Hypocrites (non-Muslims defending Islam)

[firedragon]

How is it invalid? Much of the violence between religious groups is founded on exactly that reasoning. It is precisely this aspect of religion that leads to religious fanaticism and the resulting problems.

Claim:

Problems come when you accept a text as faultless. That is what leads to fanaticism and immorality.
Criticism is not about finding faults. Dont consider it "faults", just consider it "criticism".

Request:
What leads to fanaticism and immorality has to be researched and founded on solid data. You are making an assumption, unless of course you do have that data.

Answer should be:
Whats the sample size for the research? Whats the hypothesis? What was the qualitative research the hypothesis is founded on? Whats the quantitative research methodology? Whats the sample size? Whats the sampling methodology? What are the statistical data?

Now hopefully you can understand what a valid answer is to a claim like that.

Cheers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ignorant Christians are not generally true Christians.

True Christians are a vanishing breed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is it invalid? Much of the violence between religious groups is founded on exactly that reasoning. It is precisely this aspect of religion that leads to religious fanaticism and the resulting problems.

No, it is not religion, it is psychology, culture and so on. Now of course you give evidence for the fact, that religion is a special category of human behavior, which is not a part of nature and nurture, I will listen to you. But as it stands it contradicts that religion is a human behavior and like any other behavior natural.

 

[ecco]

Well, you claimed something without evidence.

As for your actual claim it was nothing but an appeal to emotion in the end. That is not rational.

Should I say I'm sorry you didn't understand the humor? Nah.

 

[ecco]

Well, even evidence has a limit for which when you are beyond evidence you have to use beliefs without evidence.

Some people believed, without evidence, that humans could be witches. As a result...

https://www.history.com/topics/folklore/history-of-witches

Between the years 1500 and 1660, up to 80,000 suspected witches were put to death in Europe. Around 80 percent of them were women thought to be in cahoots with the Devil and filled with lust.​

That's what happens when "you have to use beliefs without evidence".

Jonestown - Wikipedia

In total, 909 individuals died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning, in an event termed "revolutionary suicide" by Jones and some Peoples Temple members​

That's what happens when "you have to use beliefs without evidence".

Need I go on?

 

[ecco]

I don't know that my religious beliefs are correct for the world as such. I know they are correct for me and accept that you do it differently.

All you did was confirm my comment. Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Need I go on?

Yes, you need to apply evidence and logic on everything and explain how you can do that.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, you, ecco, are a believer. There is no strong system with evidence, proof, rationalism and so on possible for the world. All people with a positive world view, which makes claims about the world, in the end have beliefs without evidence, proof, rationalism and so on.

We were using the term "belief" as it pertains to people believing in things like gods.

Do you really think that people's beliefs in gods is the same as people's beliefs that most people are well intentioned?

Do you really think that people's beliefs in gods is the same as people's beliefs that a ball thrown in the air will follow the laws of physics?

You trying to conflate two very different "beliefs" is nothing new. Theists have tried to use that same silly
argument for at least as long as I have talked to people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We were using the term "belief" as it pertains to people believing in things like gods.

Do you really think that people's beliefs in gods is the same as people's beliefs that most people are well intentioned?

Do you really think that people's beliefs in gods is the same as people's beliefs that a ball thrown in the air will follow the laws of physics?

You trying to conflate two very different "beliefs" is nothing new. Theists have tried to use that same silly
argument for at least as long as I have talked to people.

So you can reduce down all your beliefs to physics? I like evidence of that.

 

[ecco]

Invalid answer. But thanks.

You didn't like my answer. That's OK. At least I gave one. That's more than you did.

 

[ecco]

Why do you think Mao was killing religious people and religion itself?

Start a thread on that subject and I'll gladly respond. Better yet, look through past threads on the subject. That kind of question has been repeatedly addressed by me and others.

 

[ecco]

See, your evidence is rhetoric unless you produce evidence and show that you understand what evidence means.

God's are the creation of man's imaginings. Many gods are created in man's images. As evidence, I submit the hundreds (thousands?) of gods created by man.

Some examples...

Some gods created by man were based on things other than man. Perhaps these people had less of an ego.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God's are the creation of man's imaginings. Many gods are created in man's images. As evidence, I submit the hundreds (thousands?) of gods created by man.

Some examples...
...
Some gods created by man were based on things other than man. Perhaps these people had less of an ego.

Correct and science is created by humans. So there might be limited to science and evidence, just as there is limited to religion. So again evidence that you can reduce everything down to physics.

 

[firedragon]

You didn't like my answer. That's OK. At least I gave one. That's more than you did.

Its invalid.

 

[firedragon]

God's are the creation of man's imaginings. Many gods are created in man's images. As evidence, I submit the hundreds (thousands?) of gods created by man.

Some examples...

Some gods created by man were based on things other than man. Perhaps these people had less of an ego.

Irrelevant

 

[firedragon]

Start a thread on that subject and I'll gladly respond. Better yet, look through past threads on the subject. That kind of question has been repeatedly addressed by me and others.

Another invalid answer

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its invalid.

Yeah, there is no evidence that fanaticism and moral superiority is limited to religion.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, there is no evidence that fanaticism and moral superiority is limited to religion.

In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary if one is to seek research and study rather than assumptions and top of mind awareness.

There is a book called "The history wars" by researchers Charles and Allen which is by far the most extensive record on all wars recorded in history. If you go through it and make some number crunching one would see that this whole notion is bogus.

Nevertheless, most of these discussions are just stating opinions in the pretext of fact. So there is absolutely no point.

Peace Mikkel.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

*Mod Post* Thread locked per staff consensus. *Mod Post*