What have you changed your mind about?

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 163
#91
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,339
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Yassine
I think,
Every practitioner 'is a Founder,
When they influence society around them,

'What a Religion 'is,
Changes with the people,
In my view,
Even with 'Science, one might take this view,
When individuals in past history spoke of Eastern or Western, science, medicine.
They spoke of different claims to knowledge, practices.
And in time, the claims to knowledge, practices, changed.

I believe that an American Citizen is an American Citizen,
I believe that someone 'not an American Citizen, is 'not an American Citizen.
Logically they possess different rights/abilities/privileges,
This does not mean that I think someone 'not an American Citizen, does not deserve rights/abilities/privileges.
It just changes what those rights/abilities/privileges 'are.
Similarly an American Citizen would have 'different rights/abilities/privileges, in 'another country.

I prefer to be an Atheist,
As well as a Nationalist.

Time and Distance are too far, for myself to recall 'exactly how I reached my current opinions.
Too many small steps, experiences, realizations, facts, built up, to recall easily.

As for 'all, it's enough that from my perspective and experiences, I see discrepancies, that lead me to doubt certain claims in various religions.

I consider myself intellectually a Nihilist, yes.
Though in practice, in my humanity, underpinning habits,
Still I move, care, work towards ends.
#92
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,339
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Interesting point of view,
Though animals rape, kill, torture, for their own amusement.

You'd say their lack of cognitive function, Limited Consciousness/Free Will/Responsibility,
Frees them from evil?
As in a tree falling in the forest, yet none around to hear it?

Though, humans may speak of a mountain as an evil place,
If there are frequent deaths on it, accidents,
I think that's the word in another use, maybe.
#93
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,339
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Yassine
"The founder's perspective supersedes all others." - Yassine, #89

What you say 'does remind me of the Bible,
As well as American Law, regarding the Constitution,
People value origins, tradition,
But 'still, I think people, groups, change.
Below is the part of the Bible I am reminded of.

The Book of the Law Found
22 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.
3 In the eighteenth year of his reign, King Josiah sent the secretary, Shaphan son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the temple of the Lord. He said: 4 “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest and have him get ready the money that has been brought into the temple of the Lord, which the doorkeepers have collected from the people. 5 Have them entrust it to the men appointed to supervise the work on the temple. And have these men pay the workers who repair the temple of the Lord— 6 the carpenters, the builders and the masons. Also have them purchase timber and dressed stone to repair the temple. 7 But they need not account for the money entrusted to them, because they are honest in their dealings.”
8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
#94
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- I'm confused. Do you or do you not subscribe to the myth that is evolutionation?
I told you I don’t.

- Any reason why you believe this over the mythevolution? Do you believe in God?
Well I was hoping for you to give me a logical alternative to evolution. Why would I believe in the myth of Allah? 
Topic's author
#95
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
I think,
Every practitioner 'is a Founder,
When they influence society around them,
- That's squaring the circle. All Muslims follow the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), as the founder & sole ultimate authority of Islam.


'What a Religion 'is,
Changes with the people,
In my view,
Even with 'Science, one might take this view,
When individuals in past history spoke of Eastern or Western, science, medicine.
They spoke of different claims to knowledge, practices.
And in time, the claims to knowledge, practices, changed.
- What are you trying to say...?


I believe that an American Citizen is an American Citizen,
I believe that someone 'not an American Citizen, is 'not an American Citizen.
Logically they possess different rights/abilities/privileges,
This does not mean that I think someone 'not an American Citizen, does not deserve rights/abilities/privileges.
It just changes what those rights/abilities/privileges 'are.
Similarly an American Citizen would have 'different rights/abilities/privileges, in 'another country.
- You are going back & forth. You say you believe human rights should extend to all, then advocate nationalism. You say rights should not be exclusive to one's own nationals, then confirm exactly just that. Which is it?


I prefer to be an Atheist,
As well as a Nationalist.
- Do you realize Nationalism contradicts extra-national Human Rights?


Time and Distance are too far, for myself to recall 'exactly how I reached my current opinions.
Too many small steps, experiences, realizations, facts, built up, to recall easily.

As for 'all, it's enough that from my perspective and experiences, I see discrepancies, that lead me to doubt certain claims in various religions.
- Any particular such claim relating to Islam?


I consider myself intellectually a Nihilist, yes.
- So, an epistemological nihilist? 


Though in practice, in my humanity, underpinning habits,
Still I move, care, work towards ends.
- Why is that if not for God?


"The founder's perspective supersedes all others." - Yassine, #89
What you say 'does remind me of the Bible,
As well as American Law, regarding the Constitution,
- It's a lot more than that. Muhammed (pbuh) is the founder & the sole authority of Islam. There is no part of Islam without the Prophet (pbuh).


People value origins, tradition,
But 'still, I think people, groups, change.
Below is the part of the Bible I am reminded of.

The Book of the Law Found
22 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.
3 In the eighteenth year of his reign, King Josiah sent the secretary, Shaphan son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the temple of the Lord. He said: 4 “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest and have him get ready the money that has been brought into the temple of the Lord, which the doorkeepers have collected from the people. 5 Have them entrust it to the men appointed to supervise the work on the temple. And have these men pay the workers who repair the temple of the Lord— 6 the carpenters, the builders and the masons. Also have them purchase timber and dressed stone to repair the temple. 7 But they need not account for the money entrusted to them, because they are honest in their dealings.”
8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
- I know this story. I think Mark (or is it Matthew) refers to this story but confuses between the priests. What am I supposed to get from this?
Topic's author
#96
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101

Well I was hoping for you to give me a logical alternative to evolution.
- There isn't one. Maybe in a few hundred years, if even.


Why would I believe in the myth of Allah? 
- Why indeed. You should believe in Allah, not His myth. So you're still an atheist? Earlier you mentioned something about faith, where do you actually stand now?

#97
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Yassine
Have you changed your mind on any topics? Have you learnt anything whilst on this site? 
#98
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- There isn't one. Maybe in a few hundred years, if even.
How so? 

- Why indeed. You should believe in Allah, not His myth. So you're still an atheist? Earlier you mentioned something about faith, where do you actually stand now?
I’m living with a dragon at the moment. He says Allah is a myth.
#99
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,339
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Yassine
All Muslims may follow the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), as the founder & sole ultimate authority of Islam.
And 'yet,
Different practices exist, different sects, different beliefs, different groups, different Islams,
'Seems to me.

I am trying to say that even claims people view as objective,
Become 'subjective through the human lens.
An elephant may be an elephant,
But the blind men's findings are subjective.
I'm trying to say,
Through perception and practice,
Through passing's of batons,
labels change.

National Rights and Human Rights, are not the same thing.

That word could be used instead of intellectually, I suppose.
Epistemological,
Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

I think I exist, move, because I exist,
I a human exist,
My instincts, desires, psychological mechanisms exist,
Existence existed/Exist,
Material existed/Exist,
Natural laws existed/Exist,
And through time, chance, the right conditions,
Life on the planet Earth came to be,
Years and years and years passed,
Until complex organisms existed.

I suspect, but do not know,
That the practice of Islam,
Is 'different today, than in it's conception?

In the story, I am reminded of how people hark back to what they see as true or right by their traditions, founders.
Whether in Religion, Society, or Law.
#100
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

- There is no harm in a third loss is there? 

Ramshutu gets that prize, since he has reserved my 101st debate.  But I'm sure we can debate something in the near future, provided you better demonstrate a capacity to argue in good faith.

Instead of expanding the subject, why not just present all of your hard, scientific evidence for the existence of winged horses in Seventh Century Arabia?
- Maybe you can bring this up in our upcoming debate. 
Another dodge.  Are you standing by your claim that you have evidence that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?  Yes or no?

Here is a report, therefore it's true' is not a valid argument in a debate about its very point of contention.
The Pew Report is well-established in the world of scholarship as the one of the most reliable sources on the subject of religion.  Religion is one of Pew's particular research specialties.  This particular report, their 10th in this series,  studied year-to-year changes in 198 countries from 2007 to 2017.  For studies in comparative religions, Pew is considered an essential source of data.

Also, there is no such thing as "objective analysis". You have to establish & defend the claim yourself, that freedom of religion in Europe is superior to that in the Middle East based on defined criteria.
I've made no such claim.

The Pew Report's defined criteria runs some 20 pages but is summed up as

"Good measurement entails the translation of abstract concepts (in this case, “restrictions on religion”) into factual indicators. This translation requires indicators that satisfy several criteria. First, they must be comprehensive, covering a broad range of facets of the issue, since no single indicator, or even small set of indicators, could be expected to capture all the ways in which religion might be restricted by government or in society. Moreover, individual indicators can be affected by one-time events or temporary circumstances. The use of multiple indicators, therefore, helps to ensure that a wide range of important manifestations of restrictions on religion are captured, and also helps to minimize the impact of any single indicator on the overall score. For the index of government restrictions on religion, creating a comprehensive measure began with the identification by the Pew Forum’s research team of four main ways in which such restrictions occur: (1) constitutional restrictions or restrictions based in national law or policy; (2) restrictions imposed by government officials at any level, whether codified in law or not; (3) use of force or coercion against religious groups by government agencies or their representatives; and (4) government favoritism toward particular religious groups. In each of these four areas, the research team developed multiple indicators, such as determining whether a country’s constitution specifically provides for “freedom of religion,” or whether it establishes a favored religion or religions. A total of 20 separate indicators make up the Government Restrictions Index.

For the measurement of social hostilities involving religion, the Pew Forum’s researchers identified three principal ways in which social hostility toward religious groups is expressed: (1) crimes or malicious acts motivated by religious hatred or bias; (2) public religious tensions that lead to violence; and (3) religion-related terrorism and war. In each of these areas, multiple indicators were devised to capture a wide range of hostilities, from individual malicious acts to mob violence and nationwide armed conflict. A total of 13 indicators make up the Social Hostilities Index.

Second, accurate measurement requires that the multiple indicators used within each of the two indexes be internally consistent. Though the indicators may focus on widely varying kinds of restrictions on religion, all of them should work in tandem to identify meaningful levels of restrictions. Put differently, countries with high levels of restrictions on religion will typically, though not always, score higher on a given indicator than countries with lower levels of restrictions. If an indicator does not follow this pattern, then it may be measuring something other than the concept of restrictions on religion.

Third, good measures also are reliable. One aspect of reliability is the extent to which different observers attempting to apply the set of indicators will get the same result. If two researchers look at the same data sources and reach different conclusions about how a country should be scored on a particular indicator, then the measure lacks reliability. Another aspect is the extent to which the score on an indicator is consistent over time, assuming that the restriction itself has not changed during that period. If a nation’s constitution and laws have not changed from one year to the next, a reliable indicator of constitutional and legal restrictions on religion will yield the same result in both years.

Finally, measures must be valid. Validity refers to the extent to which the measure captures the abstract concept under examination – in this case, restrictions on religious beliefs and practices. One way of assessing validity is to compare the results of the index with the views of experts. For example, are countries that score very high on the Government Restrictions Index considered by experts in the field to be the most restrictive nations? Conversely, do experts believe that certain countries have a high level of restrictions even though the index indicates that the level is low? Another method of assessment is to compare scores on the index with other quantitative indicators of restrictions that appear to measure restrictions on religion but are not themselves included in the index. As discussed below, the indexes correspond closely with expert assessments of countries, and they correlate strongly with other indicators of government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion."



#101
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
The governments in the modern Middle East also happen to be fashioned in Western style, secular democratic nation-states. Regardless, the proposed debate is freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism, not Christianity. 
I think a good argument can be made that Tunisia and Israel qualify as democratic states in the Middle East.  If you are suggesting that the realm of Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud qualifies as democratic in any proper sense of the term than I am suggesting that you are quite mistaken in your understanding of the term.

- The only delusion humans have is the denial of their powerlessness under God's absolute Will.
As I said to Wylted, the relationship between one's religious outlook and political outlook is undeniable.  I'm an American Liberal- I don't do subjugation to alien superbeings very well.

It kinda sounds like you are making Christianity to be a fake religion.
So when I called all religions "obviously human artifacts," I guess you didn't understand my meaning.  No kinda about it.

So you concede my point that even Paul put human love ahead of faith.
- Take it up with the commentators.
No.  The commentators didn't pretend to understand the meaning of that essentially Christian passage, you did.  Take good faith responsibility for the claims you make here, please.  No post-facto blaming of your sources shall earn you any credit with me.

Where should Hitler go then?
Are you reading what I write?   I say  several times that heaven and hell are unsupportable doctrines and you ask me which one gets Hitler?  Argue my point or concede my point,  it's not argument in good faith to proceed as if I had not addressed the question.

Sorry, but I would never consider another man's pain compensation for any loss- I don't see how any human pain might be restorative or remunerative and frankly, such an assertion seems childishly barbaric.  Yuck.
- This is an emotional barrage of childish rant. Grow up! If this is how you wish to defend your feelings, then go to a bar & rant. –
I see.  I call your conception of benefiting from another man's pain childishly barbaric and you call me a child right back.  I'm rubber, you're glue.  Good argument.  I guess you concede the barbaric part.

Human pain is indeed often restorative & remunerative, from one's own coming into life in pregnancy & birth. Restoration is, by design, painful, as is any prior transgression. A surgery restores one's peace, albeit painful.
Please don't change the subject.  I argued that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is never restorative or remunerative and so such an act refutes compassion.  You reply with examples of necessary and voluntary pain (childbirth, surgery).  Stay on point- prove that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is a compassionate act or concede the point that a compassionate God would not manufacture eternal suffering and so a realm of eternal suffering disproves a compassionate God.

That's false. Atonement depends on reconciliation and restoration of the prior social state. Since eternal damnation denies any hope of reconciliation or restoration it can not, by definition, be considered atonement.
- No. Eternal damnation is for disbelievers who denied God & His Bounty ("Allah does not forgive associating others with Him 'in worship', but forgives anything else of whoever He wills."), for restoration of such transgression against God is unattainable, unlike other transgressions into His creations' boundaries, which are punished up to a point until the transgressor is cleansed. Also, God does whatever He pleases, there is no questioning what He does, else not God. God can punish His most devout slave, & reward His most arrogant creature. God can not transgress, for all things are within His sole right.
Again, you have failed to address my simple and direct point.  If the damned have no hope of restoration then atonement is disproved.  Once Allah sends you to hell, you are never coming back, right?  Therefore, your argument that hell is atonement is disproved.  Hell is the infliction of unnecessary punishment for forever and so by definition, inherently uncompassionate, unmerciful, and unforgiving- traits I find unworthy of any god.

That's false.  Jeffrey Dahmer and another murderer were beaten to death with a barbell by a fellow murderer in incarceration.  Execution implies a government sanction which Dahmer's brutal murder was not.  I detect no compassion in the manner of Dahmer's death and while some victim's relatives might claim some profit by that cruelty I don't think experience ever really bears out such claims.
- Aside from you missing the point, I'm waiting for the justification of "that's false".
That's perfectly clear.  You were quite mistaken when you claimed Dahmer was executed, you were quite mistaken when you claimed Dahmer's bludgeoning was compassionate.
 
How exactly do you define compassion?
With a dictionary.

COMPASSION (noun):Deep awareness of the suffering of another, coupled with the wish to relieve it.

One cannot argue that when Allah inflicts eternal suffering on those who do not please him that he also has a wish to relieve that suffering because he is the sole source of that suffering, can relieve that suffering at will and yet continues to inflict that suffering.  

You can have hell or a compassionate god  but you can't have both.

It's not difficult.  God denied humans paradise for seeking knowledge.  He created a creature that was curious by nature and then punished that creature for expressing the characteristic God instilled.  If God wanted perfect obedience, he should have made us perfectly obedient.  To give us free will and then punish us (often eternally) for expressing that will (absent, it should be said, any authoritative instruction from God)  is objectively sadistic.
- Correction: 'God according to the Bible'.
That's no correction, the subject was the Christian God, remember?  Why do I identify as Catholic, Christian, etc.  Have you forgotten the topic that you initiated?

I don't have a problem with religion, per se.  I just consider it an obviously human artifact- a series of explanations for phenomenon in the absence of more rigorous understanding. 
- You're not speaking of religion, you're speaking of Christianity.
That's false, I am obviously speaking of all religions.

Why do I have to abide by your assumptions?
You don't.  You are the only one proselytizing  here.

You're close to becoming Muslim.
All the less likely after this conversation.



#102
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagi
Interesting point of view,
Though animals rape, kill, torture, for their own amusement.
There's no doubt that animals kill but mostly for food, experience, increased territory, etc.  I don't think I'd call what animals do murder, which is the ethical judgement we humans place on killing

Likewise, rape and torture include very human ethical judgements.  I think calling what animals do rape or torture is anthropomorphization.

You'd say their lack of cognitive function, Limited Consciousness/Free Will/Responsibility,
Frees them from evil?
I'd say their lack of cognitive function keeps them from developing an ethos, which is pre-requisite to evil.  Evil must be an intentional infliction of unnecessary harm.

Though, humans may speak of a mountain as an evil place,
If there are frequent deaths on it, accidents,
I think that's the word in another use, maybe.
Yes, I am using EVIL in the more narrow sense, the religious sense of the word.
#103
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Am I theist or atheist.

As I stated previously, by definition I am atheist.....Someone who doesn't except as reasonable, the Idea of an existent supernatural deity.

In respect of the topic at hand, and also as I previously stated, I've moved from a position of universal nihilism, to a position of an evens chance of universal purpose.....Purpose for a given intelligence within a given universe.....I refer to this as a GOD principle, simply because the word GOD has also come to represent universal meaning, rather than just an imaginary floaty about bloke.....Nonetheless I have no religious devotion to such concepts....Therefore in the theological sense of the word, I am not religious.....In the broader sense of the word I am currently more devoted to modernising my house....And always devoted to my family of course....There's always a human purpose that doesn't require supernatural intervention.

And for sure, tablet of stone can be a metaphor for an electronic device.....But the GOD of the Middle Eastern holy books, still never had an electronic device.

And within the context of language, words have meanings or definition....Otherwise everything that you and I ever narrate is meaningless...Ergo GOD is meaningless....You can't have your cake and eat it...Whatever that means.....Well, within the context of language I know what that means....Just as you and I both know that backwards and ahead within the context of my previous narrative, were meaningfully representative of the past and the future.....Being philosophically disingenuous is one step away from admitting defeat, in my book. 


Topic's author
#104
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
Ramshutu gets that prize, since he has reserved my 101st debate.  But I'm sure we can debate something in the near future, provided you better demonstrate a capacity to argue in good faith.
- If "good faith" means these cheap tactics & emotional outbursts I keep seeing from you, I'll pass. 


Another dodge.  Are you standing by your claim that you have evidence that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?  Yes or no?
- Do you want to debate or do you have no confidence in winning?


The Pew Report is well-established in the world of scholarship as the one of the most reliable sources on the subject of religion.  Religion is one of Pew's particular research specialties.  This particular report, their 10th in this series,  studied year-to-year changes in 198 countries from 2007 to 2017.  For studies in comparative religions, Pew is considered an essential source of data.
- Which part of "this is the very point of contention" do you not understand? Allow me to provide an analogy, I postulate that the US's health response to Covid-19 is bad, & you bring me a report by Health Readiness Index ranking it number 1. Health readiness is itself the point of contention in the debate, the Health Readiness Index, hence, is just an unsupported claim. – Pew's report on religious freedom, similarly, is just a claim for your side of the debate which has yet to be established & defended. 


I've made no such claim.
- Was your claim freedom of religion in the Middle East is superior to that in Europe then? My proposed debate is, again, freedom of religion in Sharia is superior to that in Secularism. 


I think a good argument can be made that Tunisia and Israel qualify as democratic states in the Middle East. If you are suggesting that the realm of Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud qualifies as democratic in any proper sense of the term than I am suggesting that you are quite mistaken in your understanding of the term.
- I meant 'democratic' in a pejorative sense. Demoncracy is a shit tribal primitive system of government. Also, Tunisia is not in the Middle East, & Israel is an apartheid state, not a democracy. But you're right, Saudi is not a democracy, then neither are countries like the Vatican & Monaco in Europe. Still, 9 out of 10 people in the Middle East do live under western-fashioned secular democratic nation-states. 


As I said to Wylted, the relationship between one's religious outlook and political outlook is undeniable.  I'm an American Liberal- I don't do subjugation to alien superbeings very well.
- Hence the delusion. You're utterly powerless to do anything but be subject, yet your imagination deludes itself otherwise. That is human.


So when I called all religions "obviously human artifacts," I guess you didn't understand my meaning.  No kinda about it.
- It does get confusing when you attack Christianity in one sentence & defend it in another.


No.  The commentators didn't pretend to understand the meaning of that essentially Christian passage, you did.  Take good faith responsibility for the claims you make here, please.  No post-facto blaming of your sources shall earn you any credit with me.
- As I said, take it up with the commentators. It is not me who is pretending to understand the passage, that is you. I have no understanding to share. Why do you insist that 'love' in the passage is carnal when the commentators speak of nonperishable love?


Are you reading what I write?   I say several times that heaven and hell are unsupportable doctrines and you ask me which one gets Hitler?  Argue my point or concede my point,  it's not argument in good faith to proceed as if I had not addressed the question.
- I'm not making an argument here am I. I asked you a question. You could answer in good faith. Where should Hitler go after death? In case you missed the point, without Judgement after death, what is the meaning, then, of all injustice & the fate of all oppressors in this life...


I see.  I call your conception of benefiting from another man's pain childishly barbaric and you call me a child right back.  I'm rubber, you're glue.  Good argument.  I guess you concede the barbaric part.
- The difference is, I'm not ranting or going into emotional outbursts. Rarely do I have a rational composed discussion about this issue without heavy rains of emotions & anger. As I said, I'll be glad to accommodate if you wish to have a sincere discussion on this subject -which I also happen to be interested in. Emotional bile is antithetic to good argument.


Please don't change the subject.  I argued that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is never restorative or remunerative and so such an act refutes compassion.
- You made no prior such arguments, but we'll go with that. What do you intend by "unnecessary pain"?


You reply with examples of necessary and voluntary pain (childbirth, surgery).  Stay on point- prove that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is a compassionate act or concede the point that a compassionate God would not manufacture eternal suffering and so a realm of eternal suffering disproves a compassionate God.
- Let's concede for the sake of argument unnecessary pain contradicts compassion. How did you jump from that to eternal suffering disproves compassion? You have to show that eternal suffering is unnecessary pain first.


Again, you have failed to address my simple and direct point.  If the damned have no hope of restoration then atonement is disproved.  Once Allah sends you to hell, you are never coming back, right?  Therefore, your argument that hell is atonement is disproved.
- To get to Heaven, one must cross the bridge of Hell (Sirat). Hell attracts evil & repels good. If one's good deeds outweigh one's evil deeds, then one will succeed in crossing to the other side where Paradise lies. If one's evil deeds prevail, one shall inevitably fall into hell until one is sufficiently cleansed from evil to be repelled back again out of it. Hence, Atonement. Though, God grants intercession & forgives sinners before their due punishment, by saving them from Hell & putting them in Hell. — As for disbelief, the only atonement for such transgression is perpetual damnation.


Hell is the infliction of unnecessary punishment for forever and so by definition, inherently uncompassionate, unmerciful, and unforgiving- traits I find unworthy of any god.
- There is no such predicate in said definition. Again, what do you intend by 'necessary'? How do you justify your intent? & why is this 'unnecessary' punishment? 


traits I find unworthy of any god.
- You're saying absurdities again. God is the necessary being. He is, by definition, not contingent on any thing, else becomes not-God. God can not be contingent on any traits. – You can't use the designation 'God' -as the necessary being, while at the same time mean 'not-God' -as a contingent being. That is absurd.


