Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14711 comments on the News24 story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10702 May 14, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Duping atheist perverts like you to post these lies is easy since atheists have no morals.
Says the creationist who lies about god every single day despite no evidence for his hallucination.

Do us a favour before you print more bibles and build more churches, how about being brave enough to prove your god instead of lying about it and wasting people's time and money?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#10703 May 14, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the creationist who lies about god every single day despite no evidence for his hallucination.
Do us a favour before you print more bibles and build more churches, how about being brave enough to prove your god instead of lying about it and wasting people's time and money?
I'll be happy to prove to that liar that his invisible friend does not exist just as soon as he is finished providing any evidence that it does exist.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10704 May 14, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
True! And I agree!
But I'm just wondering ... does what passes for "populist science" nowadays bother you and these folks as much as it does me?
Very much so. Quantum mechanics is particularly subject to this problem.
For example, this notion that every "quantum event" or outcome that might have been determined by such, spawns a duplication of the universe??
This is also known as the Everett interpretation. Remarkably enough, it *is* a justifiable position if you take the basic equations of QM seriously. It is also the basis of solving many of the problems associated with collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Schrodinger's cat, to my understanding was actually an objection to interpretations of mathematical conjectures that ain't necessarily so ... but was adopted as a near "fact".
Once again, this is, as much as anything, a question about when the probabilities calculated in QM become 'real' and was a puzzler for quite a long time for serious physicists. This issue has been mostly resolved via the decoherence theory, this theory is based on the many-Worlds (Everett) interpretation.
I'll stop there, except to say I've seen different other distortions of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the duality of the electron stated as fact that just annoy the heck out of me.
There are definitely a great many distortions and many, many flat out misrepresentations. But the basic theory is also very strange and not at all what people are used to dealing with: it is fundamentally acausal.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#10705 May 14, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Duping atheist perverts like you to post these lies is easy since atheists have no morals.
Defenders of the Bible, such as fundamentalists, never cease criticizing the evils and immoralities of modern society. And environment, a return to the "Bible" movement is hardly the answer. The Bible is definitely not the fountain from which truth, goodness and purity spring as its proponents would have us believe. Many Biblical verses are permeated with corruption, degeneracy and immorality. Awakening our children on Sunday morning to participate in Biblical readings could easily to that which is being opposed. Much of the Bible dwells on immorality, fasters profanity and honors corruption. If children were not diverted from various parts of scripture, they could easily be influenced by such negative language as the following:

Gen. 38:9 "...and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground."

Lev. 21:20 "... a man that is brokenfooted or...hath his stones broken."

2Sam. 16:21 "... and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." Ezek. 23:20 "..Yet she increased her harlotry, and doted upon her (RSV) paramours there, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts." Song 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." I don't think many people need to be told what "it," "stones," "went unto," "members," and "issue," and "by the hole of the door," are referring to.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#10706 May 14, 2013
continued:

One school of apologists alleges that some of these verses are to be understood figuratively, not literally. But what does it matter? The words are equally disgusting and should be kept away from impressionable people. Children, for example, are not going to make subtle distinctions as to intent and meaning. Other apologist contend:

"When it (the Bible) speaks of sin, it describes it in its ugliness, so that disgust and horror enter the heart of the reader. Not once, for a moment, does it leave the high moral level of stern opposition to unrighteousness in all its forms." Bible Difficulties, W. Arndt, p. 63

"Disgust and horror" are clearly produced but where is the "high moral level;" where is the opposition to profanity. The context of each verse shows they have nothing to do with moral teachings.

The following verse aren't going to elevate the morality of society either. If anything they are worse: Deut. 23:1-2 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter ..." 2Kgs. 18:27 "... that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you." Prov. 5:19 "... let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;..."

Biblicists allege that the Song of Solomon's infatuation with breast comprises part of a love poem between either with a man and his wife or Christ and His Church: Song 1:13 "A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts."

Song 4:5 "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." Song 8:10 "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers:..."But regardless of motive, such language is still offense.

Many other verses could be quoted but the point is made. Enough is enough. I don't like writing verses of this nature any more than decent people like reading them. How could the Bible be a book of goodness, moral teachings and purity when it actually indicts itself:

Prov. 15:26 "... the words of the pure are pleasant words."

Later issues of Biblical Errancy will discuss morality in regard to patriarchs and numerous events but what better way to close this month's commentary than quoting Robert Ingersoll and Ashley Monagu who said:

"The believers in the Bible are loud in their denounciation of what they are pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; yet few books have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired word of God... Until these passages are expunged from the Old Testasment, it is not a fit book to be read by either old or young... There are chapters that no gentleman would read in front of a lady... and the time will come when mankind will wonder that such a book was ever called inspired." "Some of Mistakes of Moses," Ingersoll Works, Vol.2, p. 177

"If the Bible is not obscene, what book is?... The Christian world should never say another word against immoral books until it makes the inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written for the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth but seem to have been written because the author loved an unclean thing. "Some of Mistakes of Moses," Ingersoll Works, Vol.2, p. 178

"THE GOOD BOOK - one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined." Ashley Montagu.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10707 May 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very much so. Quantum mechanics is particularly subject to this problem.
<quoted text>
This is also known as the Everett interpretation. Remarkably enough, it *is* a justifiable position if you take the basic equations of QM seriously. It is also the basis of solving many of the problems associated with collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation.
<quoted text>
Once again, this is, as much as anything, a question about when the probabilities calculated in QM become 'real' and was a puzzler for quite a long time for serious physicists. This issue has been mostly resolved via the decoherence theory, this theory is based on the many-Worlds (Everett) interpretation.
<quoted text>
There are definitely a great many distortions and many, many flat out misrepresentations. But the basic theory is also very strange and not at all what people are used to dealing with: it is fundamentally acausal.
Thanks, I don't feel so alone now.

My "intuition" on the matter is that mathematics is a descriptive human language. We are trying to describe quantum events that we can not directly observe and are interpreting what is going on from "effects".

This is very analogous to determining the shape of an object inside a sealed box by rotating the box and listening to the "effects" of the rotations. It is going to take other observations and tools of observation to discern missing details.

To assume that Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until we directly observe it, is akin to saying the object inside a sealed box is both a cone and a perforated cone until we directly observe it. To which I say "Bullschnit!!!" this is merely a limitation of our observations and descriptive language at present time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10708 May 14, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I don't feel so alone now.
My "intuition" on the matter is that mathematics is a descriptive human language. We are trying to describe quantum events that we can not directly observe and are interpreting what is going on from "effects".
This is very analogous to determining the shape of an object inside a sealed box by rotating the box and listening to the "effects" of the rotations. It is going to take other observations and tools of observation to discern missing details.
To assume that Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until we directly observe it, is akin to saying the object inside a sealed box is both a cone and a perforated cone until we directly observe it. To which I say "Bullschnit!!!" this is merely a limitation of our observations and descriptive language at present time.
The problem is that at the quantum level, there *are*'Schrodinger Cat states' that really are 'half one, half the other' in a technical sense. An electron *can* be in a mixed state of 'half up spin, and half down spin' that is quite different than either pure state (wholly up or down) or 'no spin'. Then, an observation (or any sufficient interaction with the environment) produces one or the other state.

And we really *do* have evidence that it is not simply a 'limitation of our observations and descriptive language'. There really are experiments that show that 'realism', as conventionally defined, is simply false. In some sense, that is the whole point of Bell's inequalities and the Arrow experiment. The so-called 'hidden variable theories' have been excluded: nothing that is locally causal can fit the data we have.

An interesting article to read if you are interested (it was written by a solid state physicist and is spot on):

http://www.phy.duke.edu/undergraduate/physics...

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10709 May 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that at the quantum level, there *are*'Schrodinger Cat states' that really are 'half one, half the other' in a technical sense. An electron *can* be in a mixed state of 'half up spin, and half down spin' that is quite different than either pure state (wholly up or down) or 'no spin'. Then, an observation (or any sufficient interaction with the environment) produces one or the other state.
And we really *do* have evidence that it is not simply a 'limitation of our observations and descriptive language'. There really are experiments that show that 'realism', as conventionally defined, is simply false. In some sense, that is the whole point of Bell's inequalities and the Arrow experiment. The so-called 'hidden variable theories' have been excluded: nothing that is locally causal can fit the data we have.
An interesting article to read if you are interested (it was written by a solid state physicist and is spot on):
http://www.phy.duke.edu/undergraduate/physics...
You said, "...And we really *do* have evidence that it is not simply a 'limitation of our observations and descriptive language'....."

Yes, it is not "simply" a limitation of our observations and descriptive language, it is also the presence of something or events that we are not yet able to correctly observe and describe. I believe it will remain that way until we develop observations and language to correctly describe these things or events. That will happen AFTER we fully understand what it is that we are looking at.

UNTIL that happens, most of the "interpretations" will be about 80% poppycock IMHO. Sorta like ancient Egyptians describing solar eclipses. Yes, they happened, yes they were there, but they were not Horus going on vacation or what not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10710 May 14, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, "...And we really *do* have evidence that it is not simply a 'limitation of our observations and descriptive language'....."
Yes, it is not "simply" a limitation of our observations and descriptive language, it is also the presence of something or events that we are not yet able to correctly observe and describe. I believe it will remain that way until we develop observations and language to correctly describe these things or events. That will happen AFTER we fully understand what it is that we are looking at.
UNTIL that happens, most of the "interpretations" will be about 80% poppycock IMHO. Sorta like ancient Egyptians describing solar eclipses. Yes, they happened, yes they were there, but they were not Horus going on vacation or what not.
It goes much deeper than that. You see, we can *control* the development of these states. In a very general way, we *do* understand these phenomena. But they are *quantum* phenomena, not classical phenomena. Any attempt to understand then via *classical* intuitions is doomed to fail. There are known processes via which particles in these mixed states become particles in un-mixed states and even why certain states are preferred as 'pure' states.

And an electron in the state (1/sqrt(2))(|0>+|1>) really *is* in a Scrodinger-type situation. We can construct such states, manipulate them, and observe them. In any reasonable sense, we understand them. But they are NOT classical states. In the state above, the electron does not have a definite spin. It really is 'one-half up and one-half down'.

And like I said, we *know* from Bell's inequalities and observations violating such that the real world is NOT locally causal. There is simply no way to consistently give particles definite properties at all times and still be consistent with observations without violating locality (causes are not instantaneous across light years of space) or causality.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10711 May 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes much deeper than that. You see, we can *control* the development of these states. In a very general way, we *do* understand these phenomena. But they are *quantum* phenomena, not classical phenomena. Any attempt to understand then via *classical* intuitions is doomed to fail. There are known processes via which particles in these mixed states become particles in un-mixed states and even why certain states are preferred as 'pure' states.
And an electron in the state (1/sqrt(2))(|0>+|1>) really *is* in a Scrodinger-type situation. We can construct such states, manipulate them, and observe them. In any reasonable sense, we understand them. But they are NOT classical states. In the state above, the electron does not have a definite spin. It really is 'one-half up and one-half down'.
And like I said, we *know* from Bell's inequalities and observations violating such that the real world is NOT locally causal. There is simply no way to consistently give particles definite properties at all times and still be consistent with observations without violating locality (causes are not instantaneous across light years of space) or causality.
I understand that we know they do not behave in the same way as classical states.

What I am saying is that we do not understand exactly how they behave, only that they behave differently.

When we try to describe what is going on with our current language, we get nonsensical sh!t like spawning identical universes and Horus going to lunch. We simply don't understand what is going on very clearly and to say that we are creating new universes several times a day is clearly stupid sh!t IMHO.
Lincoln

United States

#10712 May 14, 2013
Interesting on Dawkins

First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.

Historical Ignorance

Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)

Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10713 May 14, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Loon Watch reports they traced these perverted lies about Islam on the internet back to a “Christian” zionist wacko named David Wood with “echo chamber” assistance from zionazi propagandists such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bat Ye'or, Brigitte Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel,Walid Shoebat, Joe Kaufman, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, etc.....
Duping atheist perverts like you to post these lies is easy since atheists have no morals.
How strange. I have never heard of a single one of those people.

