Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

[nirakar]

You all can fool yourselves but you don't fool me.

This has been an ugly dishonest self deluded thread from it's beginning.

The is a long tradition all over the world throughout history of trying to dress up bigotry as being intellectually and morally legitimate. You all can fool yourselves but you don't fool me.

Ugly, stupid, ugly, stupid. Sometimes clever like a lawyer but stupid and ugly like a pro holocaust Nazi lawyer. Shame on humanity. I know we are animals but do we have to be such creeps?

You all can fool yourselves but you don't fool me.

The real topic!

 

[786]

So your basis for the wish to persecute homosexuals is your religious belief. Not exactly surprising.

Huh, where the hell does this fit in... I'm still an atheist in this discussion

It, too, you see, is relative - unless you can explain in what sense it's absolute?

I understand your point. Morality as it is 'understood' is always relative. But this relativity is pinned onto God- who 'turns' it into absolute, so to speak.

There is then an 'absolute reason' for their morality- something that can't be claimed by atheists in general- simply because they pin it onto their 'logic'- which is not said to be absolute in its results.

But like you said- its still all relative if one thinks about it- but it is 'absolute' for theists because they think what they understand to be their morality is derived from an absolute being, which would be the case if they 'really understood it correctly' (but that's what they believe, don't they?)- that is why its absolute.

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Huh, where the hell does this fit in... I'm still an atheist in this discussion

Toooo late.

I understand your point. Morality as it is 'understood' is always relative. But this relativity is pinned onto God- who 'turns' it into absolute, so to speak.

Impossible. My God says lots of things different to your God. So yours can't turn anything into an absolute principle.

There is then an 'absolute reason' for their morality- something that can't be claimed by atheists in general- simply because they pin it onto their 'logic'- which is not said to be absolute in its results.

Logic can well be absolute, particularly compared to a being about whom wvery little is known. Moreover, whatever the "absolute" nature of God, it does not mean that morality from any religious text is anything but relative to that philsophical viewpoint.

 

[786]

Logic can well be absolute, particularly compared to a being about whom wvery little is known. Moreover, whatever the "absolute" nature of God, it does not mean that morality from any religious text is anything but relative to that philsophical viewpoint.

True. But that 'philosophical viewpoint' is understood to be 'THE viewpoint'...leaving no room for 'other viewpoints' on subjects like morality.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

Well choosing murder as an example which almost everyone agrees upon is great.

Yes, that's why I chose it. It nicely illustrates that the basis for the moral designations about it must be something other than bigoted embrace of some ideological belief, since it is a common feature of many such systems.

If you want a reasoned position on homosexuality, how about the one that goes "doesn't harm anyone, therefore it isn't immoral." Where's the bigotry in that?

Okay, sure. But the majority of atheists I've talked to hold relativistic views. Actually I've never met one with absolutist views.

So what? Is there some presumption that you have "talked to" some representative sample of atheists, and that your "talking to" them has imbued you with some reliable, objective knowledge of the "relativism" (or lack thereof) in their views? Because I'm sure not seeing it.

You want to give me an example of one? Are you? What is your argument- nvm you don't want to present it :shrug:

It's not my job to advocate every atheist viewpoint. I'm content with shooting down your attempts to weasel out straw men. You can speak for your own views, or to views that are actually in evidence. You can't go around speaking for "atheists" in order to advance your own agenda.

Peace be unto you

FUCK ALL RELIGIONS

 

[786]

Lol.... okay great. No absolutists yet.... If I turned atheist today I would be a relativist- so I'll speak for my atheist self

Anyways I'm bored of this thread- its off topic not to mention. :wave:

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

Anyways I'm bored of this thread- its off topic not to mention. :wave:

Don't give up now - you're only a few more huffy unfulfilled threats to leave the thread away from setting a new record!

Peace be unto you

FUCK ALL RELIGIONS

 

[GeoffP]

True. But that 'philosophical viewpoint' is understood to be 'THE viewpoint'...

Which makes it restrictive, but not absolute on any kind of quantitative scale. Or: again, I don't accept that viewpoint, as you don't accept mine. All are necessarily relative.

 

[Greatest I am]

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

Regards
DL

 

[GeoffP]

I like to think I'm in the "favourite class". But my conception of faith, salvation and religion is multifarious, so it's functionally meaningless. Or: I hold opposing viewpoints. And I don't care.