Total posts: 78
-->
@WyIted
I don't think the topic author (or Deb-8 for that matter) is saying "weak" in the way its used to make the distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism.
I think he's instead saying that "duo to no evidence known" is an intellectually lacking basis.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'll speed up the process and give you the link myself. Mall himself said he doesn't like posting links so he probably would've not given you one and told you to look it up. (He's already done that to me in two debates). His reason is people are more invested if they put in the effort to look something up, but I disagree with it.
Anyway here's the link.
Additionally he's said in his debate against me (link below if you're interested, though its about a significantly different topic) that in his debate against Moozer he has demonstrably debunked every single one of Moozer's presented contradictions. And also, that Moozer conceding to one of the claimed contradictions as being in error is evidence the rest of the contradictions should be dismissed, or something along those lines, his specific words were stuff like "His credibility was shot and inadmissible", "once is too many already" and "go no further until your misjudgment can be rectified". Again, more context in the below debate if you're at all interested. And obviously Mall himself can speak more onto the specifics of his stance to correct any misrepresentations of it I might've done.
Created:
-->
@Shila
To see if he is right about you, that you will jump in the pool.
Then that's just straight up unreasonable. Why would I follow his directive if he believes that my following his directive will lead to me drowning?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Same answer. Why would he want to drown in the same swimming pool as you, that is why he is refusing to promise to do so.
My rebuttal to that same answer doesn't change either then. That refusal to make the promise shows that he himself doesn't think that the pool is safe. Thus making his original request for me to jump into it unreasonable.
I'll ask it in a different way, if by his own judgement jumping in that pool would drown the person jumping into it. Why would he ask me to jump into it?
Created:
-->
@Shila
If it was his premise that you jump in the pool, he still has to wait till you do before he can respond.
That's fine, I am not asking him to jump in before me. I am asking him to promise to jump in after I jump in.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Why would he want to drown in the same swimming pool as you, that is why he is refusing to promise to do so.
You're probably not serious but I'll respond in case you are. His refusal to promise to jump would be the evidence that under his own judgement, his original premise (that I jump into the pool) is unreasonable.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Just answer yes or no first, then we could get to everything else. No negotiation, just answer. If you want to avoid answering, just let us all know.
Why are you refusing the promise? All I am asking is that you put yourself under the conditions you're putting me under with the only difference being replacing atheist/atheism with agnostic/agnosticism for you.
How can you accuse me of wanting to avoid answering the question when you yourself are avoiding even promising to answer a similarly worded question? Just make the promise and I'll answer immediately, without added rhetoric or anything.
You're asking me to jump into the swimming pool? Ok, all I am asking is that you promise to jump into the swimming pool after I jump in. Refusing that promise is not a situation where you can, at the same time, accuse me of being afraid of jumping in.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Let's make it easier .Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God?Yes or no.
Ya know what? Sure thing, I don't mind changing the question. But I am not changing the conditions.
Set A:
Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God? Yes.
Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God? No.
Set B:
Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? Yes.
Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? No.
Are you willing to make the same promise I am asking for and agree to the same conditions I've written? Only difference being that Set A and Set B have been changed to match your new question and dichotomy. ("agnostic" here is still specifically your definition/classification of "agnostic") My condition is that you hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.
Alternatively you could just answer the question in Set B with a yes or no and I answer after you. But if you want me to answer first, I don't mind as long as you agree to my terms.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Just one or the other. Don't run, select an answer .
"Just one or the other" is *exactly* what a false dichotomy is.
It is the act of when you simply provide a dichotomy, and claim on weak or no reasoning, that the correct choice must be in the choices presented. For example "2+2=3 or 2+2=5". and there either isn't a "and here's why", or there is a "and here's why" but its not a strong argument.
Saying "the answer is neither 3 nor 5" is not running away from the question.
But tell you what, I'll play along, on the condition that you promise to also play along and put yourself through the same logical standards.
Set A:
Atheists believe there is no God.
Atheists believe there is God.
Set B:
Agnostics believe there is no God.
Agnostics believe there is God.
If I pick one of the two statements in Set A and proclaim it as the true statement, no "its neither" "its both" "its a third option" or anything else, just simply " 'Atheists believe there is no God.' is the true statement" or " 'Atheists believe there is God.' is the true statement".
If I do that, proclaim either of those statements true, then you also must pick one of the two statements in Set B and proclaim it as the true statement, no "its neither" "its both" "its a third option" or anything else, just simply " 'Agnostics believe there is no God.' is the true statement" or " 'Agnostics believe there is God.' is the true statement".
(and for all intents and purposes, "Agnostic" here in Set B: is your definition, classification and usage of Agnostic)
Only, only if you promise that after I pick one of the two statements in Set A and proclaim it as truth publicly here on this forum topic, you pick one of the two statements in Set B and proclaim it as truth publicly here in this forum topic. Only after you agree to these terms will I pick one of the two statements in Set A and proclaim it as truth.
I'll make the deal even sweeter, after you agree to these terms, I am only going to write one of the two statements I mentioned(" 'Atheists believe there is no God.' is the true statement" or " 'Atheists believe there is God.' is the true statement"). I am not going to add any anything to that statement, no elaboration, no addendum, no rhetoric, no nothing, no text at all. I am only going to write the one statement, I won't post anything else or making any follow up posts until you've posted your response. And don't worry, in your post where you start by proclaiming either of the statements in Set B: as true, you are allowed to follow that up with whatever elaboration, rhetoric, or anything your heart desires. You get to make your case first. And if you prefer that I make my case first that's fine too, but again, only after you've publicly proclaimed either statement in Set B: as true in this debate topic after I've made my own public proclamation of either statement in Set A: as true.
Oh, and lastly, if you agree to these terms and make the promise, and then after I make my proclamation of a statement in Set A being true you betray the promise and don't make your proclamation of a statement in Set B being true and say something else in response to me.(saying other stuff in response to other people is still fine, those are different conversations) I am simply going to just retract my proclamation. And don't worry, I won't retract it if you hold true to your end of the bargain. Only other condition where I'll retract my proclamation in Set A is if you retract your proclamation in Set B after making it.
And I'll also make the deal less stressful for you. After we both have made our proclamations, after we talk about stuff (or even without us needing to talk about stuff), you are still perfectly free to retract your proclamation in Set B without consequences in rhetoric. I will simply respond by also retracting my proclamation in Set A and I will not attack your stance as if it still has your proclaimed statement, nor will I attack the fact that you retracted after making a proclamation either. As long as you also don't attack my stance as if it still has my proclaimed statement, nor attack the fact I retracted after making a proclamation. I am basically saying this whole deal, even after you get into it, you can afterwards get out of it whenever you like, as long as I also can get out of it in response to you getting out of it.
So what'll it be? Are you going to agree to these terms and make the promise?
Created:
-->
@Mall
One more time .You only have one choice to make out of two.Atheists believe there is no God.Atheists believe there is God.
That is a false dichotomy, a dichotomy you simply declare without proper enough supporting reason. The agnostic atheist does not believe there is God and does not believe in the non-existence of God.
Again, I'll throw the same logic back at you but replacing atheist with your usage of agnostic and lets see if it holds ground.
You only have one choice to make out of two.
Agnostics believe there is no God.
Agnostics believe there is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am still new here, but I wonder if you can do one about me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Ok, so Muslims are being persecuted, slaughtered or genocided and this happens to them regardless of whether they live in a Muslim majority country or not.
I don't see how this follows your prior statements that Islam promotes genocide. And with genocide being ethnic cleansing, which ethnicities are the target of Islam's promotion of genocide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Martyrdom encourages genocide? How do you make that connection?
In regards to the Muslim conquests and expansions. Did we genocide the nations we conquered? Do you even know what genocide means?
And you still haven't answered the original question. Do people who have genocide baked into their ideology/religion deserve genocide to happen to them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I'll ask the question again, I'll even make it specific to your response. Do the Muslims in the the Muslim countries in the wars you listed deserve genocide to happen to them?
60% of Muslim countries are at war either civil or with their neighbours. Proof that Islam promotes genocide.
Ah yes, totally. That checks out, this is sarcasm btw.
Since I am Egyptian, I'll tell you about terrorism in Egypt, or rather, the Arab spring in Egypt. After we deposed dictator Mubarak and held our first (and until now, last) legitimate democratic election where we elected Mursi of the 'Muslim Brotherhood' political party. A political party with Islam as its primary identity.
Merely a year after that, our first and only democratically elected president was overthrown by a coup d'état, done by the Egyptian military and then field marshal and minister of defense Abd El Fattah El Sisi became president. Oh and the 'Muslim Brotherhood' political party I previously mentioned? It got outlawed and legally declared a terrorist organization. Since then we've been under the dictatorship of El Sisi, a dictator so popular he gets 99% of the votes every election.
Islam was forcibly and violently removed from politics and from the democratic process, and at the same time the democratic process was eliminated all together. (at least, as far as the presidential election is concerned). Now go on and tell me Islam is the source of violence, let alone promotes genocide. While throwing a long list of conflicts and wars you don't even properly know the context of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Islam promotes genocide. Are we really going to say that people with genocide baked into their religion/ideology deserve genocide happening to them? Or that that happening to them isn't a tragedy that should be avoided?
By the way, I am one who believes in Sharia law. Would the world be a better place if I accidentally fell off my balcony and died?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Fair enough, when I was answering Mall I wasn't that confident in my answer, nor was I thinking all of it was 1:1 interchangeable. I still think I am not in danger of betraying my principles if I assimilated to Christian society, but that might not be relevant to what you're saying.
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Muslims indeed would call that idolatry, myself included. But that's a theological incompatibility, not an incompatibility of values. Calling it a question of morality that goes on a personal and societal level does not make it so.
And Muslims reaching the conclusion that worshiping Jesus is idolatry is not one you can confidently say wasn't based on reason. You imply that Muslims lack reason in interpreting the Quran but I feel your explanation for this is lacking.
