All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher

[spidergoat]

No, no, you misunderstand what I said. I said he uses his own reason derived from faith. It is a biased and inconsistent "reason", but my point is that he makes his judgements based on his faith, thus his reason is based on faith.

And yours on emotion. Who is the more right?

You are mistaken, mine is based on reason, which is based on the present state of knowledge, rather than the fictional knowledge as represented in religious texts.

 

[Norsefire]

You are mistaken, mine is based on reason, which is based on the present state of knowledge, rather than the fictional knowledge as represented in religious texts.

How is yours based on reason? Your opinion is no better than his, and no more right. And furthermore I don't quite understand what you are saying; how does tolerating homosexuals have anything to do with "the present state of knowledge". You assume that because we know that homosexuality is "natural" we thus have to tolerate it.

Nope. Mere opinion again. One can know that it's natural and still choose not to tolerate it. Don't assume your opinion is better than everyone else, because that is what you usually seem to be doing in every discussion.

 

[Balerion]

We're assuming empathy is good. And that we must always act on it; again, from his perspective what he is doing is "good" and as such, it's merely a matter of opinion.

Empathy = pereservation. It's the reason we are here, and why we are able to survive in groups and not kill each other. It serves a purpose, and therefore in inherently good. So it's not a matter of opinion.

The vast majority of Muslim clerics do not advocate the stoning deaths of homosexuals. The man who made these claims is quite obviously a sociopath. It's not a matter of differing opinions, it's differing levels of humanity.

I disagree. We can still have empathy and hate people, there's nothing inherently wrong with hating people.

I didn't say there was. But that's different than what this man said. Unless, of course, you advocate the stoning deaths of certain groups.

His brain is no less developed than yours; he simply has a different culture.

From the sounds of it, he has a less developed prefrontal cortex, as that is the region of the brain that dictates empathy.

There are no "superior" cultures. You seem very arrogant IMO assuming you're "more developed" and "better" than him.

See, this is where you're mistaken. You're trying to play the role of this middle-of-the-road guy, this nonpartisan, no-conviction-either-way guy, but in reality it's just an attempt to hide ignorance. The fact that you would would construe my comment that a person who lacks empathy has a less-developed prefrontal cortex as me being arrogant is laughably pathetic. Do I need to elaborate this point? Really? Do I need to tell you that I'm stating scientific theory, and not bragging on my own brain size? Really?

There is no connection. That's why I asked the question.

More baseless claims. Are you so afraid of changing your mind that you'll just make shit up as you go along?

One can be intelligent as well as aggressive, or stupid and a pacifist.

Yes, and stupid people can be atheists, and intelligent people can be dyed-in-the-wool zealots. I never said otherwise.

Indeed most pacifists are stupid.

Care to back that up? Or are you so pathetic that you've resorted to trying to take stabs at me.

 

[Norsefire]

Empathy = pereservation. It's the reason we are here, and why we are able to survive in groups and not kill each other. It serves a purpose, and therefore in inherently good. So it's not a matter of opinion.

There's no such thing as objective good; that's religious thinking.

I didn't say there was. But that's different than what this man said. Unless, of course, you advocate the stoning deaths of certain groups.

This man, from his perspective, is simply advocating "fixing" a problem.

From the sounds of it, he has a less developed prefrontal cortex, as that is the region of the brain that dictates empathy.

Or, he could have empathy and still be a hateful old man. Or, if indeed he lacks the degree of empathy that you speak of, so what?

See, this is where you're mistaken. You're trying to play the role of this middle-of-the-road guy, this nonpartisan, no-conviction-either-way guy, but in reality it's just an attempt to hide ignorance. The fact that you would would construe my comment that a person who lacks empathy has a less-developed prefrontal cortex as me being arrogant is laughably pathetic. Do I need to elaborate this point? Really? Do I need to tell you that I'm stating scientific theory, and not bragging on my own brain size? Really?

No, you're arrogant because you assume that having this or that or having or being like you is "right" and "good" and you can't possibly be like that man and still be good.

i.e, you assume you are right. Like religious people.

I am an atheist but much unlike you. I am not a pacifist nor do I believe in objective purpose, meaning, or good.

You claim to be an atheist and yet believe in concepts that cannot be backed up or demonstrated to be objectively true in any way. They exist as mere constructs of your mind, of every mind, but they are not objectively real.

In this way, they are what we make them; according to this man, then, it is "good" to stone homosexuals. That's his opinion and you have yours, that's the point. Relatively simple.

More baseless claims. Are you so afraid of changing your mind that you'll just make shit up as you go along?

What "baseless claims"? I'm stating my opinion, which is that there's no link between intelligence and pacifism.

One can be intelligent and a pacificist, or intelligent and aggressive, or intelligent and psychopathic.

Yes, and stupid people can be atheists, and intelligent people can be dyed-in-the-wool zealots. I never said otherwise.

Indeed. Among atheists, however, as I said shortly above there seems to be the divide between true atheists, i.e, the more nihilistic and the atheists that still believe in silly things like "justice" and "good" to be objective but betray their own logic and reason.

