Do you agree with Voltaire that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”?

by **Ivan** Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:06 pm

First topic message reminder :

Most people who follow a particular religion do so because of geography. If you’re born in Iran or Indonesia, the odds are that you’ll be a Muslim. If you’re born in Spain or Italy, you’ll as likely as not be a Catholic. In Germany, you'll probably be a Catholic if you grow up in Cologne, Mainz or Bavaria, but a Protestant if you are raised in another part of the country. I suppose many of us aren’t able to detach ourselves from the conditioning we’ve received when young, but I still find it hard to accept that otherwise rational people will believe things that there is no logical reason to believe.

Virgin birth? Can you really believe that? How about resurrection, a fantasy that the early Christian Paul wrote about? Is it any coincidence that in his native Tarsus there were inscriptions calling Herakles, who died and descended into Hades, a divine saviour? The legend has it that Herakles came back to life in due course; does that sound familiar? And then there’s an angel called Gabriel popping in for a chat with Muhammad in his cave, while another angel, this time called Moroni, told Joseph Smith where to find some gold plates. A lot of people really believe all this nonsense.

The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all teach that unquestioned faith is a virtue. Many protagonists assert that every word in the Bible or the Qur’an must be believed as the literal truth. The danger then is that some followers of those faiths read the more violent parts of the Old Testament, or the verses of the Qur’an which date from after Muhammad’s flight to Medina, and then interpret the requirements of their religion accordingly.

I wouldn’t dream of claiming that atheists don’t commit atrocities, for nationalism or some other political ideology, or just because they’re insane (although the latter often suffer from religious mania). But isn’t the idea of encouraging people to believe absurdities the first step on the road to committing atrocities such as 9/11, 7/7 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:08 pm

marcolucco wrote:Of course this does NOT entitle one to distinguish between the various gods of various beliefs.

An intelligent yet obvious point, I have made it many times that deism is *not theism, but I'm afraid Polyglide is blind to such facts thus far. I have pointed out many times that even if you are prepared, as he clearly is, to use common logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam, it still gets you no closer to Jesus than Zeus, Apollo, Thor, or any one of many thousands of gods humans have created.

The problem with this sensible probabilistic approach is that it employs a methodology that doesn't work when the population approaches infinity. Usually we would discard the possibility of an event with a ridiculously low probability. This is simply another way of saying that a number times zero is zero. When we are looking at cosmic events over a indeterminate time period then it is unsafe to conclude that an event with a very low probability would not occur - it could.

Sorry to sound like a broken record but I've covered this one as well, Polyglide is parroting creationist rhetoric, but since he doesn't understand it refutations just bead up, and then roll off. Granted my knowledge of maths is mediocre, and probability theory zero, but I tried nonetheless to explain that random events repeated enough times over a long enough period would certainly produce complexity, and that given the age and size of the universe, even assuming it is the only one, then the likelihood of complex life developing increases exponentially. Now since life exists, well what matter the odds? Adding supernatural magic based on bronze age superstition doesn't decrease the odds it increases them. All falls on deaf years I'm afraid, as you're dealing with someone who genuinely thinks 100% certainty in his beliefs validates them.

Polyglide wrote:The other risk of using common sense logic, so indispensable in earthly affairs, is that common sense is often wrong when we deal with such things as sub-atomic particles. The people who offered the proofs for the existence of God had no inkling of the absurdities of atomic physics. Why would they?

Sound erudite reasoning, eloquently and objectively posited, he'll either ignore it completely or dismiss it out of hand.

The God you derive from logical principles therefore is dependent on flawed logic; he is also dependent on geography, for were you a devout Arab the God you settled for would not necessarily be the Christian one; and a staunch Jew would opt for another deity. It is possible that some event -seemingly miraculous to us in our primitive ignorance- did occur to generate life; the nature of the cause is beyond our science. I see no reason to think that the original cause is the being who calls himself a jealous God in the Bible. Of course there is a small chance he might well be but in that case, if he's an intelligent entity, he will accept my unsuccessful attempts at discovering him with the limited tools he allegedly gave me. The Bible itself is no proof.

This is all very reasonable and rational, and I have tried myself many times to explain precisely these flaws in his subjective stance, but alas I fear you might as well feed strawberries to a donkey. Well done though, I doubt you can know how much I have tried to expound reason after so many decent intelligent posters fell away under his relentless repetition of his dogma. I really hope you stick around, and it's great to see Snowyflake posting again, her intelligence was sorely missed.

by marcolucco Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:03 pm

Good evening DSC,
Another field of competence is the Roman world and its language and here I must point out that the successful general had a slave in his chariot who whispered to him: "Remember you are mortal." My accepted ignorance prompts me to look for flaws in what I have taken as truth and while one reason for visiting a discussion forum is amusement, a game of chess where one has mastered the Sicilian and waits for a novelty to appear in the hands of an opponent, a serious side is to learn about and amend one's misapprehensions. When debating with people whose faith is the basis of their arguments it is easy to play the ace card of knowing more stuff than they do - thus, supposedly, proving them wrong. But a fool can be right where a wise man errs. Because the believer stutters and stammers over his/ her theology does not mean his/her viewpoint is wrong - only the way of arguing.

I remember as an artless student having to write a French essay on the theme: Pour tout comprendre, c'est pour tout pardoner. Wise words beyond the compass of an 18-year old but who knows everything? - apart from, perhaps T.S. Eliot.

So in debating with polyglide, or anybody else, I'm not too interested in their facundity, though of course grammatical solecisms diminish the points they are making just a little; I want to read beneath their words and understand the why-ness of their position. In this way their flaws can readily be forgiven in exchange for some interesting information.

Snowyflake and I once enjoyed a long series of debates - we were approximately on the same side - and I hope she continues here.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:10 pm

Then Of course I wish you luck, and for what it's worth I have spent almost two years here reading Polyglide's posts, and I'd hardly have done that if it yielded nothing, but it doesn't take much of my time, and I take the view that if I learn nothing new I'll at least re-examine the validity of my own thoughts and ideas. I mean it can't make me any more ignorant, can it? Smile

It's good to have you here, and I missed Snowyflake's posts as she was has always been a voice of reason and erudition.

by polyglide Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:02 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I think I have explained my position very clearly and without resorting to continually quoting other people, which anyone can do on any person they want with the click of a button and in many cases not even understand that which they quote.

I prefer to call a spade a spade in the terms anyone should be able to grasp.

The question asked I have answered, both clearly and precisely and in terms anyone who is not so far up the wall of self conceit that they cannot appreciate common sense and would rather deal in other more intelligent peoples opinions and statements having no sensible ideas themselves.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I think I have explained my position very clearly

Not really, no offence intended but your posts are often erratic, mix fact with faith as if the two are inseparable only when you hold a belief, you repeat claims that are thoroughly debunked without bothering to address the responses that dismantle them. Your posts show you have a very high opinion of your own opinion, as we see here again where you think not referring to expert opinion but relying solely on your own strengthens your polemic.

Polyglide wrote: and without resorting to continually quoting other people, which anyone can do on any person they want with the click of a button and in many cases not even understand that which they quote.

Relevance? Who are you claiming has used a quote they don't understand? I'm guessing this is the last we hear of yet another dishonest derisory claim, while you roll on to the next absurd distortion of what others have posted.

Polyglide wrote:I prefer to call a spade a spade in the terms anyone should be able to grasp.

Your confidence in your own ability is truly inspiring, your posts less so I'm afraid.

Polyglide wrote:and in terms anyone who is not so far up the wall of self conceit that they cannot appreciate common sense and would rather deal in other more intelligent peoples opinions and statements having no sensible ideas themselves.

Oooh, get her, I see kitty has her claws out again. However I think perhaps when you've calmed down you might want to consider why dealing "in other more intelligent peoples opinions and statements" is a hindrance to intelligent discussion and debate or argument, or for that matter how it represents not having any sensible ideas? That's a question by the way, I shan't hold my breath for an answer.

Polyglide wrote:The question asked I have answered, both clearly and precisely

Well lets take a look then shall we, I'll only go back one page, and stick to this thread as otherwise I'll never have time to list them all:

1. Have you ever read what the Japanese imperial army did when they sacked the Chinese capital of Nanking?

2. Polyglide wrote: all going about their normal life, many not interested nor responsible for the war

Unlike the civilians the Japanese murdered, raped and tortured in cold blood you mean? (please note the question mark)

3. Polyglide wrote: and all wiped out along with others mutated in the most horendous fashion and whose children have suffered from radiation etc; for over 50 years and still the problems exist.

Yes, but no less terrible than the prolonged suffering of the victims of the Japanese, who started this brutal military campaign to dominate the region years before. What do you suggest should have been used, a sternly worded letter? (please note another question mark)

4. Polygide wrote: Now give me one example in history to beat the depravity of that.

No question mark, but did you the courtesy of answering here:
The aptly named "Raped of Nanking" for a start, where the Japanese methodically and in cold blood spent several weeks murdering, torturing, and raping the trapped and unarmed citizens. Women as young as eight and as old as 80 were not spared, and even pregnant women were rapped and there were independent witnesses to many cases of babies being bayoneted and pregnant women being cut open and have the unborn foetuses torn from their wombs.

Or how about the Inquisition, easily an act of depravity worse than the bombings, and spanning years of cruelty without any justification at all, and based solely on religious bigotry and ignorance. Or the crusades for that matter. Or how about the Nazis holocaust that methodically and pitilessly murdered tens of millions in cold blood. Then there was the Burma railway, the siege of Stalingrad, and countless individual acts of depraved barbarism by religious terrorists we're still seeing today. I know you have an astonishing depth of ignorance on a wide range of topics, but even you surely can't be this ignorant of the years of depravity the Japanese inflicted on multiple countries prior to these two bombs being dropped, or the fact that they had made the allies pay a huge toll in human life for every inch of land they captured, and doggedly refused to surrender, even after the first bomb was dropped.
So far you have not responded.

5. polyglide wrote: Dr, Sheldon, I am not interested in any other religion than Christianity and as I attempted to explain that God will and did act according to the circumstances regarding all the events recorded in the BIble.

Bully for you, relevance? (Note the question mark)

Polyglide wrote:6. You kick yourself in the head when you say the use of the nuclear bomb was justified

Not quite what I did though was it, and your dishonest attempt to paraphrase me without any context, or any attempt by you to address what I actually posted speaks for itself, your posts are pathologically dishonest I'm afraid. Perhaps you think we should have let the Japanese free to re-arm and continue their barbaric march of rapine, torture, and murder across the whole of Asia? (note the question mark again)

7. Polyglide wrote: Darwin, Newton and many other such people would not have the same opinion on many matters if they had the same information that is available today.

And you know this how exactly? (note the question mark)
8.You never said what you were claiming Darwin and Newton would view differently, or how you claim to know this? (note I repeat my question in another post)

That's enough for now, this is just one page of one thread and there are 7 separate questions you have completely ignored, often because the absurd claims you made unravel when questioned, so you just move on quickly making more and more claims that you never evidence. You never answer questions, and you ignore answers to your own. Your preaching at the top of your lungs, and you have your ear plugs in, that's not discussion or debate.

by marcolucco Thu Nov 19, 2015 6:51 pm

Hello DSC

"Your posts show you have a very high opinion of your own opinion"

Thankfully not addressed to me but, as Hamlet said, it makes us pause. A high opinion of our own opinion is a prerequisite for anyone who debates - else why bother?

On the point of being "honest" it is an oratorical trick to accuse your antagonist of something he didn't say by a clever twisting of words. Our more able interviewers do it all the time just to upset their victim. When we debate with a devout person we rather unfairly expect that person to be completely honest and open or we accuse them of hypocrisy. All in the game, I suppose.

Interesting debate - a pity there are not a few more to give other opinions. Best wishes.

by polyglide Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:34 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I answered the question posed in a simple straight foreward manner.

Anyone open to manipulation can be encouraged to do anything good, bad or indifferent and although Voltaire is correct he is only applying it to one specific thing when it applies to many.

That is what the question is.

As attempting to compare the actions you relate to that of the use of the nuclear bomb is childish nonesense.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:41 am

We can all be subjective at times, this is very true, but Polyglide doesn't seen to understand the difference between the most compelling objectively evidenced fact and subjective hearsay.

Hyperbole and extrapolating a viewpoint well beyond what is actually said is dishonest, and differs from making a logical inferrance. If someone claims an omni benevolent omnipotent deity exists then the onus is theirs to explain why all the evidence opposes this. Now there are some clever apologists who offer intelligently crafted arguments, but simply ignoring the contradiction and hopping from each claim to the next in a never ending circular argument with supetnatural satanic demons thrown in for good measure is hardly debate, it's preaching, and that's what churches are for as far as I'm concerned.

