Bigotry as practice

[Clara Tea]

I don't dispute the definition. I'm saying by definition of it but for example if you are anti-homosexual which Islam is by definition, that's bigotry.

Definition is fluid and decided in real time, so if people decide I'm a bigot so be it. I won't stop condemning oppressors, their supporters, and the apathetic that watch by, and truly the only way to serve justice is to come to the Messengers as that is one of the reasons they were sent, so people rise by justice per Quran (see Surah Hadid for example).

I don't believe if you turn away from God's guidance you will be able to take the proper stance and be just except for a few exceptions out there.

In condemning oppressors, do you oppress?

In general, you can't fight a monster without becoming one.

 

[Truthseeker]

Non-scientists generally have something to prove, and they will stop at nothing to prove it. Scientist, on the other hand, seek truth.

For example, look at all of the theists who have claimed to have found Noah's Ark. Real scientists date the wood and find that it is much too recent. Does this slow down the zeal of theists?

There should no divide between scientists and theists. All should seek the truth. I don't like dichotomizing the two.

 

[Clara Tea]

I agree by the definition of bigot in the OP, I'm a bigot. You happy?

The problem with bigotry is that there is only one who is perfect (and that is the bigot...in his own opinion).

So, if the well known bigot, Adolph Hitler, had managed to eliminate all of the Jews, who would be next? Surely the dark haired people (Italians and Japanese....his Axis allies). After all, Hitler's idea was blond haired people. The world would then be missing the Japanese and Italians. Then who would Hitler turn to with his bigotry? Eventually, the German people, themselves, would be subjected to scrutiny....who was more pure than whom....and that would lead to the elimination of absolutely everyone except for the executioner.

The world would be a kinder place if there were not bigots. If we accept that others have their reasons for their beliefs, all could get along.

The Christian bible teaches us to get along. Yet, there were many times throughout history in which Christians were intolerant. We must learn from these instances to get closer to God's ideal.

 

[Clara Tea]

There should no divide between scientists and theists. All should seek the truth. I don't like dichotomizing the two.

Truthseeker....such a gentle attitude.

I think that those who believe in truth must agree with each other. So, if scientists say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the theists say that it is 6,000 years old, there must be something making both true.

Special relativity says that fast speeds slows time. General relativity says that strong gravitational fields slows time. Time was measured by years (that is the rotation of the earth around the sun). But, before the earth was made, there was no rotation, and there was no concept of a year. Perhaps the rotation was of something in the universe? The Hebrew word that is taken to mean "year" is more accurately translated as "era." So, when they estimate time, they might be talking about millions of years.

Surely it is possible for both scientists and theists to be correct. In fact, science might actually prove certain theist statements.

So, stop battling, start listening...keep peace in your heart.

 

[rational experiences]

As just a human equal bigotry is first claimed about our equal existence.

Yet science says nature garden. Animals. Humans all live in the exact same heavenly balances. Exactly.

Bigotry claiming you don't. The theist.

Then I am told science is more intelligent than my natural life. Bigotry.

I am taught that my personal presence is only considered when I am rich and powerful. Bigotry again.

I get told God is a man by him he his titles. Bigotry.

Look where it was first claimed....equal natural just humans surviving life versus civilization status. Bigotry.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think that those who believe in truth must agree with each other. So, if scientists say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the theists say that it is 6,000 years old, there must be something making both true.

Of course they're not both true. But theists should not turn away from science to investigate the material universe. Scientists should consider whether what their science is building is ethical, and religion provides that. They should seek the truth also of whether a religion is true in an unbiased way, just as they would a scientific theory.

 

[rational experiences]

Of course they're not both true. But theists should not turn away from science to investigate the material universe. Scientists should consider whether what their science is building is ethical, and religion provides that. They should seek the truth also of whether a religion is true in an unbiased way, just as they would a scientific theory.

In modern life taught first as owning a natural human history what you said is laughable.

Sperm ovary human sex owned any life living today. Scientific material theisms completely ignored natural first is the status. Holy life.

Then natural history family first not science and not religion.

Both came about by opposing causes in human life choices.