This doesn't mean one can't formulate moral opinions and such, just that one cannot go claiming them to be objectively true because then they become exactly like the religious in mind.

Care to back that up? Or are you so pathetic that you've resorted to trying to take stabs at me.

It's merely my opinion. Life must compete in order to survive and thrive; thus pacifism is not the way for one to survive.

 

[Balerion]

You claim to be an atheist and yet believe in concepts that cannot be backed up or demonstrated to be objectively true in any way. They exist as mere constructs of your mind, of every mind, but they are not objectively real.

And here is why this conversation is over. I've explained to you why it's a scientific argument with supporting evidence. You have made a conscious decision to ignore that. How am I supposed to have a meaningful discussion with someone who simply ignores what I say?

 

[Norsefire]

And here is why this conversation is over. I've explained to you why it's a scientific argument with supporting evidence. You have made a conscious decision to ignore that. How am I supposed to have a meaningful discussion with someone who simply ignores what I say?

What is a scientific argument with supporting evidence? You have made no such claim.

 

[jpappl]

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Wonder what muslims would say if a homosexual said all muslims should be stoned to death ? Just for being muslim

Or christians or any other member of a religious faith. ”

It'd be their opinion.

It would be a threat which is what this preacher is essentially doing.

I don't disagree with some of what you are saying as to why he has come to this position, but obviously, we have laws and rules to protect us from such idiocy.

 

[Norsefire]

It would be a threat which is what this preacher is essentially doing.

I don't disagree with some of what you are saying as to why he has come to this position, but obviously, we have laws and rules to protect us from such idiocy.

No, we have laws and rules to protect us from threats. Not "idiocy", because that's, again, your opinion. He might think you are an idiot:shrug:

And in Saudi Arabia they have laws and rules to protect them from such idiocy:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

How is yours based on reason? Your opinion is no better than his, and no more right. And furthermore I don't quite understand what you are saying; how does tolerating homosexuals have anything to do with "the present state of knowledge". You assume that because we know that homosexuality is "natural" we thus have to tolerate it.

Nope. Mere opinion again. One can know that it's natural and still choose not to tolerate it. Don't assume your opinion is better than everyone else, because that is what you usually seem to be doing in every discussion.

If it's natural, and there is no negative impact on society, then it is logical to tolerate it. Opression and intolerance of homosexuality have known negative effects on society.

 

[Norsefire]

If it's natural, and there is no negative impact on society, then it is logical to tolerate it.

If you want to. But apparantly he doesn't want to, and that's his choice. We all have our opinions.

Opression and intolerance of homosexuality have known negative effects on society.

In your opinion.

 

[spidergoat]

Just face it, religious intolerance has no logical basis, and it would indeed be irreligious to demand a logical basis, as this would contradict faith.

 

[jpappl]

Norse,

No, we have laws and rules to protect us from threats.

And what part of "we should stone every homosexual to death" is not a threat. If you were a homesexual guy standing in the crowd would you not feel threatened.

 

[Norsefire]

Just face it, religious intolerance has no logical basis, and it would indeed be irreligious to demand a logical basis, as this would contradict faith.

I know it doesn't have a logical basis. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm just saying tolerance and intolerance.......to each his own. If you're tolerant, more power to ya, if you're not, then so be it. Your choice and nobody is right or wrong.

We don't have to be tolerant.

Norse,



And what part of "we should stone every homosexual to death" is not a threat. If you were a homesexual guy standing in the crowd would you not feel threatened.

It is a threat. That's why I said we have laws and rules to protect from threats. You said to protect from idiocy; it's a threat, but it's not "idiocy" any more than what you are saying is.

 

[jpappl]

Originally Posted by jpappl
Norse,

And what part of "we should stone every homosexual to death" is not a threat. If you were a homesexual guy standing in the crowd would you not feel threatened. ”

It is a threat. That's why I said we have laws and rules to protect from threats. You said to protect from idiocy; it's a threat, but it's not "idiocy" any more than what you are saying is.

His statement is a threat I agree.

His idiocy is a threat to mankind but your right that is my opinion. He has a right to be an idiot all he wants.

It would be idiocy if a homosexual said we should stone all muslims, but it was mean't to be, to point out how ridiculous his statement is.

 

[Norsefire]

But I disagree that it is "idiocy" because it's merely different cultures.

 

[jpappl]

But I disagree that it is "idiocy" because it's merely different cultures.

In his mind it is not. In my mind it is.

Regardless of the culture, I can disagree with what they view as normal.

That is why I didn't disagree with some of your arguments as to why.

For example, it's not fair to say that someone living 1000 years ago who believed the earth was the center was an idiot.

But it would be applicable to someone today. Think Sarah Palin LOL.

But in his case he has enough access to conflicting information to his religious texts to put serious doubt on his deranged view of homosexuals.

Alas, that is the case with many who worship the words of their religion.

It's funny how the most educated religious people tend to dismiss the literal teachings and look for larger and more profund meaning in the books.

Because they can't take them literally and keep a straight face.

They have chosen to deal in reality, he has not. He is an idiot for that.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, thus from a certain perspective spidergoat's opinion is as stupid as the clerics.

Although I am on your side, don't fool yourself into thinking you're more right than the cleric in some way; you aren't, there is no right. He has his opinion, no matter how crazy we think it is, and we have ours.

He said that collective good is not served by discrimination against homosexuals. That is supported by facts, regardless of opinion or faith or motives or morality.
You are not on my side.

Why do people always associate intelligence with pacifisim?

The least intelligent are the most violent. Obviously, violence does more harm than good yet it remains the 1st resort of dumbasses.

Nor on emotion, then.

However neither the cleric nor us have our opinions based on reason. It's emotional.

My opinion is not based on emotion.

Reason and faith should agree

Reason & faith cannot agree.

Indeed most pacifists are stupid.

Arrogant assinine assumption.
Support it or retract it or shut up.

It'd be their opinion.

Every thing you say is, according to your foolish folly, only opinion based on emotion so you contribute nothing.

Why are you posting?

If it's natural, and there is no negative impact on society, then it is logical to tolerate it. Opression and intolerance of homosexuality have known negative effects on society.

In your opinion.

You have a conmpulsion to call facts & reason opinion.

 

[Randwolf]

That's not what I'm arguing. ... nobody is right or wrong.

Why argue then? According to you, one can never prove a point, all points are opinions and faith equates with logic.

Perhaps you should resume your medication regimen...

 

[Balerion]

If you want to. But apparantly he doesn't want to, and that's his choice. We all have our opinions.

So it was just that Hitler had a different opinion? It wasn't that he was damaged, mentally? It wasn't that he was a sociopath?

I know you like to think the world is all shades of gray, but that's simply not the case.

I believe you said at some point in this thread to someone else, "Just because I agree with you, don't think you're any better than this cleric. It's his opinion" or something to that effect.

I'm sorry, but I am better than this cleric. Because my position isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of Western civilization, and my position doesn't involve anyone dying a humiliating, tortured death. You can say it's just a difference of opinions all you like, but it's just not the case. He's wrong. Society says he's wrong. Evolution says he's wrong.

Also, how can you not see the irony in the fact that you're arguing that everything is subjective?

 

[Norsefire]

He said that collective good is not served by discrimination against homosexuals. That is supported by facts, regardless of opinion or faith or motives or morality.

Perhaps it is true that the collective good is not served by discrimination. But then again, at least in the mind of the cleric, there is: the collective good of purification.

The least intelligent are the most violent.

I agree. I am not saying violence is good, only that pacifism is a stupid position to take because sometimes we must act aggressively in order to survive or thrive. Although certainly we should look to diplomacy whenever possible, it isn't always possible.

For instance, the Holocaust. It was the battle of the wills, the battle of the opinions, the battle of the societies; pacifism would've meant defeat for the Allies. Thus they had to act aggressively in order to win. Had they not acted, Hitler would have won and administered his own justice and enforced his own social ideology on everybody.

My opinion is not based on emotion.

We're talking about a social issues; these kinds of opinions are always based on emotion.

Arrogant assinine assumption.
Support it or retract it or shut up.

I've already provided an example above. As I said, although we should seek to be peaceful in that it is more beneficial to be so, sometimes we must act aggressively.

Every thing you say is, according to your foolish folly, only opinion based on emotion so you contribute nothing.

No, because society is based very much on our own opinions, thus my opinion contributes very much, so does yours. We debate, of course; we must. However I'm only pointing out that nobody is right, it's merely a matter of persuading the other.

You have a conmpulsion to call facts & reason opinion.

What fact has been stated in this thread?

There are two positions:

we should tolerate homosexuals
we should not

both are mere opinions.

So it was just that Hitler had a different opinion? It wasn't that he was damaged, mentally? It wasn't that he was a sociopath?

Perhaps it was, but nonetheless he still had a different opinion. A different society, a different view on the world, a different philosophy.

Although he might have been psychotic to an extent, my point is that you are no more right than he is; your opinion is just more popular.

For instance, if you held your opinion in Nazi Germany at the time, then it would have been you that was the "evil" one.

I know you like to think the world is all shades of gray, but that's simply not the case.

Yes it is.

I'm sorry, but I am better than this cleric. Because my position isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of Western civilization

Yes. And Eastern civilization has different opinions. Like where the cleric is from.

Good that you see my point!

and my position doesn't involve anyone dying a humiliating, tortured death.

True, and his does. Look at that!

You can say it's just a difference of opinions all you like, but it's just not the case. He's wrong.

If there is no morality, how is he wrong?

Society says he's wrong.

You need to be specific. Some societies say he is wrong. Apparantly not the one he originated from.

Evolution says he's wrong.

About what? How does evolution "say" this? And what does evolution think is right?

I'm assuming you mean "in the interest of survival" although homosexuals are not essential to human survival.