Do you have a reference for that?
A bit difficult to source all of the Muslim Ummah, there's a lot that goes on in regards to Islamic Fiqh. Fatwas come to mind.
Created:
Posted in:
I am sorry to hear that Owen. If these people actually cared about you and your hereafter they would've attempted to reason you back into the faith and then let you go peacefully rather than push you away with insults and actively wishing that you go to hell. I sadly agree with your decision to hide given your experiences.
I disagree with some of the comments here that say atheism believes in science or that atheism bases its morality in empathy and reason. I think its incorrect to attribute atheism as something that encourages anything specific, morally or intellectually.
Created:
-->
@Shila
r/Woosh
Created:
-->
@Shila
Some Catholic writers claim that it was not until 1890 that the Roman Catholic Church repudiated slavery. A British priest has charged that this did not occur until 1965. Nonsense!In a 2001 book, The popes against the Jews, I demonstrated that in fact the church played a major role in leading Catholics throughout Europe to view Jews as an existential threat. Yet defenders of the church position continue to deny the historical evidence and to launch ferocious ad hominem attacks against scholars who have researched the subject. The anti-Semitism promulgated by the church can be seen as part of the long battle it waged against modernity, with which the Jews were identified.In July 1933, Hitler and Pope Pius XI signed a concordat, or treaty. Historian Fritz Stern explains:
These are failings of Christian churches to represent the values of the Christian faith. In fact, some movements (including the protestant movement) happened as a result of devout Christians rebelling against churches failing to represent Christian values.
Christian values does not mean blindly listening to what the church tells you. Nor does believing in Christian values have to be packaged with justifying slavery, genocide or the holocaust.
By that logic, if 9/11 was carried out by Imams (or Caliphs), then I would have to conclude that Islamic values include promoting terrorism due to the actions of high authorities representing the faith.
Edit: As to your second reply, this topic is about values, not theology. Even if the two can often be connected.
Created:
-->
@MAV99
You're making a false equivalence between Christian values and the values of Christian societies. Both true believer Christians and Muslims recognize theologically that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. But neither true believer would kill his son because they had a dream and interpreted it as a message from God.
You might have your odd psychopath who would actually kill his son because of a dream or because a priest/sheikh told him. But such people are outliers that exist in both faiths.
On the contrary, even in its inception. Islam used reason to move people away from the folly of polytheism and blind tradition. Islam is also "the final message from God told to us by the prophet Mohammed". There is not a possibility, at least under true islam, for a new kind of "God says this.." to emerge. Maybe potentially new interpretations can emerge, but these get heavily challenged and debated within the Muslim community, with reason.
A true-believer Muslim is not going to go rape someone because an Imam came to him and told him "see this passage in the Quran? Here is explanation for why it means God is telling you to rape that person over there", and no, this won't contradict Islamic principles or values.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
GOD!!! your ignorance is blinding! People of all ages die in their sleep all the time and without any obvious underlying cause.
I think we're talking about different things when relating to "evidence" so I am going to elaborate. (although I am speaking for myself and not the person you responded to)
Yeah, imaginatively you could simply not wake up tomorrow, we never know, like you said, it happens all the time to all kinds of people. And like you said, it can happen without any obvious underlying cause.
However, that's an argument against "evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt", not a sufficient argument against "evidence beyond reasonable doubt"
I have slept and woken up for more than 11,000 days now. While there does indeed exist imaginable doubts that I will wake up tomorrow, there is not a reasonable doubt. The fact that I have woken up for more than 11,000 days and am currently in good health proves to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I am going to wake up tomorrow. It might not completely dispel *all* doubt, but whatever doubts there can exist, they are unreasonable. Maybe my heart suddenly and inexplicably stops during my sleep, or maybe a burglar breaks into my apartment and slits my throat without me waking up. These are imaginably possible. But they are not reasonable possibilities. And so I can sleep without fear of dying in my sleep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If one is a conditioned atheist, then why would one bother to adopt a religion.It would be like asking a conditioned theist to adopt atheism.
I disagree with the premise of the answer, people are more than just their conditioning.
Created:
I don't fully understand what you mean by that. Could you provide examples of what you consider spiritual traits of either of them?
Created:
-->
@Mall
No. As I said before, the two are theologically incompatible.
Created:
I think so? It comes from the same roots, so I imagine there's a lot of overlap between what's kosher and what's halal.
Created:
-->
@Mall
You accepting or adhering to biblical/Christian values will not violate your Islamic/Muslim principles.What are your thoughts?
While the two religions are theologically incompatible due to one openly claiming the other does not fully and properly represent God. (as well as, like Wylted said, that in Islam we deny that Jesus was the son of God or is God) I would say I agree with you that, as far as values and principles are concerned, you're not really in danger of violating the principles of your religion as a Muslim adhering to Christian values or vice versa.
If I were in the presence of true proper God fearing Christians, I do not believe I would be in danger of betraying my principles or the principles of my faith by behaving under their moral standards. And I believe the same would be true with the roles reversed as well.
Created: