What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6061  Postby OlivierK » Oct 27, 2020 6:17 am

Weird, it didn't come up when I did a search. Looks pretty Poe-like, all the same.

Edit: Yup: https://m.facebook.com/groups/656283361 ... 7046803871
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9800
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6062  Postby Hermit » Oct 27, 2020 7:02 am

OlivierK wrote:Weird, it didn't come up when I did a search. Looks pretty Poe-like, all the same.

Edit: Yup: https://facebook.com/groups/656283361652573?view=permalink&id=671437046803871

Definitely an attempt at satire. The person posting as Benjamin Thompson is its founder and admin. He is also involved with two similar groups: America's Last Line Of Defense - The Group and TruBlu Christains for Pauline Hansen.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4091
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6063  Postby Svartalf » Oct 27, 2020 7:14 am

I don't care if it's satire, it's shitty, and that guy needs be slapped with a rotten flounder.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post


Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6065  Postby aban57 » Oct 27, 2020 8:36 am

Christians confused by the definition of a deductive argument :
"deductive" and "inductive" refer to the form or type of argument, not the certainty of each premise in the argument. The article you link says that, "A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true." But is there a special way to demonstrate the truth of a premise in a deductive argument as opposed to a premise in an inductive argument? I'm not aware of any difference. Can you find anywhere that says each premise of a deductive argument must be certainly true? I mean, if that were the case, I'd like you to produce such an argument, because I don't think there would be very many!


It's so frustrating that people don't get the very basics of logic.
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7416
Age: 41
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6066  Postby Hermit » Oct 27, 2020 9:19 am

Svartalf wrote:I don't care if it's satire, it's shitty, and that guy needs be slapped with a rotten flounder.

Something almost exactly like that has actually happened to Benedict Thompson. He is the bloke on the right.

God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4091
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6067  Postby aliihsanasl » Nov 02, 2020 2:47 pm

Before telling it, first a little information maybe some of you dont know about it, according to Islam if a woman breastfeeds a foreigner's baby her own baby and the one she breastfeeds accepted as relative.

Maybe some of you can remember the Egyptian cleric's fatwa in 2007

Breastfeeding fatwa causes stir

One of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions is to discipline a cleric after he issued a decree allowing women to breastfeed their male colleagues.
Dr Izzat Atiya of Egypt's al-Azhar University said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.

His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

The president of al-Azhar denounced the fatwa, which Dr Atiya has since retracted, as defamatory to Islam.

According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

'Family bond'

In his fatwa, Dr Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."


Last day I was reading tweets, a woman who was breastfeeding her baby was offering to feed earthquake victims babies if they're in need, another woman replied as "although what you offer looks like a humanitarian effort if you feed multiple babies and without knowing each other they marry in the future thats a huge sin. :smug:

The funniest part of this Islam let Mohammed to marry his aunt's, uncle's kids and since his life is Sunnah for Muslims clerics cant agreed whether marrying with cousins is fine or its just limited to prophet.

Biologically there is no risk of marrying with the kid of who breastfeed you but your cousins are quite risky even on that Islam cant reach a scientific, logical conclusion.
"If someday my teachings conflict with science, choose science"

Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK
User avatar
aliihsanasl
 
Posts: 5302
Age: 41
Male

Country: Turkey
Turkey (tr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

#6068  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 26, 2020 8:59 am

A Dunning-Kruger creationist on FB pontificating about science, philosophy and logic:
Two early conclusions that can be drawn from this understanding: 1. such a first cause must constitute a supremely simple ground of being, meaning it will by extension explain everything else that are downstream to its effects, so therefore every element that results from it must be part of the expression of any explanation. 2. Therefore we are looking at a *teleological* explanation - it is referencing the sum of all contingent expressions of its consequences. This would be expressed by temporal beings as hopes for our temporal future, literally "purpose." The first cause must also be the final purpose and all intervening events are necessary parts of its perfectly circular and complete self-explanation.I draw conclusions when there are no other possible options, and not before.

If you can name no possible options to produce different conclusions, then you can prove me wrong about that. So far there is no ignorance involved here. Logic makes it possible to conclude what's possible and what's not, and then use that to decide what's necessary. It's empirically grounded as much as any other field of knowledge because every other known fact must agree with it. One counter example will topple it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests