Second time you've posted this.

What's your point?

Goldenmane wrote:Second time you've posted this.

What's your point?

Islam is naughty?

Goldenmane wrote:Second time you've posted this.

I've posted this on other forums, but I don't recall posting it here.

Goldenmane wrote:What's your point?

I think the point is self-evident.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Islam is naughty?

Yep.

Goldenmane wrote:
What's your point?

Vote Abbott.

mralstoner wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:Second time you've posted this.

I've posted this on other forums, but I don't recall posting it here.

Did you think to check? I mean, you're logged in with the same account you used last year to post the same thing, and that was the only post you made, so it's not like it was difficult for you to check. You signed in with the same fucking password.

What are you trying to achieve?

Islam is a fuckedup religion.

Next.

scott1328 wrote:Islam is a fuckedup religion.

Next.

Islam is a religion
Fixed it for you. The "fuckedup" is redundant.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Islam is a fuckedup religion.

Next.

Islam is a religion
Fixed it for you. The "fuckedup" is redundant.

It's not redundant, since quite a large number of English-speakers do not assume the meaning of "religion" to include "fuckedup". Even if it were redundant, this failure on the part of many speakers would justify the redundancy.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Islam is a fuckedup religion.

Next.

Islam is a religion
Fixed it for you. The "fuckedup" is redundant.

It's not redundant, since quite a large number of English-speakers do not assume the meaning of "religion" to include "fuckedup". Even if it were redundant, this failure on the part of many speakers would justify the redundancy.

Well, they are wrong of course.

Here are some common religious claims & what is wrong with them:-

1. God[s] exists:- can't be demonstrated
2. God exists and want us to worship him/her/it? Can't be demonstrated.
3. God exists, and wants us to worship, obey moral laws, pray, observe "moral" customs of the religion. Can't be demonstrated.
4. God[s] exists, has demands or wants of us, and these are communicated accurately. Can't be demonstrated & mechanism[s] can't be demonstrated.
5. God exists, and is creator of the universe, life and us. Can't be demonstrated [Creator-god type]
6. God exists, and is good. [Can't be demonstrated]
7. If god is bad, then demonstrate why it is ethical to obey/worship an evil tyrant.
8. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. None of these can be demonstrated, and don't even work as models, especially in combination. [eg problem of evil]
etc.

For non-god religions: demonstrate that disembodied souls exist, reincarnation etc. Can't be demonstrated

That is just a quick 3 minute bunch of shit of the top of my head. So basically, no evidence for gods or religious type phenomena, no mechanism[s], and no models that aren't absurd and require the presumption of a magical universe.

HTH!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Islam is a fuckedup religion.

Next.

Islam is a religion
Fixed it for you. The "fuckedup" is redundant.

It's not redundant, since quite a large number of English-speakers do not assume the meaning of "religion" to include "fuckedup". Even if it were redundant, this failure on the part of many speakers would justify the redundancy.

Well, they are wrong of course.

Here are some common religious claims & what is wrong with them:-

1. God[s] exists:- can't be demonstrated
2. God exists and want us to worship him/her/it? Can't be demonstrated.
3. God exists, and wants us to worship, obey moral laws, pray, observe "moral" customs of the religion. Can't be demonstrated.
4. God[s] exists, has demands or wants of us, and these are communicated accurately. Can't be demonstrated & mechanism[s] can't be demonstrated.
5. God exists, and is creator of the universe, life and us. Can't be demonstrated [Creator-god type]
6. God exists, and is good. [Can't be demonstrated]
7. If god is bad, then demonstrate why it is ethical to obey/worship an evil tyrant.
8. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. None of these can be demonstrated, and don't even work as models, especially in combination. [eg problem of evil]
etc.

For non-god religions: demonstrate that disembodied souls exist, reincarnation etc. Can't be demonstrated

That is just a quick 3 minute bunch of shit of the top of my head. So basically, no evidence for gods or religious type phenomena, no mechanism[s], and no models that aren't absurd and require the presumption of a magical universe.

HTH!

No, they are not wrong. You're assuming language is built to encode your opinions in its structure. It's not. It's a flexible system for communication. As long as lots of people don't understand 'religion' to implicitly also contain 'fuckedup', it is not redundant to include it.

You're just posturing. Your argument does not deal with what I am saying whatsoever - and as far as facts go, I agree with what you say. It's just that there's no logical implication from what you say to 'fuckedup is redundant in the phrase "fuckedup religion"'. Try to avoid non-sequiteurs, please. They make whoever present them look like they're incapable of reasoning logically.

IMHO, using such a non-sequiteur is just as damaging to your ability to use logic as believing in a seven-day creation is to one's ability to do science.

How about defining "fuckedup", or "religion" for that matter, before talking of reasoning? After all, the right to freedom of religion is human right.

One thing I find hard to reconcile is Islam's treatment of art. Plenty of not-particularly-fundie branches view music, dancing and representational art as haram. There's simply no way I can get on board with that as a philosophy. There's literally no common ground I can stand on to begin a discussion. To me a society without those things is an empty place - humanity lobotomized.

I dunno .. plenty .. can you identify them? Can you name countries where Islam is commonly practiced which do not have the kind of arts you talk about? Somehow I have feeling that "plenty" will become "fringe" upon closer examination.

CT made no claim about countries. He was talking about branches, or sects, of Islam. But let's turn your question around: which Islamic countries are noted for their music, dance, and representational art?

