me for being "ad-hoc."



[QUOTS]Ok, so someone bringing up the story of Lot to an atheist will amount to nothing unless they first prove their God exists. Basically what @Brandy has been saying. Cool.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much, but I didn't bring it up so how that's relevant to this.. is beyond me. And that's why I didn't defend Arabian Luffy's claims.



Pretty sure one of you two brought up Islamic laws first. Regardless, I only joined in the discussion that was already in place. I warned everyone that it could be off-topic which will probably get us all in trouble but w/e.
If you had been following the discussion you'd know it wasn't me. I interjected to agree with Brandy on one and explain something on the second, while telling off Arabian Luffy. And yes off topics do get people into trouble.



But as I said, not passing on genes will not stop homosexuality from occuring in other members, so it's not true that nature is aimed in supressing it in any particular way.
You're wrong here, nature is aimed at suppressing such individuals from passing on their genes. So natures saying to them they're deficient or not worthy.


Not really. We can believe evolution happened (as we should) along with it being completely unguided and random (as many people do) and we can still not base our legal systems on it (as is the case).
Not really following you here, because your arguing against it here, if you're basing legal systems off of it then you'd be living in a brutal world. Dawkins wrote an article on it, so I don't see your point.


But again, nature isn't supressing homosexuality at all. Homosexuality has been around and will remain around. It's a perfectly natural phenomenon and the closest thing you've done to making an argument against that is you've said that homosexuals can't reproduce. This simply has nothing to do with it being unnatural tho, that simply doesn't follow.
Now your feigning ignorance, nature is suppressing Homosexuals from passing on their genes. Nature is saying they're rejects because they can't fulfill the biological processes. By natures standards they're not equal to biologically efficent people. Of course it's unnatural, since the human body exists with reproductive organs for a reason. The two ways to look at it are depending on your view:
1. Since nature made them gay and they weren't worthy of passing on their genes then they shouldn't hold the same position or rights as staright people.

2. If it's not nature and they do it out of choice, they're going against their natural biology and are in need of help, sympathy and guidance back to the natural processes. The only reason, if the first case isn't true, is that they suffer from a deficiency of somesorts, whether it's mental or emotional. That way they can be productive members of society and fit in with the rest.

Either way it goes against them.

Fine by me, but you don't really get to choose how other people will debate.
I never chose how they debate, I gave them instruction on basic protocols of debate. You can read any debating handbook it'll tell you the same thing.

And I told you I was done, and I am. I don't debate because I don't have time and this is my last response on this issue.
 
Last edited:

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Why would I need to back up the claim, when there's no need for them to lie? Only when they're accused of lying is evidence required. It's called innocent toll proven guilty.
Meet Bob. Bob claims to have been abducted by aliens. While on their spaceship he interacted with pink unicorns. The aliens were nice enough to give him a spin around the universe and brought him back. Bob has brought back alien gadgets and showed them off to his family and friends. Bob was just about to show them to the rest of the world but you see, those aliens decided they didn't want that so they teleported all the gadgets back to their spaceship and poor Bob and his witnesses didn't manage to show it off to the wider public. None the less, they decided to spread the word of these aliens, their pink unicorn friends and awesome gadgets to the rest of the world.

Bob has a lot of witnesses to back him up, plenty of outrageous claims yet no ability to reproduce these gadget tricks to the wider public. Do you believe Bob or do you dismiss him/withhold judgement?

Of course, everybody is ambiguous until they're worth writing about. Why would they hold relevance to the world at large before that point?
He shouldn't, but when your first and only work is a mythical/religious body of texts that proclaim supernatural outrageous things which are later used to create a movement and amass an army to fight for your (or God's) agenda one is bound to look at you skeptically. Compare that to a historian who devoted his life to reliably documenting events and has been confirmed as reliable time and time again and you'll know why historians don't accept your miracles as factual as they do the latter.

Well they clearly don't since there's dispute on his existence and not by fringe minorities.
Give me your sources for that. Meanwhile here's an easily accessible one:

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."

"Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that by and by the order of the ." [ ]

"The and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus." [ ]

Well clearly your evidence is disputed by the non believers who don't believe he existed. So forgive me for being "ad-hoc."
Bart Erhman, a leading scholar of the field and an agnostic actively working to disprove Christianity claims:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" - Forged: Writing in the Name of God

Everyone who's anyone agrees on this. Muslims need to either admit the loss or reform their views on this issue.

You're wrong here, nature is aimed at suppressing such individuals from passing on their genes. So natures saying to them they're deficient or not worthy.
I ignored it up until now but you're really hell-bent on personifying nature. Nature doesn't say anything to anyone. Nature isn't sentinent. Nature doesn't care. Nature isn't a different name for God, a figure dictating what happens from above. There's nothing to be worthy for as far as nature is concerned for there is nothing that concerns nature.

Not really following you here, because your arguing against it here, if you're basing legal systems off of it then you'd be living in a brutal world. Dawkins wrote an article on it, so I don't see your point.
I'm not basing legal systems off of nature. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even talk about nature if it wasn't for you people bringing up this misinformation of homosexuality not being natural. I'm simply saying it is. As far as our laws are concerned I never suggested we should take survival of the fittest as a guide.

Now your feigning ignorance, nature is suppressing Homosexuals from passing on their genes. Nature is saying they're rejects because they can't fulfill the biological processes. By natures standards they're not equal to biologically efficent people.
Again, nature doesn't say anything to anyone. Quit looking for purpose where there is none. Reproducing isn't a biological process necessary for the survival of the individual, so as far as they are concerned they're as good as any heterosexual member of their species so long as they're physically fit to survive in their harsh environment.

Of course it's unnatural, since the human body exists with reproductive organs for a reason.
And homosexuality is a natural balance for reducing the number of rivals when it comes to mating in the pack. For all we know it could be. It's too soon to say. What's not too soon to say is that your views expressed so far are wrong. No biologist will tell you homosexuality is this unnatural thing that is doomed to die off.

The two ways to look at it are depending on your view:
1. Since nature made them gay and they weren't worthy of passing on their genes then they shouldn't hold the same position or rights as staright people.
Hold up, you're talking about people in particular now, not just animals in general. How come there have been cultures and societies way back in antiquity where homosexuals enjoyed an equal if not better status than heterosexual men? How come homosexual men can be just as strong or just as smart as heterosexual men if not more so? How come prejudice and discrimination (something culturally dependent) is this law of nature aimed at weeding homosexuality out?

2. If it's not nature and they do it out of choice, they're going against their natural biology and are in need of help, sympathy and guidance back to the natural processes. The only reason if the first case isn't true then they suffer from a deficiency of somesorts, whether it's mental or emotional. That way they can be productive members of society and fit in with the rest.
I'll stop you at bold. There's no choice when it comes to sexual orientation.