So if I say why don't you both accept equal human first family status.

Then humans might choose who or what human group they should believe in. As both of you failed miserably.

 

[PruePhillip]

Accepting from whom? By accepting you are still making a judgment that the OT is historical. What if you are mistaken?

The OT can be assessed as historical IF it conforms to fact. That is the only rational measure.

Well we now know that many of the Abrahamic stories accord with Bronze Age finds.
We know there was a Sodom, destroyed suddently
The four hundred years in Egypt is plausible as many Canaanites went to Egypt during
the Hyksos reign.
We now know that the time of Moses was a time of huge migrations and upheavals.
We have evidence for the cultic centre at Shiloh and the Levite practices
We know of the various monarchs of Israel, beginning with David
The account of the Babylonian captivity and release are historic
We now know the population of the biblical lands was much higher than assumed

 

[KWED]

There is plenty of relevant evidence to establish Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God. There is plenty of evidence to see that this Person is extraordinary, beyond that which the natural forces of the material world could produce. If He is not produced from this natural world, is that not evidence of God? This does not preclude critical thinking, either, to see that.

We have seen this claim made by several people, but their "evidence" amounts to nothing more than assertion and belief.
Ironically, to insist that such things do constitute actual evidence is a clear sign of a lack of critical thinking.

There is literally zero evidence that Husayn-Ali was a messenger from god, not least because there is zero evidence that said god exists in the first place. (When I say "evidence", I am referring to information that can be independently verified as accurate, not just something you really want to be true)

 

[KWED]

In their defense, "tortured because a loving God allows Satan and hell to exist."

Not just "allows" but deliberately created them in the full knowledge of what that would entail.

 

[KWED]

SSome Muslims have taken the extra step to send them to hell by murdering them. Thus, the 911 attack, and the various terrorist attacks in Israel.

Bear in mind that Link considers groups like Hezbollah to be proud and noble heroes, doing god's work.

 

[KWED]

Yeah. Ayatollah Khomeini or some other person is not Islam. .

Indeed.
Islam is defined by the Quran and sunnah (and classical tafsir, to a lesser extent), not the behaviour of individual Muslims, whether good, bad or unremarkable.
There is stuff in the Quran and sunnah that makes the Ayatollah's actions look like kids' play.

 

[KWED]

Well we now know that many of the Abrahamic stories accord with Bronze Age finds.

It would be highly surprising if ancient scriptures contained nothing that had some basis in reality. The Arthurian legends, Norse sagas, etc contain mention of real places, people and events. Does that mean all of it is assumed to be real?

We know there was a Sodom, destroyed suddently

No we don't.
There are various hypotheses on where it might have been and what might have explained a sudden destruction, but there is no evidence of it actually happening.

The four hundred years in Egypt is plausible as many Canaanites went to Egypt during
the Hyksos reign.

There are records of contact between Egypt and the Levant throughout ancient Egyptian history. Nothing remarkable about people moving between regions.

We now know that the time of Moses was a time of huge migrations and upheavals.

It is not even "known" if Moses existed at all, but there have been migrations of people throughout human history. nothing remarkable bout that.
Remember that myths and legends often have their origins in real events or people. There was almost certainly a historical "Jesus character" living 2000 years ago in Palestine. It's just all the magic stuff that is made up.

 

[KWED]

The bible says "thou shalt not kill."

The Bible also says "Thou shalt kill".

Does it matter if the entire bible is accurate if many of the parts of the bible make sense?

Make sense to whom, about what, and in what way?
Remember that the Bible (and other holy scriptures) "make sense" to some people in ways that others find incomprehensible.

God's law, seems to also be the law of the land....police arrest those who kill.

Depends who is doing the killing, and with what justification.

I think that the real problem is that people know what to do (as taught in the bible), but they refuse to do it. For example, we just had a war in Iraq after God told us not to kill and turn the other cheek.

But god also promotes wars of conquest and punishing wrongdoers. And don't forget that god spoke to Bush and Blair in support of the Iraq war, so I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[KWED]

KWED's question: "Can you give some examples of atheists rejecting valid research simply because the author was religious?" This presumes that there is valid research that atheists didn't do.