I really do not want get into these kind of conversations, just sometimes cant help myself. All I suggest is being accurate. Generalizations are not accurate.

I also do not think that "hating" Islam, and anything else really, is the way to go so to say. As others on this board reiterate their position about religion, from time to time I reiterate mine. That is all really. Next time I will reply with: Show your working out or something, I guess, as that is universal.

Religion is fucked up, Islam is fucked up, Islam treatment of arts is fucked up ... I could go on and on. These are, in my mind, statements for 11 year old. I do not deny anyone to voice their thoughts but I have the same right.

tuco wrote:How about defining "fuckedup", or "religion" for that matter, before talking of reasoning? After all, the right to freedom of religion is human right.

People have the right to have fuck-up beliefs. In private. In public, If they make a public claim that something to do with their beliefs is fact, then anyone has the right to challenge their fuck-ed up opinion, demand evidence, etc. In other words the religious [or any other fucked-up wankery ] does not enjoy special privilege in the public square.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Islam is a religion
Fixed it for you. The "fuckedup" is redundant.

It's not redundant, since quite a large number of English-speakers do not assume the meaning of "religion" to include "fuckedup". Even if it were redundant, this failure on the part of many speakers would justify the redundancy.

Well, they are wrong of course.

Here are some common religious claims & what is wrong with them:-

1. God[s] exists:- can't be demonstrated
2. God exists and want us to worship him/her/it? Can't be demonstrated.
3. God exists, and wants us to worship, obey moral laws, pray, observe "moral" customs of the religion. Can't be demonstrated.
4. God[s] exists, has demands or wants of us, and these are communicated accurately. Can't be demonstrated & mechanism[s] can't be demonstrated.
5. God exists, and is creator of the universe, life and us. Can't be demonstrated [Creator-god type]
6. God exists, and is good. [Can't be demonstrated]
7. If god is bad, then demonstrate why it is ethical to obey/worship an evil tyrant.
8. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. None of these can be demonstrated, and don't even work as models, especially in combination. [eg problem of evil]
etc.

For non-god religions: demonstrate that disembodied souls exist, reincarnation etc. Can't be demonstrated

That is just a quick 3 minute bunch of shit of the top of my head. So basically, no evidence for gods or religious type phenomena, no mechanism[s], and no models that aren't absurd and require the presumption of a magical universe.

HTH!

No, they are not wrong. You're assuming language is built to encode your opinions in its structure. It's not. It's a flexible system for communication. As long as lots of people don't understand 'religion' to implicitly also contain 'fuckedup', it is not redundant to include it.

You're just posturing. Your argument does not deal with what I am saying whatsoever - and as far as facts go, I agree with what you say. It's just that there's no logical implication from what you say to 'fuckedup is redundant in the phrase "fuckedup religion"'. Try to avoid non-sequiteurs, please. They make whoever present them look like they're incapable of reasoning logically.

IMHO, using such a non-sequiteur is just as damaging to your ability to use logic as believing in a seven-day creation is to one's ability to do science.

I see what you are saying. But common usage of a word does not necessarily imply correct usage. I think you are committing a Argumentum ad populum Here is the Mirrium-Webster's definition of athiest: "a person who believes that God does not exist". That is actually, and demonstrably WRONG. An atheist is a person WHO LACKS BELIEF in god[s]. a theist [The "a" making "theist" [someone who believes in god[s] is now negative. Ergo atheist means someone who lacks belief. It is a conflation to suggest non-existence in the deity. Conceivably, one could be an atheist even if god did exist. Therefore it does not LOGICALLY follow that atheists belief god does not exist, it is just common. Logical atheists would probably, almost certainly believe gods are extremely unlikely to exist.
So back to my original claim: "fucked-up" is redundant. The fact that people use words in a sloppy way in the past is no reason to continue to mis-use them in the future.
In any case, most folks here realize that religion is fucked-up. Lastly, it was just a joke!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

tuco wrote:How about defining "fuckedup", or "religion" for that matter, before talking of reasoning? After all, the right to freedom of religion is human right.

People have the right to have fuck-up beliefs. In private. In public, If they make a public claim that something to do with their beliefs is fact, then anyone has the right to challenge their fuck-ed up opinion, demand evidence, etc. In other words the religious [or any other fucked-up wankery ] does not enjoy special privilege in the public square.

Did I claim otherwise? See my last post.

The point I am making is that in my opinion what is sometimes being called militant attitude towards religion, on this board and elsewhere, is counter-productive. To me, its not about privilege, its about most efficient way to deal with stuff we do not approve of and would like to see changed. Check any of the "anti-gun" threads. Do you really believe that being aggressive towards people who believe in their right to bear arms, and use them, is the most efficient way to make them to abandon such believe? Because I do not. Sure, we can argue senseless over this, because I doubt anyone can provide relevant evidence.

I'd rather have people who supposedly have fucked up believes around than not, because if they are around we can have discussion. And even there is no discussion, maybe they can read and learn. However, I can hardly imagine anyone staying around in lets say toxic environment. Where are all those religious nuts to be convinced of the truth? This board is in my opinion preoccupied with religious fuckwitery but there is nobody, who matters, to listen to it. All there is is moaning, bitching, crying, shouting at those who are not here.

I should stick to my commitment not to get involved in these discussions. But since its one of those things which bothers me about this community since I came here, sometimes I just cant stand it no more.