That's perfectly clear.  You were quite mistaken when you claimed Dahmer was executed, you were quite mistaken when you claimed Dahmer's bludgeoning was compassionate.
- That's entirely besides the point. I'm speaking from principle of justified punishment of transgression, regardless of court decisions against individual transgressors. Mundane punishment of someone like Jeffery Dahmer (whether in execution or retribution or flogging or whatever), who abusively transgressed against others & inflicted immense suffering upon them is necessary to establish Justice & Mercy; hence divine punishment of such man, analogically, derive from divine Justice & divine Mercy.

 
COMPASSION (noun):Deep awareness of the unnecessary suffering of another, coupled with the wish to relieve it.
-  This is close to the Islamic definition -although flawed for God. – Mercy is the bountiful expansion of boundaries which extends to all afflictions and includes all beings. However, God does not have awareness or wishes to relieve suffering, for those are human qualities, thus deficiencies. The perfection of Mercy is in the infinite extension & inclusion of its reach, it is not in the deepness of the actor's awareness or the intensity of his wishes. Also, supposing God is aware of particular sufferings & wishes to relieve them, implies God is responding to temporal causes, thus contingent on them, which is absurd. 


One cannot argue that when Allah inflicts eternal suffering on those who do not please him that he also has a wish to relieve that suffering because he is the sole source of that suffering, can relieve that suffering at will and yet continues to inflict that suffering. You can have hell or a compassionate god  but you can't have both.
- Transgression is not an object of Mercy, for it negates it. You have yet to show this is unnecessary suffering. We can not proceed with this discussion from a non sequitur. 

 
That's no correction, the subject was the Christian God, remember?  Why do I identify as Catholic, Christian, etc.  Have you forgotten the topic that you initiated?
- Then you shouldn't generalize. The only impression I get from you so far is an objection against the general conception of God, Hell, Evil...etc, not against the narrow Christian view.


That's false, I am obviously speaking of all religions.
- What I just said... Which is it then? Are you arguing against the Christian conception of things or in general?


You don't. You are the only one proselytizing here.
- Refuting* your nonsense. You're not that slick. You pretend you're attacking religion when in reality you're just attacking Christianity, yet expect no objection to your false, albeit very hopeful, generalizations.


All the less likely after this conversation.
- It does require submission to God's Will, so indeed it isn't that easy to let go of one's delusional ego.

Topic's author
#105
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
How so? 
- We don't have enough knowledge about the particles of Life to gain any insight into Life, any such attempt is plain conjecture. Similarly, ancient Greeks simply did not have enough knowledge about the particles of the Cosmos to gain any real understanding of it, hence they resorted to conjecture instead, i.e. Astrology.


I’m living with a dragon at the moment. He says Allah is a myth.
- Dragons are actual myths. 
#106
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- We don't have enough knowledge about the particles of Life to gain any insight into Life, any such attempt is plain conjecture. Similarly, ancient Greeks simply did not have enough knowledge about the particles of the Cosmos to gain any real understanding of it, hence they resorted to conjecture instead, i.e. Astrology.
What are these particles of life you speak of? 

- Dragons are actual myths. 
Not this one. He’s called Roger. He fire breathes and everything. He created the universe. 
Topic's author
#107
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
What are these particles of life you speak of? 
- The building blocks of Life, like amino acids & lipids & proteins. Maybe it goes way beyond that, things which we have yet to discover.


Not this one. He’s called Roger. He fire breathes and everything. He created the universe. 
- That's a square circle. How do are reconcile your atheism with negation of the evolutionary mythology?
#108
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- The building blocks of Life, like amino acids & lipids & proteins. Maybe it goes way beyond that, things which we have yet to discover.
Like the particles for gravity. There’s a lot of missing links in science. 

- That's a square circle. How do are reconcile your atheism with negation of the evolutionary mythology?
I’m not an atheist. 
Topic's author
#109
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
Like the particles for gravity. There’s a lot of missing links in science.
- We don't know, if we knew we would've known. You can't know something today that you will only discover in the future. Indeed, understanding Creation, Life & the Universe, will never cease to deepen & widen.


I’m not an atheist. 
- So what are you now?
#110
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- We don't know, if we knew we would've known. You can't know something today that you will only discover in the future. Indeed, understanding Creation, Life & the Universe, will never cease to deepen & widen.
Science as we know always changes due to what we don’t know.

- So what are you now?
Well I’m living with Roger. I’m not sure what I would call this relationship. It’s not religious. It’s a personal connection. 
Topic's author
#111
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
All Muslims may follow the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), as the founder & sole ultimate authority of Islam.
And 'yet,
Different practices exist, different sects, different beliefs, different groups, different Islams,
'Seems to me.
- Who all claim to follow the beloved Prophet (pbuh).