And I told you I was done, and I am. I don't debate because I don't have time and this is my last response on this issue.
You've been spending quite a bit of your time. Feel free to leave if you don't want to continue. I'll keep replying to bad arguments when I see them though. Whether you're willing to stick around and try to save them doesn't matter that much.
 

ArabianLuffy

Active member
Elite
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
5,495
Kin
152💸
Kumi
2,500💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Actually, he's telling you not to care about the story because it's fictional. Ancient comes second.
OK. I understand Brandy, but it's my decision on individual level as me, ArabianLuffy that I believe the story of the people of Lut with absolutely 100%. Brandy doesn't care about the story which it's totally fine by me. I forgot to say that this debate isn't about him. As he said, it's about LGBTQ community and this led to the existence of Parent 1 and Parent 2, and I'll never interfere with foreign countries affairs when it comes to establishing laws for the good of all public. This is the first time and it will be the last time.

Now, here is an important question. You can answer it, Marin, and I also hope Brandy answer it too:

Can a religious lesbian/gay choose what to believe and not of his own faith?
Marin said:
Idk about Islam's ethics but I don't think good obeying Muslims should trash talk like this?
You are right, and I apologize to Brandy and everyone. I should keep composure.
Marin said:
As a side note, what's wrong with a romantic attraction? Let's say two homosexual women love each other but do not engage in any sexual acts. Would that still be a crime/sin in your view? After all, we can't control who we love or are attracted to. (We can deny our feelings verbally, but in reality we'll still get fuzzy around the people we love.)
Romantic attraction of two men/women is something that never been exposed to public for 100s of years since the birth of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. OK, so it's a culture of its own that many communities around the world accepting it, but to us inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula we never been raised to accept it. Islam rejects it for moral and natural reasons. Satanism rejects homosexuality only for natural reasons. Also, many Arabs Muslims if you check their roots, their tree families, it goes back to first great grandfathers who happen to be prophet Mohammad's companion. Consider religions as memes. A collection of thoughts, words, traditions and deeds shared through generations for 100s of years. That's why we're being so protective against any new meme (culture of part of) entering our livelihood specially homosexuality.
Marin said:
What he's saying is, he cares about the fact that you're judging other people who don't think or live like your religion demands (and are possibly in favor of harsh punishments against them). He may well have homosexual or atheist friends so he has every right to be concerned for their well-being when faced with an ideology that threatens to potentially kill them if they don't abandon their "sinful" ways.

He needs not care about your views on certain stories which may be true or not. He's concerned with how dangerous something is to him and his loved ones. So yeah, why should he care about the totality of your views? Some people may not want to learn about your views but simply want you to leave them alone and let them live their life.
Understood.
Marin said:
Again, I'm not sure about your religion, but I know plenty which would call this kind of arrogance and militant behavior a sin. Should we call for severe punishments for what we perceive to be a sin on your part?
If I said anything out of arrogance and militant, it will be debunked. I dunno what kind of punishment in this kind of situation I'm in (I suppose), but you tell me.

===

There have been five ISIS-directed attacks in Europe since 2014, killing 188 people in total and injuring many more. It doesn't matter what they actually are, they claim to be Muslims. If these same terrorists ever claimed to be Jews or Christians, these religions would also have their reputations tarnished. Also, if the tables were turned, and Muslims were attacked by terrorists who claimed to be atheists, you would react the same way.
I agree. I think I would attack any affiliation of people whether from other religion or they were atheists.
Brandy said:
Sharia Law is based on a 1400+ years old fictional book
OK. Quran is a 1400+ fictional book. Here. Bless your senses with a fictional telling of the Quran that was written 1400+
You must be registered for see medias
Brandy said:
women don't have the same rights in most, if not all, Muslim-dominated areas, and your harsh punishments (for example beheadings and amputations) are nothing less than barbaric.
You asked me once if a thief stole something, and then it turned out the thief was a father. Looking for something to feed his kids. You wanna know what would we do to him? Here:

- Give him money
- Clean his house or buy a new house for him and his family and with furniture too
- Buy him a new car
- Give him a job that pays well
- Help out his kids to enter school and finish their education

and probably more than that. Though a prince of the royal family, maybe the crowned prince would cover all these. Not for fame or let people know he did. Doing that in seeking God's mercy, in a hope to enter paradise (jannah).

News from December 15, 2014 from the Ministry of Interior in Saudi Arabia, announced that it sentenced amputation on a foreigner in Mecca committed an act of stealing "multiple times" AFTER they investigated the case and AFTER interrogation.

There are a lot of things and things in between and between during and after investigations. Our government isn't hasty. This kind of case take times. To ensure that everyone get their rights. I believe if someone stole for the first time, there are paying fine and imprisonment and maybe add on these lashing too. I dunno. Amputation is the last solution Saudi government would lean to.

Kleptomania is a serious matter.

As for women's rights, perhaps you need to specific in which part women don't have rights. I don't know which part of their lives that they don't have the right to do it.

- Her right of choosing who she wants to marry
- Traveling outside Saudi Arabia
- Going outside the house for something or whatever

something else?

As for beheading. I'll make it short. If I killed someone, I'll be beheaded. If I raped a minor girl or a woman against her will, I'll be killed. If I announced publicly to people that I'm no longer a Muslim, they'll question my decision why? What proof do I have against a faith I yesterday was one of its believers, today I deny it. At first, I'll be expelled from job and I won't receive salary. I have to depend on finding any source of income. Companies won't hire me. Rich traders in Saudi Arabia are Muslims and they won't hire me. My national ID will be taken away from me even. I won't be able to find a work. My community, relatives and even my family will abandon me. Of all people, my mother and my father -- sorry I mean Parent 1 and Parent 2 would be the only people to care and worry for me. I expect my female parent would say something (things) like:

"Son! Return to God!"
"Don't let the devil fools you!"
"Son! I fear for you to enter hell and to be tortured there!"
"Son! If you died, no one will bury your body! Your body will be left for rats and animals feeding on it!"
"Don't die a miserable death!"

Brandy said:
In the end, I find it absolutely hilarious how you decide to play the victim card here.
I don't.
Brandy said:
In your own country, Saudi Arabia, atheism is punishable by death, and you call yourself the victim? It's insane and delusional.
Search Raif Badawee. Still alive and kicking as a Saudi Atheist, yet he's in prison for insulting God, Islam and asking for things that are against our 1400 years of livelihood.
Brandy said:
You base your beliefs on a book of fiction from the Medieval Age.
You or anyone will keep saying a book of fiction. Based on what you or others came to this conclusion?
Brandy said:
The Sharia Law, cutting off limbs for theft, and capital punishment for being non-religious.
Look above. I answered.
Brandy said:
Two people of the same gender being in love.
Also answered that to Marin.
Brandy said:
No one is actively trying to rewrite the Quran
There are, but they can't, because it's futile.
Brandy said:
we just don't want you to base your laws on it.
I appreciate your concern, but me and the Saudi society and other Arab people of Arab countries been living for 1400 years following the words of God and prophet Mohammad.

Some quotes from Quran might tell you where the book comes from and where it stands. That if you gave it a look.
And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do.
Harvard Recognises Quranic Verse as One of the Greatest Expressions of Justice.
You must be registered for see images
There are many things in Quran I can't cover in this thread. The Quran not just tells stories.
Brandy said:
I can also point to stories from the Iron Age, like stories from Greek Mythology, where the gods Eros, Himeros and Pothos are sometimes considered patrons of homosexual love between males. Eros is also part of a triad of gods that played roles in homosexual relationships, along with Heracles and Hermes, who bestowed qualities of beauty, loyalty, and strength, onto male lovers. In the poetry of Sappho, Aphrodite is identified as the patron of lesbians.

According to Book XII of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Lapith hero of Thessaly, Caeneus, was a transgender man. He was originally known as Caenis, daughter of Atrax.

So how are these stories less valid than stories from the Abrahamic religions? The answer is: they're not. All these stories are thousands of years old, passed down from generation to generation in oral form, before finally written down by mostly unknown authors. How are any of these stories in any way credible? The answer is, again: they're not.
You said once there are religious and non-religious people in the LGBTQ community. I'm pretty sure there are gay and lesbian individuals being Christian, Muslim or Jewish, but can they choose what to believe and what not?
Brandy said:
Because anyone in their right mind won't use the story of Lut as an argument against homosexuals.
But from a gay Muslim's perspective, would he deny it? Would he say "No, this story is fictional!"? You said there are religious LGBTQ, and I agreed, but if a religious gay/lesbian chose to believe this part and disbelieve that part, would this make any sense?
Brandy said:
Again, the vast majority doesn't want to change any of the holy books.
I argued with a self-proclaimed ex-Muslim at MyAnimeList, by the way. Some parts of the Quran he believes that need to be reform. Just based on one interpretation. Not sure if he expanded his mind by looking for other interpretations.

Brandy said:
Homosexuality has existed longer than humans have
wow! Even before Adam?
Brandy said:
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone at your age.
You don't have to.
Brandy said:
First of all, this is just not true and I want to see your sources. Secondly, genetic diseases are only transmitted from parent to offspring - and since homosexual couples can't have kids on their own, this shouldn't be a problem at all.
Have you counted Bi-sexual individuals when one mates both men and women?

Infertility, Typhoid fever, Amoeba, Syphilis.

Use the internet. Gee! I'm not gonna waste my time looking at endless sites talking about the disadvantages of homosexuality.

Brandy said:
What threat exactly? Homosexuals, like all people, sometimes tend to have unprotected ***, then they risk getting sick. You don't get sick. I don't get sick. They get sick. They don't pass down their sickness to their kids, because they can't have kids. Where is the threat exactly?

Unprotected intercourse is in general unhealthy, it's not unique to homosexual intercourse.
I dunno if you forgot Bi people, when it seems this conversation focus on gay and lesbian people.

You asked me about a poor father stealing. What about a father, a husband who have kids from a woman, and yet secretly practice *** with a man? You know how to give me a hard scenario, let's try this.

Brandy said:
But you are contradicting yourself. All the time. You can't throw the ball back at me and call me intellectual dishonest, when you're the one who can't hold your ground in a debate.
Now I'm contradicting myself? Is it me not explaining myself clearer than this?
Brandy said:
This is, without any doubt, the laziest argument a religious person can make. "The Holy Book is my argument and you can't prove it wrong". You're right, I can't - and you can't prove it right.
Call it the laziest argument all you want, but until you answer my question I asked Marin too.

But let's humor the idea for a bit. Since you have the Bible, the Quran and the Torah on your side, I choose the seven books of Harry Potter to form my own religion.

The Prophet Joanne Rowling, more commonly known as J. K. Rowling, was chosen as the messenger of God and wrote down God's revelations in seven different books. These stories tell us about a secret world beyond ours, the world of different magical creatures, such as gnomes, giants, witches and wizards. The young Prophet, Harry Potter, survived a horrible and cowardly assassination attempt by the evil Voldemort, sent by the Devil himself. In the end, many years later, in the name of God, the Prophet Harry Potter defeated this evil and brought peace to the world once again.

This is all real, because these seven books told me that. "You have no snow ball chance in hell to prove me wrong", as you would put it.
[/QUOTE]
and last but not least, the mockery of the debate. So what is this? Who mocks who competition? You seem to expand this issue more than what it deserves, which explains to me why I'm suffering for two days how to explain to you? and these long walls of texts could be shortcuted in Discord audio chat.

========================

@salamander uchiha: All these texts were unnecessary. And trolling? Maybe I'm not explaining my point or maybe Brandy is... I dunno. Stupid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: salamander uchiha

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Meet Bob. Bob claims to have been abducted by aliens. While on their spaceship he interacted with pink unicorns. The aliens were nice enough to give him a spin around the universe and brought him back. Bob has brought back alien gadgets and showed them off to his family and friends. Bob was just about to show them to the rest of the world but you see, those aliens decided they didn't want that so they teleported all the gadgets back to their spaceship and poor Bob and his witnesses didn't manage to show it off to the wider public. None the less, they decided to spread the word of these aliens, their pink unicorn friends and awesome gadgets to the rest of the world.

Bob has a lot of witnesses to back him up, plenty of outrageous claims yet no ability to reproduce these gadget tricks to the wider public. Do you believe Bob or do you dismiss him/withhold judgement?
Straw man and attempt to deflect, it doesn't deserve the time of day.



He shouldn't, but when your first and only work is a mythical/religious body of texts that proclaim supernatural outrageous things which are later used to create a movement and amass an army to fight for your (or God's) agenda one is bound to look at you skeptically. Compare that to a historian who devoted his life to reliably documenting events and has been confirmed as reliable time and time again and you'll know why historians don't accept your miracles as factual as they do the latter.
Another deflection, and already addressed. It's as retarded as me saying, Constantine took the Gospels(which one I don't know considering there are 50+ versions) and used his armies to spread Christianity. Then the europe and died the same as did the colonialists. It's wholly irrelevant to the differences between a Prophet and Historian and their works.

Give me your sources for that. Meanwhile here's an easily accessible one:

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."

"Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that by and by the order of the ." [ ]

"The and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus." [ ]


Bart Erhman, a leading scholar of the field and an agnostic actively working to disprove Christianity claims:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" - Forged: Writing in the Name of God


You have Erham quoted here as well, enjoy the reading.?


Everyone who's anyone agrees on this. Muslims need to either admit the loss or reform their views on this issue.
Oh so now you decide, who's anyone, lol.



I ignored it up until now but you're really hell-bent on personifying nature. Nature doesn't say anything to anyone. Nature isn't sentinent. Nature doesn't care. Nature isn't a different name for God, a figure dictating what happens from above. There's nothing to be worthy for as far as nature is concerned for there is nothing that concerns nature.
Of course nature cares, Nature is what we adapt to to survive and pass on our genes. If we don't adapt to nature we die out. At least evolutionary theory dictates that those that riding adapt were wiped out. Survival of the fittest is connected to nature as is natural(it's in the name) selection.


I'm not basing legal systems off of nature. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even talk about nature if it wasn't for you people bringing up this misinformation of homosexuality not being natural. I'm simply saying it is. As far as our laws are concerned I never suggested we should take survival of the fittest as a guide.
Thanks for clearing up your position, anyway of course it's unnatural it goes against biological programming.



Again, nature doesn't say anything to anyone. Quit looking for purpose where there is none. Reproducing isn't a biological process necessary for the survival of the individual, so as far as they are concerned they're as good as any heterosexual member of their species so long as they're physically fit to survive in their harsh environment.
It is necessary because the purpose of our biology is to pass on your genes. Surviving as a reject with an inability to pass on your genes due to nature means your deficient or considered lesser by nature. So you should be treated accordingly.


And homosexuality is a natural balance for reducing the number of rivals when it comes to mating in the pack. For all we know it could be. It's too soon to say. What's not too soon to say is that your views expressed so far are wrong. No biologist will tell you homosexuality is this unnatural thing that is doomed to die off.
Yes because humans mate in a pack, wtf? And yes it could be argued it natures way of weeding out the rejects, but the deficiency still exists because they've not been chosen to pass on their genes. Such creatures are followers of the Alpha, should we adopt such a model? I thibk you keep missing what I'm saying homosexuals are natures rejects, with each generation nature will allow more to come, but they'll still be rejects and should be treated accordingly.



Hold up, you're talking about people in particular now, not just animals in general. How come there have been cultures and societies way back in antiquity where homosexuals enjoyed an equal if not better status than heterosexual men? How come homosexual men can be just as strong or just as smart as heterosexual men if not more so? How come prejudice and discrimination (something culturally dependent) is this law of nature aimed at weeding homosexuality out?
And do those sociceities exist today, they disappeared into antiquity. Case in Point. As for the delfection, lol. Being as strong as or as smart as(debatable bit let's accept it for now), That's due to their natural biology, nature weeds there existence out by not letting them reproduce. They're two seperate things



I'll stop you at bold. There's no choice when it comes to sexual orientation.
Who says, you?

You've been spending quite a bit of your time. Feel free to leave if you don't want to continue. I'll keep replying to bad arguments when I see them though. Whether you're willing to stick around and try to save them doesn't matter that much.
I'm leaving, I really don't have time. I had to write this last post

@ bold: The only bad arguments I've read are yours, especially strawmen and deflections.

But I'm done either way.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Can we all just agree to disagree? This is going nowhere.
All up for it but I am interested in seeing how deep down the rabbit hole people will go to keep their intolerance intact. There are probably better ways to kill boredom, but w/e. lol

Now, here is an important question. You can answer it, Marin, and I also hope Brandy answer it too:

Can a religious lesbian/gay choose what to believe and not of his own faith?
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you asking if LGBT people can be religious in general or what?

Romantic attraction of two men/women is something that never been exposed to public for 100s of years since the birth of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. OK, so it's a culture of its own that many communities around the world accepting it, but to us inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula we never been raised to accept it.
It's called fearmongering. "If you come out of the closet, you're dead." so no wonder people didn't have the courage/awareness to come out and be honest. Here's the thing though, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong do you really thing holding someone in fear of death is a good way to go about solving the problem? People will still be gay in secret. Only difference is they'll have to deal with more depression as they aren't allowed to be who they really are because people will have their head for it. Can you really not think of any better way to go about this issue?

Islam rejects it for moral and natural reasons.
Morality is one thing but nature is a whole other. Religion doesn't decide what's natural, science does and science has no problem with homosexuality as it's found all over nature and is pretty natural.

Kleptomania is a serious matter.
Sure is, but can you really not think of a better way to treat kleptomaniacs than cutting off their hand? Hospitalization? Treatment? Therapy? It's 2019 mate, ditch the swords already.

As for women's rights, perhaps you need to specific in which part women don't have rights. I don't know which part of their lives that they don't have the right to do it.
Do women have a right to dress how they like? Like a mini-skirt, high heels and a top? Maybe piercings, tattoos, hair-dye and freestyle make up if they're into alternative?

As for beheading. I'll make it short. If I killed someone, I'll be beheaded.

If I raped a minor girl or a woman against her will, I'll be killed.
Why behead? Why not a more humane and less graphic form of execution? Why execution at all why not something productive like community service or jail?

If I announced publicly to people that I'm no longer a Muslim, they'll question my decision why? What proof do I have against a faith I yesterday was one of its believers, today I deny it. At first, I'll be expelled from job and I won't receive salary. I have to depend on finding any source of income. Companies won't hire me. Rich traders in Saudi Arabia are Muslims and they won't hire me. My national ID will be taken away from me even. I won't be able to find a work. My community, relatives and even my family will abandon me. Of all people, my mother and my father -- sorry I mean Parent 1 and Parent 2 would be the only people to care and worry for me. I expect my female parent would say something (things) like:

"Son! Return to God!"
"Don't let the devil fools you!"
"Son! I fear for you to enter hell and to be tortured there!"
"Son! If you died, no one will bury your body! Your body will be left for rats and animals feeding on it!"
"Don't die a miserable death!"
You can actually say this with a straight face? You really see nothing wrong with that? Let me help you with a couple of questions.

1) Who is evaluating your objections to Islam?
2) In what context are you presenting these objections? (How much time do you have to prepare your arguments? Is it a debate format?)
3) How biased are the people evaluating your objections?
4) Why do you need to believe in Islam to have a job? Is competence irrelevant?
5) Why would your friends turn your back on you? Are you not still the same friend who laughed and cried with them only now you find yourself experiencing a crisis of faith/finding your faith unpersuasive?
6) Do you realize this is basically a trial for a "thought-crime? You dare to think differently than others and are being sentenced to death for it?
7) How is the above any different from a typical tyranny and brainwashing such as we see in Orwell's 1984?
8) Do you really think fear of death and forcing others to be insincere about their beliefs is a good way to maintain low levels of atheism?

Search Raif Badawee. Still alive and kicking as a Saudi Atheist, yet he's in prison for insulting God, Islam and asking for things that are against our 1400 years of livelihood.
Plenty more atheists get killed for their atheism. And it's really not helping you. "We didn't kill you but we took away your right to lead a normal life like other human beings. Aren't we great?"

You or anyone will keep saying a book of fiction. Based on what you or others came to this conclusion?
Calling it fiction is tongue and cheek. It would be more accurate to call it false or not factual. (Though some parts are, but the relevant ones related to God are not.) As far as we're concerned we don't even need to do that. We can just say we don't believe you until you present proof that it is 100% true as you claim. We can remain skeptical without explicitly denying it, the burden of proof is on you.

But from a gay Muslim's perspective, would he deny it? Would he say "No, this story is fictional!"? You said there are religious LGBTQ, and I agreed, but if a religious gay/lesbian chose to believe this part and disbelieve that part, would this make any sense?
He could, I mean you do realize perspectives on religion/spirituality go beyond the simplistic notion of it's 100% literally true or not true at all?

wow! Even before Adam?
He doesn't believe Adam existed. Nor is there any evidence for the existence of 2 humans from which everyone else came. There's pretty strong evidence though that humans as a species descended from an evolutionary chain that started long before (and I mean, really long before).

Straw man and attempt to deflect, it doesn't deserve the time of day.
How is it a straw man?

Another deflection, and already addressed. It's as retarded as me saying, Constantine took the Gospels(which one I don't know considering there are 50+ versions) and used his armies to spread Christianity. Then the europe and died the same as did the colonialists. It's wholly irrelevant to the differences between a Prophet and Historian and their works.
How is it a deflection? But I wasn't comparing the Quran to the Gospels here, but to the works of actual historians. The Gospels certainly were used for other purposes than telling pure history and they are treated as such by scholars.



You have Erham quoted here as well, enjoy the reading.?
I present the state of the concensus within the academia and you reply with a Big Think blog from a guy who doesn't even work in the field but is a "full-time blogger" who further more quotes cranks like Carrier who are all unemployed as no university wants to have them in their staff (same as why Ken Ham can't find his place at a respectable uni). When you have to resort to people like these, it's a red flag that you're biased.

Oh so now you decide, who's anyone, lol.
The reputation of scholars speaks for itself. Your pal from BigThink isn't going to cut it when 99% of actual scholars working in the relevant fields are going against him.

Of course nature cares, Nature is what we adapt to to survive and pass on our genes. If we don't adapt to nature we die out. At least evolutionary theory dictates that those that riding adapt were wiped out. Survival of the fittest is connected to nature as is natural(it's in the name) selection.
You got it the other way around. Nature doesn't care for us. We care for us, that's why we evolve to adapt to different harsh conditions that we find ourselves in.

Thanks for clearing up your position, anyway of course it's unnatural it goes against biological programming.
"Biological programming", you do realise homosexuals are "biologically programmed" to be attracted to the same ***?

Yes because humans mate in a pack, wtf?
Where did I say humans in particular? It was a general example found in the animal kingdom. (Lions are one.)

And yes it could be argued it natures way of weeding out the rejects, but the deficiency still exists because they've not been chosen to pass on their genes. Such creatures are followers of the Alpha, should we adopt such a model?
That's not always the case and no, I said already we shouldn't give a damn about nature when making our laws. You certainly don't since you're calling homosexuality unnatural.

I thibk you keep missing what I'm saying homosexuals are natures rejects, with each generation nature will allow more to come, but they'll still be rejects and should be treated accordingly.
Why? Them not having the ability to reproduce through homosexual *** means they are inferior to you? Thank God Freddy Mercury wasn't born in Saudi Arabia. We would've lost a great piece of musical history to you guys.

And do those sociceities exist today, they disappeared into antiquity. Case in Point. As for the delfection, lol. Being as strong as or as smart as(debatable bit let's accept it for now), That's due to their natural biology, nature weeds there existence out by not letting them reproduce. They're two seperate things
The same natural biology that dictates their sexual orientation...

Who says, you?
Science. Show me one research that proved homosexuality was a matter of choice. Meanwhile, all current research is going in the other direction

I'm leaving, I really don't have time. I had to write this last post

@ bold: The only bad arguments I've read are yours, especially strawmen and deflections.

But I'm done either way.
How many times have you said this so far? I've lost track, was it two? Three?
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
How is it a straw man?
Because you created a straw man to argue a case, which wasn't put forward, as a way to dismiss it.


How is it a deflection? But I wasn't comparing the Quran to the Gospels here, but to the works of actual historians. The Gospels certainly were used for other purposes than telling pure history and they are treated as such by scholars.
The deflection was when you diverted it to people who weren't revelabt to the discussion. As a way to dismiss the credibility of the scripture. And the secondary point where I constantly repeated you can't compare scripture(history, law, morals, etc) with a historians(writes what he's observing) work because they have two different functions. Now you're trying to use the same argument I was to justify the Gospel as having other purpose than being a work of history. You're clearly either biased or hypocritical you decide.

I present the state of the concensus within the academia and you reply with a Big Think blog from a guy who doesn't even work in the field but is a "full-time blogger" who further more quotes cranks like Carrier who are all unemployed as no university wants to have them in their staff (same as why Ken Ham can't find his place at a respectable uni). When you have to resort to people like these, it's a red flag that you're biased.
Whether a university wants to have them or not is irrelevant, to the factual event they present. Where you presented Christian scholars I presented non Christian scholars including quotes from one who you presented to prove the existence of Jesus. Strangely enough he rejected it in the piece of literature quoted. Are you going to reject Erham now, do tell?

There are more, I felt this was the only one necessary.


The reputation of scholars speaks for itself. Your pal from BigThink isn't going to cut it when 99% of actual scholars working in the relevant fields are going against him.
You mean Christian scholars(no bias thers)? Erham was one of the ones referenced and one you accepted as a valid source, or quoted as a flair source. From certaininty, to consensus, to 99%. Ever diminginshing standards you have there.


You got it the other way around. Nature doesn't care for us. We care for us, that's why we evolve to adapt to different harsh conditions that we find ourselves in.
If we are a product of nature existing then it cares. Pure genetic coding can't exist outside of nature so your point is mute.


"Biological programming", you do realise homosexuals are "biologically programmed" to be attracted to the same ***?
Is that why they possess the natural mating organs of the natural order(biological necessity), the same hormones etc?



Where did I say humans in particular? It was a general example found in the animal kingdom. (Lions are one.)
Again moving off to animals, lmao deflection after deflection. Yep got it because humans shag like lions once a year for a few days to week, because lions want the equal rights as homosexuals? At least stay on topic of discussion.



[QUOTS]That's not always the case and no, I said already we shouldn't give a damn about nature when making our laws. You certainly don't since you're calling homosexuality unnatural.[/QUOTE]

Why not, if we work on the basis of evolution as the structure of society then we should make it the primary source of laws, but we dont. Of course it's unnatural otherwise they wouldn't have the genitalia of the natural order, produce the same hormones.



Why? Them not having the ability to reproduce through homosexual *** means they are inferior to you? Thank God Freddy Mercury wasn't born in Saudi Arabia. We would've lost a great piece of musical history to you guys.
Of course they've been told by nature they are if we accept that they're programmed to do so. I struck out the irrelevant and deflective point again.



The same natural biology that dictates their sexual orientation...
Take your L while it's still fresh, you asked the question and you got the answer.



Science. Show me one research that proved homosexuality was a matter of choice. Meanwhile, all current research is going in the other direction
The same way consenting to have *** is of your choice or deciding you like one guy or gal over another. Anybody can spin anything anyway to suit their ends. By your logic we could argue rapist don't rape because of choice rather because of programming.


How many times have you said this so far? I've lost track, was it two? Three?
Possibly 4, but I had some free time alas I have run out of free time or patience.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Because you created a straw man to argue a case, which wasn't put forward, as a way to dismiss it.
You didn't explain how what I said was a straw man so I'll ask again. How was what I said a straw man?

The deflection was when you diverted it to people who weren't revelabt to the discussion. As a way to dismiss the credibility of the scripture. And the secondary point where I constantly repeated you can't compare scripture(history, law, morals, etc) with a historians(writes what he's observing) work because they have two different functions.
Nope, I mentioned historians because you claimed your miracles to have happened. The Quran is claiming to report historical events and I compared it's claims to writings of actual historians to show why one is taken seriously and the other is not. Law and morals had nothing to do with it.

Whether a university wants to have them or not is irrelevant, to the factual event they present.
Actually, a good reputation in the academy is what distinguishes a good scholar from a crackpot as it tends to match their h-index and experience. Want me to tell you the impact your blogger's work and the mythicists he quoted had on the field?

Where you presented Christian scholars I presented non Christian scholars including quotes from one who you presented to prove the existence of Jesus. Strangely enough he rejected it in the piece of literature quoted. Are you going to reject Erham now, do tell?
I actually presented a neutral source, Wikipedia. In that same article (had you bothered to look) it clearly quoted plenty of non-christian scholars who none the less agree on the historicity of the crucifixion. The blogger you quoted misrepresented Erhman's views as he still remains one of the leading scholars who is not a christian yet states historicity as a certain fact. Proof? Erhman has continued to dismiss mythicists as not credible. Such is the case on his own blog post from 2017 (a year later than the one you provided):

"For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible. But Robert is a nice guy and I finally yielded and said OK. " [ ]

- Erhman on why he doesn't like debating mythicists. He simply doesn't take them seriously and everyone else shares his sentiment.

There are more, I felt this was the only one necessary.
Oh there sure are plenty of blogs spreading disinformation. Not that they'll do your case any good though. You'll need actual scholars for that.

You mean Christian scholars(no bias thers)? Erham was one of the ones referenced and one you accepted as a valid source, or quoted as a flair source.
Are you saying Christians are all biased? You clearly haven't read any work in the field (after all, you wouldn't be quoting bloggers if you did) as that is a pretty gullible statement. You called me petty before for no reason yet here you go swinging with an ad-hominem as big as it gets. Never mind the pettiness, let's talk about how that logic would apply to Muslim scholars studying and interpreting the Quran. Should we dismiss all imams for they are surely biased?

From certaininty, to consensus, to 99%. Ever diminginshing standards you have there.
A consensus of 60% is very strong, a consensus of 99% is what you'd call certain. Literally the only people disagreeing with it are crackpots. Just like scientists who claim Earth is flat or that evolution isn't true. It's as strong of a consensus as it gets. You don't get to talk about diminishing standards when you avoid scholarship and go for the crackpots.

If we are a product of nature existing then it cares. Pure genetic coding can't exist outside of nature so your point is mute.
The vast majority of species that ever got to be went extinct. Humanity almost went extinct too at a point. Nature didn't care about them?

Is that why they possess the natural mating organs of the natural order(biological necessity), the same hormones etc?
Why is that mutually exclusive?

Again moving off to animals, lmao deflection after deflection. Yep got it because humans shag like lions once a year for a few days to week, because lions want the equal rights as homosexuals? At least stay on topic of discussion.
I brought up animals way back when you claimed homosexuality wasn't natural. The fact that homosexuality is present all over other species goes against any claim that tries to make it a matter of human stupidity/corruption or whatnot. I never said sexual habits of humans are the same as those of other animals so if anything is a straw man than this is it.

Why not, if we work on the basis of evolution as the structure of society then we should make it the primary source of laws
But we're not.

Of course they've been told by nature they are if we accept that they're programmed to do so.
Nature doesn't talk to you unless you're a schizo.

The same way consenting to have *** is of your choice or deciding you like one guy or gal over another. Anybody can spin anything anyway to suit their ends. By your logic we could argue rapist don't rape because of choice rather because of programming.
I see no research linked yet. Maybe because you know you don't have any? Meanwhile:

"The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality" (American Psychological Association 2010).

Possibly 4, but I had some free time alas I have run out of free time or patience.
You're certainly running out of patience since you've been misinterpreting more and more of what I said but it appears you still have plenty of time to spare since you're still around.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You didn't explain how what I said was a straw man so I'll ask again. How was what I said a straw man?
You should know you constructed the straw man, why should I explain it.
Nope, I mentioned historians because you claimed your miracles to have happened. The Quran is claiming to report historical events and I compared it's claims to writings of actual historians to show why one is taken seriously and the other is not. Law and morals had nothing to do with it.
No you've actually demonstrated that you can't read. I argued from the get go there's no simultude between the two, none whatsoever. Both are different types of works and serve different functions, have different origins. You can't compare the two neither can a Prophet who's role in society is different to a historians in purpose can be compared to one, nor can the two types of works. Conveniently ignoring the Gospel this time time, being in the same bed(scripture) because it doesn't suit you.



Actually, a good reputation in the academy is what distinguishes a good scholar from a crackpot as it tends to match their h-index and experience. Want me to tell you the impact your blogger's work and the mythicists he quoted had on the field?
What nonsense Galileo was vilified for his research as we're many other who questioned the Church's narrative. Only academic research and points put across validate or invalidate a claim


I actually presented a neutral source, Wikipedia. In that same article (had you bothered to look) it clearly quoted plenty of non-christian scholars who none the less agree on the historicity of the crucifixion. The blogger you quoted misrepresented Erhman's views as he still remains one of the leading scholars who is not a christian yet states historicity as a certain fact. Proof? Erhman has continued to dismiss mythicists as not credible. Such is the case on his own blog post from 2017 (a year later than the one you provided):

"For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible. But Robert is a nice guy and I finally yielded and said OK. " [ ]
Wikipedia's neutral :lmao: that's why anybody can edit it.