My initial information about the Islamic practice called "thighing" comes from a source within their midst. Still, I didn't accept it as truth without a very thorough search into the actual laws (much of which I have posted links to, here on topix) and the religious guidelines that govern the sexual practices of the Islamic peoples*.

Islamic peoples* meaning the males, a female's sexual practice is foisted upon her, without so much as a nod to her druthers.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#10714 May 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Interesting on Dawkins
First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.
Historical Ignorance
Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.
Why do you have to be reminded so often to give other writers credit when you post their work. The above is from Rabbi David Wolpe in an article that was published by the Huffington Post and by Real Clear Religion. when you fain to credit the work of others, you implicitly take credit for it yourself whether that is your intention or not. Such failure is either sloppy and stupid or dishonest.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10715 May 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes much deeper than that. You see, we can *control* the development of these states. In a very general way, we *do* understand these phenomena. But they are *quantum* phenomena, not classical phenomena. Any attempt to understand then via *classical* intuitions is doomed to fail. There are known processes via which particles in these mixed states become particles in un-mixed states and even why certain states are preferred as 'pure' states.
And an electron in the state (1/sqrt(2))(|0>+|1>) really *is* in a Scrodinger-type situation. We can construct such states, manipulate them, and observe them. In any reasonable sense, we understand them. But they are NOT classical states. In the state above, the electron does not have a definite spin. It really is 'one-half up and one-half down'.
And like I said, we *know* from Bell's inequalities and observations violating such that the real world is NOT locally causal. There is simply no way to consistently give particles definite properties at all times and still be consistent with observations without violating locality (causes are not instantaneous across light years of space) or causality.
I can't pretend to understand it, but it all gives me 'goosebumps' none-the-less. It's reality trying to tell us what it is at the tiniest, most fundamental level ... and it has us perplexed. It truly is 'stranger than we can imagine'. When we get it figured out (and I have absolutely no doubt that we will figure it out) we will be embarrassed to have ever postulated gods and creators and other nonsense. We'll be free and have no further need of them.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10716 May 14, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
God does not communicate back and forth with humans at all.
He sends His Revelation to His Chosen humans, called Prophets and messengers and not to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
And after the death of Last and Final Prophet 1400 years ago, that link is also come to an end.
Now no human will receive a revelation till the last day.
But God hears the prayers of His servants and grants His blessings and mercy to whosoever he wishes. But no human knows or can claim that God heard his or her prayers.
So the question of "Personal God" does not arise at all.
This is a misnomer, and Christians have misused this concept and every so called Christian is supposed to be filled with Holy Ghost, which is One Third of their' Triune God!!
They are confused themselves and confuse every one else, that is why usage of words like "Personal God" has gained momentum.
In Islam, Allah is the Lord and Creator of Universe and every thing in universe comes as a slave and servant before Him.
He is the Lord and Master of every thing in this Universe. He is not "personal God" of anyone.
He is free from all these titles which ignorant people use for Him.
"Say, He is Allah, the One and only, Allah the absolute Eternal. He begets not, nor He is begotten. And there is None (even remotely" equal to Him" (Quran chapter 112, verse 1-4).
This is "personal God" in Islam!!
MUQ ... you continue to astound! If god doesn't 'communicate back and forth with humans at all'... then what are 'prophets'? Are they not Human? Surely you must recognize the possibility that they are simply charlatans who are playing their devoted followers for fools. Do 'prophets' labor in the fields? Cut stone? Make mud bricks? Muck the stables? No. They are venerated and provided for and live quite comfortably. I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed prophet further than I can spit into the wind.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10717 May 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Interesting on Dawkins
First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.
Historical Ignorance
Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.
The Jews have been persecuted throughout History for the murder of Jesus. Of course, that's just the cover story. What people really want is their money. Poor basterds have a knack in the banking business. Bankers are right up there with lawyers in most people's Hate Book. Let's face it. They took 50 or 60 years to turn a little patch of desert into a prosperous and technologically advanced country. Pisses the hell out of the people that haven't been able to do it after thousands of years. Anyway ... it's a little deeper than 'simply existing' don't you think?
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10718 May 14, 2013
Kesla wrote:
01. Oh poor little dear you really are clueless aren't you.

Being gay is no longer regarding as a 'perversion' or even 'mental illness' for that matter.

02. Also, you seem to solely have a chip on your shoulder regarding homoerotic activities.

03. What if I was to tell you that I was a gay male who never engaged and never will engage in homoerotic activities? I'm content merely with cuddling. Am I still a 'pervert' in the eyes of your twisted morality?
Ans.

01. Yes the definitions are in your control, you can remove any thing and every thing from that moral list.

The basics will not change, just because you change the definition and "remove" homosexuality from the list of immoral acts.

02. I do not have any "grudge" against Homos as such. The Topic of thread was "Is homosexuality is a Sin"? And I gave my logic that it is a Sin from whichever angle you look at it.

03. I have no interest in your personal life and what you were and what you are now.

I am not going to judge you.

And neither we are interested what you do inside your bedrooms.

Like all perverts, Homos should live the life in the margin and be happy with their lives.

But when we see that a Compaign being mounted that Homos are a Natural Specie and there is "Nothing wrong" in being a Homo, and their "marriages" be given same status as normal marriages….we feel that our rights are threatened.

How can you equate perverts with normal people?

How can you treat ones who are tools in preserving and continuing human race with those who are working at "cross purpose"?

There is some thing very wrong in you logic, my poor little thing.

Some thing very, very wrong indeed.

MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10719 May 14, 2013
CI wrote:
1. Homosexuals exist in over 10% of the entire world population regardless of ethnic background or religion. many animal species are also homosexual.

2. Catch phrase? hardy! You have no human rights in Saudi Arabia if you are a woman. There are even 'rules' on the proper way to beat your wife!

3. Brainwash? lol! This is the mantra of ALL religions. The irreligious reject religious dogma due to the complete absence of viable proof of claims.

4. Perversion is treating your women like cattle. It is slavery to dogma. It is the total abandonment of your own mind.

5. Scale of silliness? DEPRAVITY is a more accurate work. The Crusades, The Inquisition, 9/11 and countless Islamic alleged martyrs. RELIGION DOES NOT EMBRACE HUMANITY, IT DIVIDES IT.

Odium theologicum
Ans.

1. Thieves, murderers, forgers, robbers also exist in 100 % of every present or past civilization., So we treat them as "Normal" and equate them with law abiding citizens?

Presence and existence of something or some trait does not mean that it becomes "natural"?

There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual. How it would survive? May be they also have some "perverts" like we have in our human society!!

02. Come and see in Saudi Arabia, if women have no rights. And in fact there are rules in Islam as to how to beat your wife!!

What are rules of Domestic violence in your society?

03. It is strange the hogwash of Modern media is to be taken as absolute truth and any thing proven by age old practices treated as brainwashing.

04. Islam does not treat women as cattle, so your accusation melts away and need no response.

05. It is strange that you thing Atheism "unites humanity< some thing which you cannot even define, how it can be a uniting force?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10720 May 14, 2013
That is what I said and as expected he cowered away.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>MUQ ... you continue to astound! If god doesn't 'communicate back and forth with humans at all'... then what are 'prophets'? Are they not Human? Surely you must recognize the possibility that they are simply charlatans who are playing their devoted followers for fools. Do 'prophets' labor in the fields? Cut stone? Make mud bricks? Muck the stables? No. They are venerated and provided for and live quite comfortably. I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed prophet further than I can spit into the wind.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10721 May 14, 2013
Women are sold into marriage as children, forced to dress and act as men demand or face imam sponsored gang rape, honor killings, having their nose and ears chopped off.

Cattle in America are treated better than women in your area.
MUQ wrote:
Ans.
04. Islam does not treat women as cattle.?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 34 min Shat Upon 230,178
Doris w/ Spells4free Tue Redd 1
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Aug 24 Amused 44
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 19 Dude 12
News Nigeria: Religion, morality and politics Aug 12 jinxi 1
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jul '15 skylar 108
Shadows and sounds Jul '15 Dizy 1
More from around the web