I am trying to say that even claims people view as objective,
Become 'subjective through the human lens.
An elephant may be an elephant,
But the blind men's findings are subjective.
I'm trying to say,
Through perception and practice,
Through passing's of batons,
labels change.
- Yet, it is an objective fact that Muhammed (pbuh) is the sole authority of Islam, no muslim is claiming otherwise, else not a Muslim. 


National Rights and Human Rights, are not the same thing.
- Duh! Which do you support then?


That word could be used instead of intellectually, I suppose.
Epistemological,
Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

I think I exist, move, because I exist,
I a human exist,
My instincts, desires, psychological mechanisms exist,
Existence existed/Exist,
Material existed/Exist,
Natural laws existed/Exist,
And through time, chance, the right conditions,
Life on the planet Earth came to be,
Years and years and years passed,
Until complex organisms existed.
- Infinite monkey fallacy.


I suspect, but do not know,
That the practice of Islam,
Is 'different today, than in it's conception?
- If you mean societal, legal, judicial & political Islam is today not what it was pre-abolition of the Caliphate, then you'd be right. But the mainstream Sunni Islam, as expressed in the traditional schools is still practiced across the Muslim world, since the 8th century, save some places like Arabia & Iran, dominated by Salafism, Ibadi & Shia Islam.


In the story, I am reminded of how people hark back to what they see as true or right by their traditions, founders.
Whether in Religion, Society, or Law.
- A founder of a religion, is not the same as the founder of a state. One is seen as infallible, while the other isn't.

#112
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,339
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Yassine
I support 'both National Rights, 'and Human Rights.
#113
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Well I’m living with Roger. I’m not sure what I would call this relationship. It’s not religious. It’s a personal connection
This is why people hate atheists. 
#114
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
 If "good faith" means these cheap tactics & emotional outbursts I keep seeing from you, I'll pass. 
Thx, Yassine.  I think I'll finish with an appeal to READERS regarding this exchange.

READERS, pls. note, Yassine:

  • approached me with an inquiry regarding my religious beliefs but
    • has moved on to promoting his religious beliefs.
      • I did not ever inquire about Yassine's beliefs.
  • claimed that he has good evidence for Mohammad's flight to heaven on the winged horse Baraq but
    • has failed to provide any such evidence after three requests.
  • dismissed a highly respected source as unreliable only because it did not support his claims
  • repeatedly changes the subject instead of responding directly
    • When I claimed that atheists in Mecca are not free to express their views
      • offers to debate Freedom of Religion in EU is superior to Freedom of Religion in ME in lieu of response
      • changes debate to Sharia vs. Secularism 
    • When I claimed that Hell is not compatible with a compassionate god
      • tried to change unnecessary suffering to necessary suffering
      • tried to bring Hitler in
      • when I provided an English language definition for an English word, replied with a  non-English religious definition
  • It seems clear now that Yassine's pretense to be interested in my views was really just pretext for proselytization and no serious inquiry was ever intended.
    • Yassine has challenged me to a number of debatable subjects
      • I'm a little skeptical of the sincerity of such offers given the paucity of Yassine's debate record on this site, however
        • I am open to possibility of such a challenge, particularly given that
        • arguments in bad faith and with poor conduct are generally penalized by VOTERS on this site.
  • Thx, Yassine! 
    • Yes to a future debate,
    • No to any further religious instruction, pls.


#115
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Strangely enough, that statement about Roger is why I find atheism attractive and reasonable and admire many atheists.
#116
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Mmm, communism's pretty based.
#117
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
I became an atheist over the past couple years.

The religion I was born into, Sikhism, demands a lot from its adherents -- never cutting your hair, wearing a turban any time you leave the house, abstaining from all the standard vices (premarital sex, masturbation, alcohol, drugs), spending inordinate amounts of time in meditation and prayer, incessantly policing your thoughts in an effort to eventually achieve an idealized state of total detachment from the material realm.

As I grew older and more independent, it all began to seem quite burdensome, and it drove me to start questioning why I even believe in any of this stuff to begin with.

I came to the realization that my faith was entirely based upon certain personal experiences that I had perceived as being divinely inspired. Once I started doubting the veracity of those experiences, it all unravelled pretty quickly.

#118
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
If you find people mocking you and the things you hold dear funny  good for you. Personally I think they could just shut their mouth and not say anything instead of being rude but you know that's me.
Topic's author
#119
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
 If "good faith" means these cheap tactics & emotional outbursts I keep seeing from you, I'll pass. 
Thx, Yassine.  I think I'll finish with an appeal to READERS regarding this exchange.

READERS, pls. note, Yassine:

approached me with an inquiry regarding my religious beliefs but
has moved on to promoting his religious beliefs.
I did not ever inquire about Yassine's beliefs.
- Strawman! You have yet to address my counter arguments to your false objections, therefore dismissed. Also, that's a lie. You DID inquire about my beliefs:
"Explain the compassion of creating eternal paradise as a prize for winning a cruel game show called THIS MORTAL COIL. Answer the question:  explain the compassion to be discovered in the creation of eternal suffering."
 

claimed that he has good evidence for Mohammad's flight to heaven on the winged horse Baraq but
has failed to provide any such evidence after three requests.
- That is also a lie. It is you who refused to accept a formal debate about miracles of the Prophet (pbuh) & instead resorted to this nonsense to save face.


dismissed a highly respected source as unreliable only because it did not support his claims
- False. I did not say the source is unreliable, you liar. You failed to address my objection to your incoherent use of material to justify the point in contention.
Reminder, address this >>> Allow me to provide an analogy, I postulate that the US's health response to Covid-19 is bad, & you bring me a report by Health Readiness Index ranking it number 1. Health readiness is itself the point of contention in the debate, the Health Readiness Index, hence, is just an unsupported claim. – Pew's report on religious freedom, similarly, is just a claim for your side of the debate which has yet to be established & defended. 
^^^ If you can't disprove my above objection, then your position is dismissed. Saying "mommy save me" doesn't help your case one bit. 


repeatedly changes the subject instead of responding directly
When I claimed that atheists in Mecca are not free to express their views
offers to debate Freedom of Religion in EU is superior to Freedom of Religion in ME in lieu of response
changes debate to Sharia vs. Secularism 
- Are you a pathological liar or what?? Let's see... The conversation starts with my comment on declining Christianity in Europe, & proceeds as the following:
  • You respond with "If Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion ever make it to the Middle East..."
  • To which I commented: "There is a lot more freedom of religion in the Middle East than in any western country. How about incurring your third loss in a debate about freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism?" <<< Hoping to engage in a debate about the underlined systems of belief in the Middle East vs. in Europe.
  • To which you responded: "Don't change the subject. I said that the Middle east lacked freedom of religion."
>>> Hence the conversation proceeds about freedom of religion in the Middle East vs. in Europe, for which you claim Tunisia is the Middle East when it isn't, & Israel is a democracy when it's an apartheid state... Conclusions, you run from accepting my proposed Freedom of religion in Sharia vs. Secularism debate, then you run from addressing my arguments & objections about Freedom of religion in Europe vs. Middle East. – Whining here does not save your case nor does it save face.


When I claimed that Hell is not compatible with a compassionate god
tried to change unnecessary suffering to necessary suffering
- You truly are a pathological liar. Let's see... 
  • You claim: "I don't see how any human pain might be restorative or remunerative"
  • When you claim was disproven, you resort to lying: "I argued that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is never restorative or remunerative" <<< when you never made such argument, you added the "unnecessary" on your own.
  • Then you proceed now to accuse me of moving the goal posts, which is exactly what you did.
>>> Upon failure to address my objection to your fantasies about Hell & Compassion, your case thus is wholly dismissed. 


tried to bring Hitler in
- So I get you're utterly incapable of defending your position that you have to resort to these cheap tactics & emotional appeals. Shocking how you won 99 debates, if this is really your style. You must be a noon sniper.


when I provided an English language definition for an English word, replied with a non-English religious definition
- Are you dumb or something? We are speaking of a metaphysical concept, yet you bring me a linguistic definition, & complain on top of it. 


It seems clear now that Yassine's pretense to be interested in my views was really just pretext for proselytization and no serious inquiry was ever intended.
- Liar! You have it backwards. YOU asked me about my beliefs:
  • You said: "Explain the compassion of creating eternal paradise as a prize for winning a cruel game show called THIS MORTAL COIL. Answer the question:  explain the compassion to be discovered in the creation of eternal suffering."
  • To which I replied: " you wish to discuss this topic in sincerity, I'll be happy to accommodate."
  • Then you proceeded to discuss the subject.
>>> When your worldview was destroyed, you then resort to accusing me of "proselytizing"... I take this as a concession.


Yassine has challenged me to a number of debatable subjects
I'm a little skeptical of the sincerity of such offers given the paucity of Yassine's debate record on this site, however
I am open to possibility of such a challenge, particularly given that
arguments in bad faith and with poor conduct are generally penalized by VOTERS on this site.
Thx, Yassine! 
Yes to a future debate,
- I'll take this as an attempt to save face upon failure to defend case. But I accept your debate offer, & I hope your antics don't continue there as well, else voters may indeed penalize your conduct. Let's see... the proposed debates so far:
  • The miracles of the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
  • Freedom of religion in Sharia vs. Secularism
  • Freedom of religion in Europe vs. Middle East
  • Maybe: God, Compassion, Hell... if I know this is going to be an emotional debate.

No to any further religious instruction, pls.
- The only one doing the religious instruction was you, generalizing your anti-Christian views on Religion. Yeah, I'm not falling for it.
Topic's author
#120
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
I support 'both National Rights, 'and Human Rights.
- Propaganda speak of "Human Rights" aside, you can't support both at the same time in the same sense, for these are contradictory. National rights assume exclusive inviolability & sole priority of nationals, at the expense of all other humans.