Non-scientists generally have something to prove, and they will stop at nothing to prove it. Scientist, on the other hand, seek truth.

For example, look at all of the theists who have claimed to have found Noah's Ark. Real scientists date the wood and find that it is much too recent. Does this slow down the zeal of theists?

There is plenty of valid scientific research conducted by people who believe in one or more god. However, I have never heard of any that was rejected through the genetic fallacy.

There is also plenty of nonsense presented by apologists as "scientific research", but again that is rejected because it is nonsense, not because it was authored by religionists. Atheists are also capable of coming out with nonsense.

 

[KWED]

In general, you can't fight a monster without becoming one.

You can, but you need to see to it that in the process you do not become a monster.

 

[KWED]

There should no divide between scientists and theists. All should seek the truth. I don't like dichotomizing the two.

Science doesn't deal with "the truth". It isn't even a scientific concept. We deal with best explanations based on available evidence.
Claims of "truth" are both incoherent and divisive because they tend to be based on subjective belief rather than evidence.

This is even more apparent in recent times where any social media post or YouTube video with "THE TRUTH!! ABOUT..." in the title is almost certainly nonsense.

 

[KWED]

Truthseeker....such a gentle attitude.

I think that those who believe in truth must agree with each other. So, if scientists say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the theists say that it is 6,000 years old, there must be something making both true.

Special relativity says that fast speeds slows time. General relativity says that strong gravitational fields slows time. Time was measured by years (that is the rotation of the earth around the sun). But, before the earth was made, there was no rotation, and there was no concept of a year. Perhaps the rotation was of something in the universe? The Hebrew word that is taken to mean "year" is more accurately translated as "era." So, when they estimate time, they might be talking about millions of years.

Surely it is possible for both scientists and theists to be correct. In fact, science might actually prove certain theist statements.

So, stop battling, start listening...keep peace in your heart.

So when theists say the universe is 6000 years old, they actually mean it is 14 billion years old.
In which case, they should say so.
But they don't.
So they are wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

It would be highly surprising if ancient scriptures contained nothing that had some basis in reality. The Arthurian legends, Norse sagas, etc contain mention of real places, people and events. Does that mean all of it is assumed to be real?

No we don't.
There are various hypotheses on where it might have been and what might have explained a sudden destruction, but there is no evidence of it actually happening.

There are records of contact between Egypt and the Levant throughout ancient Egyptian history. Nothing remarkable about people moving between regions.

It is not even "known" if Moses existed at all, but there have been migrations of people throughout human history. nothing remarkable bout that.
Remember that myths and legends often have their origins in real events or people. There was almost certainly a historical "Jesus character" living 2000 years ago in Palestine. It's just all the magic stuff that is made up.

What is the bike model? Looks nice.
Google Gomorrah Sodom and read the recent work - an airburst over the Jordan
Valley destroyed all the cities and took out 50,000 lives - smothering many of them
in molten salt (recall Lot's wife.)
The migration into Canaan was quite plausible because it happened at the same
time as the Phillistines arrived, and whole civilizations fell. So Hebrews going from
Egypt into Canaana wasn't such a big thing.

 

[KWED]

What is the bike model? Looks nice.
Google Gomorrah Sodom and read the recent work - an airburst over the Jordan
Valley destroyed all the cities and took out 50,000 lives - smothering many of them
in molten salt (recall Lot's wife.)
The migration into Canaan was quite plausible because it happened at the same
time as the Phillistines arrived, and whole civilizations fell. So Hebrews going from
Egypt into Canaana wasn't such a big thing.

That is merely one hypothesis.
“All the observations stated in Genesis are consistent with a cosmic airburst, but there’s no scientific proof that this destroyed city is indeed the Sodom of the Old Testament,” said Professor James Kennett.

And if an airburst meteor did destroy a city in the region 3000 years ago, then that would explain the natural origin of the Biblical story. So yet another "miracle" explained through natural processes.

Either way, not good for the apologist.

VelocityMoto Yam900LC, BTW.