- Erhman on why he doesn't like debating mythicists. He simply doesn't take them seriously and everyone else shares his sentiment.
Debating his existence or acknowledging what was attributed to Jesus. Anyhow the blog referenced the work has Erhman withdrawn the position he touted in the works? Have others withdrawn their position?

Btw Erhman even questions the validity of the Gospels as being legitimate, even the authors and who they were.

Since you like Wikipedia a neutral source so much enjoy his work forged.




Oh there sure are plenty of blogs spreading disinformation. Not that they'll do your case any good though. You'll need actual scholars for that.
The blog referenced scholars old bean and works.



Are you saying Christians are all biased? You clearly haven't read any work in the field (after all, you wouldn't be quoting bloggers if you did) as that is a pretty gullible statement. You called me petty before for no reason yet here you go swinging with an ad-hominem as big as it gets. Never mind the pettiness, let's talk about how that logic would apply to Muslim scholars studying and interpreting the Quran. Should we dismiss all imams for they are surely biased?
We're discussing the existence of Jesus, you know "God" not some mere mortal who lived in the peninsula. I resorted to the ad-hominem in response to your ad-hominem.

Ehrman surveys the arguments Christ mythicists have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first mooted at the end of the 18th century. To the objection that there are no contemporary Roman records of Jesus' existence, Ehrman points out that such records exist for almost no one and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the Crucifixion of Jesus.[1]

Your favourite source wiki, Erhman did Jesus exist.

Looks like Roman historians, forgot that such an important figure existed, "God" did so much and forgot to write about him. Erhman writes this then presents likely(possibility of Jesus existing) reasons why be existed. Not definite, but likely. I don't really care either way, I was just highlighting the point.


A consensus of 60% is very strong, a consensus of 99% is what you'd call certain. Literally the only people disagreeing with it are crackpots. Just like scientists who claim Earth is flat or that evolution isn't true. It's as strong of a consensus as it gets. You don't get to talk about diminishing standards when you avoid scholarship and go for the crackpots.
Certainity is called 100% not 99%, you've been dropping the bar as we've been going along. The Church claimed it was flat and they had consensus(99% lol) on it if you like. Those that claim evolution isn't true is because it's still a theory and they find holes in it. You should read their works before you deny their credibility.


The vast majority of species that ever got to be went extinct. Humanity almost went extinct too at a point. Nature didn't care about them?
Your point was already soloed, the species went extinct because Nature forced them to go extinct. They couldn't survive the changes in nature and disappeared, while humans are still here. If we go by that line of thinking.



Why is that mutually exclusive?
Because they serve a function.

I brought up animals way back when you claimed homosexuality wasn't natural. The fact that homosexuality is present all over other species goes against any claim that tries to make it a matter of human stupidity/corruption or whatnot. I never said sexual habits of humans are the same as those of other animals so if anything is a straw man than this is it.
But it doesn't and it's not natural, unless you except the homosexuals as natures rejects. You decide which of the two they are. You don't need to say it directly, because you keep bringing up animals to justify human sexual habits there's no straw man in it.



But we're not.
Why not?

Nature doesn't talk to you unless you're a schizo.
Well it does(indirectly) it tells you adapt, pass on your genes or become extinct and a forgotten part of history.


I see no research linked yet. Maybe because you know you don't have any? Meanwhile:

"The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality" (American Psychological Association 2010).
@ bold, environment isn't a bilogical factor,

@ bold: The words likely(possibility/speculation), suggests(possibility/speculation) are confirming speculation. Anyhow we're using your logic so do tell me why a rapist rapes because of choice and not because of programming.

You're certainly running out of patience since you've been misinterpreting more and more of what I said but it appears you still have plenty of time to spare since you're still around.
No I've not misinterpreted anything you've said, you just decided to deflect and add strawmen. I had the morning off, but I've run out of time, my patience has run it's course.

So... auf wiedersehen
 
Last edited:

Brandy

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
39
Kin
150💸
Kumi
336💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Marin: *presents points almost all scholars agree on*
Salamander: "Deflection! Straw man! These scholars are Christians, right!? Here's a blogger I know and he doesn't agree with you!"
Marin: How is that a deflection?
Salamander: Because you created a deflection!
Marin: How?
Salamander: Why should I tell you? You should already know!

Salamander, you should seriously be ashamed of the way you're debating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marin

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Marin: *presents points almost all scholars agree on*
Salamander: "Deflection! Straw man! These scholars are Christians, right!? Here's a blogger I know and he doesn't agree with you!"
Marin: How is that a deflection?
Salamander: Because you created a deflection!
Marin: How?
Salamander: Why should I tell you? You should already know!

Salamander, you should seriously be ashamed of the way you're debating.
I think you need to stop defending Marin just because he's your friend, he constructed strawmen and deflected to scripture, not me. He calls one myth(Qur'an) and the other as other than myth(Gospels), he tries to compare Prophets to historians as if they're the same thing or comparable. He tries to compare scripture to a work of history. Anybody who's ever debated anything knows you compare like for like not two unconnected, unrelated things. Look at the Bob strawman scenario he pulled out thin air, I didn't argue anything like Bob, I'm my previous posts. Or the deflection to terrorists as a way to discredit the scripture, what have the two got to do with oneanother.

I even quoted his homey Bart, who confirms the Roman historians don't have a record of Jesus"God" how could they not have a record for God in flesh if he was to exist. Such an important figure in history is a relative unknown to them. That's not my fault, even if I disagree with Roman historians and believe in Jesus and his miracles.

Why should I be ashamed, I actually analyse things(statements) and don't just quote them or just make claims. I rationalise them even looking at the grammar, vocab used and their implication.

I'm done as I said to him, I am busy again my morning off has come to an end. I was itching to quote Bart Ehrman to show his stance on the Gospels and also confirm he admits contemporary Roman Historians don't have a record of Jesus. After all he(Marin) gives credence to them.

auf wiedesehen.
 
Last edited:

MadieV

Active member
Regular
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
600
Kin
385💸
Kumi
416💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
In my perspective, the terms "mother" and "father" are biological in nature and do not have any societal connotations attached to it. I don't see why it would be wrong to say you have two mothers or two fathers when it relates to same *** couples and their kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: salamander uchiha

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You should know you constructed the straw man, why should I explain it.
That's not how it works fam. If you accuse someone of straw manning you in a debate, it's your job to explain how they straw manned you otherwise it's a baseless accusation.

Both are different types of works and serve different functions, have different origins.
I am not disputing that.

You can't compare the two neither can a Prophet who's role in society is different to a historians in purpose can be compared to one, nor can the two types of works.
Why not? They're both attempting to report events that happened. Only difference is your prophet added a lot of unhistorical stuff to his work as his book deals with stuff unrelated to history such as law and morals. You claim your miracles happened, so you're claiming that a historical event took place in certain circumstances. Thing is, writings accepted by scholars meet the criteria to be called reliable. Your prophet's book does not.

What nonsense Galileo was vilified for his research as we're many other who questioned the Church's narrative.
How does this have anything to do with what I said? Wanna talk about red herrings, well here's one. I'm talking about the academia in 21st century not at the time of Galileo and I don't care about what the Catholic Church did back in the day (or today for that matter) as far as this thread is concerned.

Only academic research and points put across validate or invalidate a claim
And why is it that 99% of contemporary scholarship agrees that current research is against you on this?
Wikipedia's neutral :lmao: that's why anybody can edit it.
Anyone can write blogs... At least wikipedia has administrators working on maintaining objectivity (have you read it's guidelines and procedures?). Besides, all the things I pointed at had footnotes which you could check out yourself if you find the sources suspicious.

That said, you didn't address anything else in that paragraph.

Debating his existence or acknowledging what was attributed to Jesus.
His existence, which includes the event of death by crucifixion. An event you deny.

Anyhow the blog referenced the work has Erhman withdrawn the position he touted in the works? Have others withdrawn their position?
No, the consensus has remained strong on the historicity of Jesus' baptism and death. No real changes have happened, regardless of how much crackpots would like that.

Btw Erhman even questions the validity of the Gospels as being legitimate, even the authors and who they were.
And? He refuses to accept all the supernatural claims attributed to Jesus, but that's irrelevant to the crucifixion actually happening. He accepts that as he knows it would be a disgrace not to.

Since you like Wikipedia a neutral source so much enjoy his work forged.
I literally quoted directly out of that book in an earlier post. lol

We're discussing the existence of Jesus, you know "God" not some mere mortal who lived in the peninsula.
Nope, I'm arguing for the historicity of the crucifixion. Whether Jesus rose from the dead or was God is irrelevant. If you go back to the beginning of our exchange you'd see that I brought up Chrisitanity (along with other religions) simply to show that it, just like Islam, has no real evidence going for it beyond hear-say so you can't use hear-say of supposed witnesses to convince others when literally dozens of other religions, all contradicting you, are in the same position.

In a way, I was arguing against a positive case for Christianity (or any other religion) and pointed at an empirical stalemate which invalidates your attempt of proving Islam to be true via pointing at witnesses.

I resorted to the ad-hominem in response to your ad-hominem.
What was my ad hominem?

Certainity is called 100% not 99%, you've been dropping the bar as we've been going along.
So let's get this straight, if 99% of scholars say something you don't like you'll go jump at that 1% just because they tell you what you wanna hear? Heck, if 99.9999999% of scholars said something, you'd still grasp at that 0.0000001% just to avoid having to change your mind. I'll let that fact speak for itself.

The Church claimed it was flat and they had consensus(99% lol) on it if you like.
Why do I care what the Church claimed?

Those that claim evolution isn't true is because it's still a theory and they find holes in it. You should read their works before you deny their credibility.
And you should brush up on scientific jargon because "still a theory" doesn't mean it's not a fact. It's funny how you suggest me to look into the work of creationists first. Why don't you go look at the work actual scientists are doing? Why focus on the fringe, overwhelmingly agenda-driven crackpots?

They couldn't survive the changes in nature and disappeared, while humans are still here.
Doesn't sound very caring.

Because they serve a function.
Homosexuality serves a function too, less rivalry over mating. Quite possible.

But it doesn't and it's not natural, unless you except the homosexuals as natures rejects.
So says you. Scientists tell a different story. Of course, you'll just align with the 1% that don't.

you keep bringing up animals to justify human sexual habits there's no straw man in it.
I'm not justifying "human sexual habits". I'm pointing to animals to show it's not unique to humans.

Because I don't see any reason for why we should.

Well it does(indirectly) it tells you adapt, pass on your genes or become extinct and a forgotten part of history.
Again, not very caring,

@ bold, environment isn't a bilogical factor,
Enviroment influences our biology...

@ bold: The words likely(possibility/speculation), suggests(possibility/speculation) are confirming speculation.
Nope, drop what the creationists tell you and pick up an actual science book. That's not what the words mean in science.

Anyhow we're using your logic so do tell me why a rapist rapes because of choice and not because of programming.
In my view, no. There's a difference between being free to choose what to do and being free to choose what to want to do. I believe we have the former, but not the latter. It's not unheard of for people to deny both though.

He calls one myth(Qur'an) and the other as other than myth(Gospels),
Nope, for the purposes of this thread I called both myth or at least both unable to demonstrate themselves (or their core claims) as anything other than a myth. That was the sole reason I brought up Christianity and those other religions.

he tries to compare Prophets to historians as if they're the same thing or comparable.
But they are comparable. They're both writing about things that supposedly happened. Only difference is one is doing a better job.

He tries to compare scripture to a work of history.
Nope, I'm comparing reports of historical events found in the scriptures to reports of historical events found in works of history. If we weren't allowed to do that, whole disciplines of studying religions from a historical perspective (very well-founded disciplines) such as biblical archeology wouldn't be possible. (News flash, they are.)

Look at the Bob strawman scenario he pulled out thin air, I didn't argue anything like Bob, I'm my previous posts.
Oh but you did. Or at least, you need to explain how your prophet's scenario was different from Bob.

Or the deflection to terrorists as a way to discredit the scripture, what have the two got to do with oneanother.
I don't think I ever brought up terrorists, much less to that purpose.

Why should I be ashamed, I actually analyse things(statements) and don't just quote them or just make claims. I rationalise them even looking at the grammar, vocab used and their implication.
You made plenty of grammatical errors though. (Not saying I didn't but this is just kind of petty.)

I'm done as I said to him, I am busy again my morning off has come to an end. I was itching to quote Bart Ehrman to show his stance on the Gospels and also confirm he admits contemporary Roman Historians don't have a record of Jesus. After all he(Marin) gives credence to them.
I sure do. As does every scholar in the field. You just seemed to think I was arguing for truth of Christianity when you missed my parity argument.

auf wiedesehen.
You're probably going to come back but this time I'm the one to say goodbye. Your rabbit hole went deep indeed so it's time for me to get back in the real world. All the best. ~
 
Last edited:
Top