It's simply bad manners to endlessly repeat your beliefs without ever attempting to address what others are posting beyond flat denial. It negates discussion completely.

by polyglide Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:33 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never ever refered to supetnatural satanic demons ????????.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:05 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I have never ever refered to supetnatural satanic demons ????????.

You certainly have. You tried to justify suffering by making the unevidenced claim that Satan was responsible. You have also claimed Satan falsifies scientific evidence to confuse us. You also claimed that demons and spirits existed, and could be contacted via a oeje board.

Polyglide wrote:As attempting to compare the actions you relate to that of the use of the nuclear bomb is childish nonesense

You asked specifically for a single action 'more depraved' than the hydrogen bombing of Japan. I gave several. It's no surprise to me that you now ignore them completely with a petulant insult, because as usual you failed to think your question through, and have no answer to reasoned facts.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:20 pm

I showed eight separate questions you'd dodged answering on the last page of this thread alone. You are still ignoring them. You make claims and preach, but then ignore the responses. On the odd occasions you do respond it's a puerile dismissal as in your last post.

by polyglide Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:10 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I cannot understand your inability to deal with a question and not go into some unrelated mattters to show you have read one or two Beanos etc;

I have fully answered the question posed.

Yes, is the answer along with the fact that anyone open to manipulation can also be encouraged to do anything so the question is realy pointless.

Please get someone to explain.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:30 pm

This was your claim on the previous page...

by polyglide on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:21 am
Dr, Sheldon,
I do believe you made a case out for the horror of inflicting the nuclear weapons on Japan.Involved would be children, pregnant women, old and young innocent people of all ages and denominations, all going about their normal life, many not interested nor responsible for the war and all wiped out along with others mutated in the most horendous fashion and whose children have suffered from radiation etc; for over 50 years and still the problems exist.

Now give me one example in history to beat the depravity of that.

I gave you several examples which YOU asked for, but then ignored, and now just half a dozen posts later are claiming are irrelevant. I ask again, are you on some sort of medication? Or is this astonishingly idiotic and dishonest display deliberate?

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
I do believe you made a case out for the horror of inflicting the nuclear weapons on Japan.

That's correct, and you haven't addressed that case at all, just offered the blatantly obvious assertion that innocent people were killed. It appears you hadn't noticed the Japanese started a relentless and barbaric war years before this against several different nations, killing, torturing, and raping without compunction.

Polyglide wrote:
Involved would be children, pregnant women, old and young innocent people of all ages and denominations,
Have you ever read what the Japanese imperial army did when they sacked the Chinese capital of Nanking? Even the most conservative estimates have rapes at around 80000, women as old as 80 and as young 8 and even pregnant women were not spared. This is without how they treated the prisoners that they captured, both military and civilian.
all going about their normal life, many not interested nor responsible for the war

Unlike the civilians the Japanese murdered, raped and tortured in cold blood you mean? This is asinine nonsense man, you really ought to try and get a cursory knowledge of the historical context in which the bombings took place.

Polyglide wrote:
and all wiped out along with others mutated in the most horendous fashion and whose children have suffered from radiation etc; for over 50 years and still the problems exist.
Yes, but no less terrible than the prolonged suffering of the victims of the Japanese, the Japanese who had started this brutal military campaign to dominate the region years before. What do you suggest should have been used, a sternly worded letter?

Polygide wrote:
Now give me one example in history to beat the depravity of that.

The aptly named "Raped of Nanking" for a start, where the Japanese methodically and in cold blood spent several weeks murdering, torturing, and raping the trapped and unarmed citizens. Women as young as eight and as old as 80 were not spared, and even pregnant women were rapped and there were independent witnesses to many cases of babies being bayoneted and pregnant women being cut open and have the unborn foetuses torn from their wombs.

Or how about the Inquisition, easily an act of depravity worse than the bombings, and spanning years of cruelty without any justification at all, and based solely on religious bigotry and ignorance. Or the crusades for that matter. Or how about the Nazis holocaust that methodically and pitilessly murdered tens of millions in cold blood. Then there was the Burma railway, the siege of Stalingrad, and countless individual acts of depraved barbarism by religious terrorists we're still seeing today. I know you have an astonishing depth of ignorance on a wide range of topics, but even you surely can't be this ignorant of the years of depravity the Japanese inflicted on multiple countries prior to these two bombs being dropped, or the fact that they had made the allies pay a huge toll in human life for every inch of land they captured, and doggedly refused to surrender, even after the first bomb was dropped.

Any thoughts on my expansive answer to your OWN question? I'm guessing not. Perhaps you don't care to think to alternatives to your own opinions, your posts certainly indicate this.

by polyglide Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:37 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Are you realy on this planet ?.

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with Voltaire and the question HSL.

However, none of the examples given in any way are comparable to the nuclear bomb, the numbers are not in way comparable with any other previous events as the nuclear problems are still apparent in humans today and will be forever a problem causing cancer amongst other things.

Rather than scientists finding cures they should have found ways to prevent, most of our illnesses are self inflicted and the state of the world regarding obesity and many types of cancer can be shown to be because of abuse by humans of the things God has provide.

In the western world diabetics are becoming more plentiful than atheists, self inflicted along with all the other deseases associated with it.

No one in their right mind could say the world is in anything other than the worst state it has ever been in and the majority of the potential destruction can be placed at the hands of scientists provding the means.

by polyglide Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:39 pm

I cannot be bothered to change the spelling mistakes as evrything is lost on you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:07 pm

You asked for examples. So sulking when they're given, ignoring them, and endlessly pointing out that they're not relevant is fairly asinine. Why ask for examples if you don't consider them relevant?

In what way is the systematic cold blooded murder of 6 million unarmed civilians less depraved than the bombing of a city of strategic importance as an act of war against a barbaric and unrelenting aggressor? Or the systematic murder of 100000plus civilians by an occupying Japanese army and rapes that number even by conservative estimates to be in excess of 80000? Over a period of months, independent witnesses recorded the appalling atrocities committed by the Japanese imperial army during their destruction of Nanking. Are you seriously saying these actions are not even remotely comparable in depravity to a wartime bombing of strategic port cities that would have enabled the Japanese to exact a massive toll in human life for both sides before being defeated?

Please save your childish ad hominem, I've heard them all now, and all they show is that having made a claim and asked for evidence to refute it you now have no reasonable response, beyond broad childish ad hominem.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:09 pm

You think the current state of the world worse than the dark ages? Or during the bubonic plague? Or the influenza pandemic that killed 50 million people? Well you're entitled to an opinion of course, even if it is ludicrous.

by polyglide Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:38 am

Dr, Sheldon,
As I have said in another post, when you have 24 hours a day to think about evrything you can come up with all sorts of nonesense.

Take the question posed, you could just as easily ask if a person can be made so jealous that he/she kills their partner or can a woman having no food for her children be made into a thief by stealing to feed them, the list is endless and pointless as is the question here.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:53 am

Are you saying you have 24 hrs a day?

by polyglide Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:59 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Sorry for giving you more credit than you deserve I thought even you would realise there was 24 hours in a day but then?.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:05 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Sorry for giving you more credit than you deserve I thought even you would realise there was 24 hours in a day but then?.

Care to show where I have claimed there aren't? You're surpassing yourself here champ. You also ignored this question:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:09 pm
You think the current state of the world worse than the dark ages? Or during the bubonic plague? Or the influenza pandemic that killed 50 million people? Well you're entitled to an opinion of course, even if it is ludicrous.

and you have persisted in ignoring my examples that YOU asked for:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:07 pm

You asked for examples. So sulking when they're given, ignoring them, and endlessly pointing out that they're not relevant is fairly asinine. Why ask for examples if you don't consider them relevant?

In what way is the systematic cold blooded murder of 6 million unarmed civilians less depraved than the bombing of a city of strategic importance as an act of war against a barbaric and unrelenting aggressor? Or the systematic murder of 100000plus civilians by an occupying Japanese army and rapes that number even by conservative estimates to be in excess of 80000? Over a period of months, independent witnesses recorded the appalling atrocities committed by the Japanese imperial army during their destruction of Nanking. Are you seriously saying these actions are not even remotely comparable in depravity to a wartime bombing of strategic port cities that would have enabled the Japanese to exact a massive toll in human life for both sides before being defeated?

Please save your childish ad hominem, I've heard them all now, and all they show is that having made a claim and asked for evidence to refute it you now have no reasonable response, beyond broad childish ad hominem.

So is this to be it now, have you finally exhausted your empty rhetoric, and have only petty ad hominem left?

by polyglide Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:46 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have on several occasions given a clear answer to the question and see no point in going any further.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:21 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I have on several occasions given a clear answer to the question and see no point in going any further.

I pointed this out weeks ago, when you first accepted Voltaire's premise. I am at a loss as to why you continued, the premise is too solidly evidenced for it to really be denied anyway. Though I suspect this latest pretence of future reticence has more to do with you not wanting to address my examples THAT YOU ASKED FOR
of acts more depraved than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I knew I'd not get a sensible response anyway, bye then.

by polyglide Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:23 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Closed so far as I am concerned.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:00 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Closed so far as I am concerned.

Good to know, any chance you'll address those examples of actions more depraved that the wartime bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that YOU asked me for?

by polyglide Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:16 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have not answered because your reply is so ridiculous.

The atom bomb killed directly at least 130,000 people and has since killed tens of thousands since through the hideous radiation and thousands of children, entirely innocent, have been born maimed etc;

There is no comparison whatsoever.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:27 pm

The Holocaust murdered over 6 million in cold blood. The civilians were brutilised deliberately, women and children first as they were too weak to work. In Nanking the Japanese raped 100's of thousands of women as young as 8 and as old as 80. They murdered approx 150000 unarmed civilians and POWS.

How is this less depraved than the wartime bombing of an aggressor who refused to surrender a war they started and conducted in the most depraved inhuman barbarity imaginable?

You're simply dismissing this as nonsense isn't an argument. You are simply unwilling to acknowledge that your bombast has unseated you.

by marcolucco Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:21 pm

It is a great pity that we have no spokesperson for Islam to argue against the charge that the Koran is responsible for atrocities such as the recent ones in France and Mali. Were we having this discussion a few hundred years back then we would level the same charge at Christianity which was in its element burning old women and killing scientists and philosophers.

We blame radicalisation for taking well-educated youths down the path of murder. The families and friends of terrorists invariably talk of a friendly, good-natured son or daughter and express disbelief that they could have decapitated someone or slaughtered children. But if we read the Koran from cover to cover we will hear that unbelievers deserve torture, that believers should oppose those who oppose Allah. We will find that husbands, by God's command, must beat disobedient wives. It is a clever trick for someone steeped in koranic lore (a "scholar", indeed) to tell youths that green couches with waiting virgins will be their heavenly reward for killing Allah's enemies. Where is this strenuously denied? The families who subjected their children to an Islamic education simply prepared the ground for the events of Paris. It is not of course true that ALL Muslims become suicide bombers; that would be a silly proposition. But if a small percentage are led, through their Holy Book, to atrocities, then this should be addressed not just by Muslims themselves but by those who are put at risk and by our law-makers. If the same applies to Christianity and Judaism, then the same procedures should be followed. But we are not seeing Jews and Christians blowing themselves up.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:11 am

Very eloquently put if I may say so, and I myself raise this point in several refutation of Polyglide's claim that UK citizens are somehow to blame for offending Muslim sensibilities. He didn't address it, ever. Just endlessly told me it was irrelevant and reposted his original claim. I suspect the 'behaviours' he claimed were offending and helping radicalise young Muslims were also things he has issues with. Like gay rights, women having autonomy to dress as they please and not how mysogynistic old men want, adults taking a drink when they please etc. He combined these innocuous activities with a list of the most appalling crimes for the purpose of obfuscation, but it was transparent from the first.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:44 am

marcolucco,
I take note of your opinions and thoughts on this matter and agree that there are many reasons regarding the state of both past and presenet events.

As a Christian I go by what the Bible says is right or wrong and unlike many so called Christians I do not agree with making exceptions to suit circumstances ( as many have done)
and the Bible clearly gives what is right and what is wrong for Christians to consider.

Dr, Sheldon is constantly quoting homosexuality and calling me a homophobic, the dictionary Oxford 3rd edition says, it is the hatred and fear of homosexuals, I have homosexual friends whitch I neither fear not hate.

The Bible references to homosexuality are numerous but Romans 1 26-32 gives a clear Christian view regarding homosexuality.

I believe everyone has a right to an opinion but it should be based on the facts and nothing else.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:03 am

marcolucco,
You cannot blame religion for all our woes even if there were no religions it is beyond the means of mankind to devise a means of self government that would be fair to all.

I agree that Muslims have a peculiar idea of what is right and what is wrong but as I feel it a false religion it bothers me not until it affects the world in general and it does.

I agree that their faith gives them enough advice to make them believe what they are doing is right, however, I also believe that in our country we also, in many respects, give them more ammunition by the bahaviour and acceptance of many things they feel abhorent.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:32 am

Polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon is constantly quoting homosexuality and calling me a homophobic, the dictionary Oxford 3rd edition says, it is the hatred and fear of homosexuals, I have homosexual friends whitch I neither fear not hate.

That's a collection of shameful lies. Let the record note YOU raised this topic and I am duly going to respond, as I have said repeatedly I always challenge homophobic bigotry.

You claimed that "all dictionaries defined homosexuals as perverts". You lied, I and several others quoted the Oxford English Dictionary definition and you just ignored it and the link to their online website, whilst repeating this lie.

You have repeatedly judged gay people on here using the most pejorative terms. To deny this is as imbecilic as it is dishonest. I am more than happy for anyone to judge for themselves from your many bigoted homophobic posts before I'd even joined this site.

You don't have gay friends at all, this is another blatant lie. You lie to their face but on here in secret behind their backs refer to them as unnatural abnormal perverted deviants. You know full well they'd have nothing to do with you if they knew how you really felt.

Each time you post these bigoted homophobic lies I'll challenge them. You've been invited to leave this topic alone yet cannot resist reposting your repulsive prejudice.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:37 am

marcolucco,
You cannot blame religion for all our woes even if there were no religions it is beyond the means of mankind to devise a means of self government that would be fair to all.

No one has blamed religion for 'allourwoes' but it can take its fair share of the blame. The last claim is unevidenced hyperbole. If humans could abandon adherence to the idiotic idea we have to subjugate our morals to bronze age superstitions, and instead accepted the simple fact we all deserve equal rights we'd be far better off, and well on our way to a fair just existence.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:45 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I gave every reference needed to substantiate my observations, you used one dictionary, I and Ivan used another.

All the above definitions are those accepted by the vast majority of human beings, are you a murderer for explaining what murder involves? or a rapist for explaining the definition of rape?.

Your lack of understanding the difference between explaining and having an opinion is only bettered by your inability to understand the meaning of a lie as opposed to a difference of opinion.

Perhaps one day the penny will drop but I very much doubt it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:36 pm

You have not quoted any dictionaries, only a Thesaurus. Why you're lying about Ivan I don't know, it was he who repeatedly warned you your posts were unacceptable and abusive homophobia. Then banned you for a month when you refused to stop.

Definitions are by definition defined in dictionaries. This absurdly idiotic idea that the Oxford English Dictionary definition is trumped by you claiming to somehow know what the majority of people think is risible nonsense.

Your analogies just show you have a very poor grasp of the topic, but I have warned you that I simply won't let homophobic bigotry go unchallenged. I consider it the duty of all decent people to challenge such prejudiced and hateful views.

You continually lie, I'm not sure why you think an opinion can't be deliberately duplicitous but rest assured the inability to grasp this is yours not mine. Ivan for instance roundly refuted your claim that the dictionary defined homosexuals as perverts. Yet you insist on lying about this as well.

Why you persist in blaming everyone else for your woeful grasp of English I don't know.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:47 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Let us try again, I know the dictionaries of late have changed and down graded the meaning of homosexuality as to previous definitions so lets take the latest.

Homosexuality, a liking or sexual attraction to the same sex etc;

Abnormality, a deviation, if homosexuality is not a deviation then what is it?.

All the dictionaries of late have done is to attempt to cloud the issue to go along with the present attempt to appease as many people of different opinions as possible.

What a word indicates is what the majority of people accept it as and as I have stated several times that the majority of the world populations will agree that homosexuality is abnormal.

Why you are concerned at the actual definition I cannot understand, one either agrees with it and accepts it or disgrees and feels otherwise.

There are numerous occasions when opinions differ but nothing other than a difference of opinion is involved.

by marcolucco Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:01 pm

polyglide wrote:As a Christian I go by what the Bible says is right or wrong and unlike many so called Christians I do not agree with making exceptions to suit circumstances ( as many have done)

That is very clearly put, polglide. As a devout Christian kid I was taught the same ideals. On the face of it, if the Bible is a good book, then following it seems best practice. Centuries ago many intelligent people did just that. James 1, the "wisest fool in Christendom," made it his mission to take such a literal interpretation of the Bible (remember he authorised a very well-written version in 1611) and he had lots of "witches" burned. This was because one of the verses said: Suffer not a witch to live.
You say you do not, unlike many so-called Christians, make exceptions. That means you would agree with seeking out supposed witches and killing them. I believe that verse was placed there because of prevailing superstition. We have the Witch of Endor mentioned in the OT. Look at Leviticus 20 and you will find that death is prescribed for minor sexual transgressions; a man sleeping with his wife's mother will be burned, with the mother; then in Deuteronomy 23 we find that someone with damaged testicles or someone who is a bastard is cut off from the congregation of the Lord; the previous verse contains the notorious, misogynistic command that a woman who didn't shout loud enough when being raped should be stoned "with stones." Islam is founded on the same principles - and in many Islamic countries today people suffer such penalties. So I do not think it is a good resolution to go by everything the Bible says.

As for man lying with man -deserving death - I read the Naked Civil Servant when I was a boy and felt huge compassion for Quentin Crisp and detestation for those who kicked and abused him. In the parable of the Good Samaritan we are asked: which one was his neighbour? I would rather have as my neighbour the likeable Quentin Crisp rather than his horrendous, self-righteous tormentors. When you read Leviticus and Deuteronomy you can see where prejudices have come from. It is true that Christ preached a mollified version but he acted in complete accordance with Scripture. His benevolence did not overrule what Scripture said - he simply chose to cast a blind eye; for example, working on the Sabbath can have its exceptions, if one applies common sense; stoning an adulteress is fine if one is without sin oneself (this is NOT a condemnation of stoning.)

polyglide wrote:I believe everyone has a right to an opinion but it should be based on the facts and nothing else.

Very often we have to form an opinion without possessing facts. We may believe a person's story simply because the person came from a good family and had no criminal record. Some opine that Muhammad was sent to do what Jesus didn't quite manage. Some opine that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Some opine that the Theory of Evolution makes nonsense of the account of creation in Genesis. The point of discussion is to add some more evidence so that opinions can change or be reinforced. I don't see why there should be any heat generated in the course of such exchanges - though I admit I am not averse to practising my sarcasm when I feel the other person is being deliberately dense or culpably ignorant. I leave it at home, of course, in God debates. Go well.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:09 pm

marcolucco.
I detest having to use personal sarcastic remarks but these originate from long ago when everything I said was rebuffed with personal and homophobic unacceptable replies not based on the actual matter in question, I much prefer kicking ideas about
in a mutual acceptable manner.

by marcolucco Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:19 pm

The problem, I think, is the negative vibrations some words have acquired. A doctor friend was taken to task for describing a patient as having a "black eye." The word deviation as used in statistics - standard deviation - has no nasty overtones. But when we talk of deviant and deviation in areas that have finally been redeemed from social stigma it looks as if we are returning to the language of prejudice. Homo sapiens nowadays displays his "sapiens" by choosing his words carefully so as not to give offence.

polyglide wrote:
What a word indicates is what the majority of people accept it as and as I have stated several times that the majority of the world populations will agree that homosexuality is abnormal.

As you know, polyglide, the number of people accepting something does not confer truth or correctness. I suppose the majority of people in African countries are not opposed to criminalising homosexuality. In this country we killed one of our brightest scientists in the fifties because he happened to be homosexual. You are right in that the normal curve will pronounce minorities as abnormal; those with completely white hair; those with purple eyes etc. However, to say to someone who happens not to be in a majority - "you are abnormal" - would not be employing acceptable parlance. If you met a mother with a child who had Down's Syndrome and you said "I see your boy is abnormal" you might well be speaking the truth in cold statistical terms but you'd be speaking offensively.

Discernment is called for, polyglide.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:22 pm

marcolucco,
I may not have put matters as plain as I should have, when I mentioned going by the facts I should have in fact said going by the information available.

There is no doubt that you have gone through the same childhood as myself regarding faith and religion, I was brought up thinking if I was not a good boy I would end up being burned alive and no doubt like yourself I started at a later date to think for myself and went through many stages of belief and disbelief.

After considering Darwin and all the other ideas I have come across and after seeing much of the world and it's steady decline into what it is today and also taking into account the Bibles account of the end and the matter of ceation as opposed to anything else I believe that even though there are many things apparently at odds with the Bible content I feel it is the only thing that covers all that I need to know for me to accept it's contents.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Let us try again, I know the dictionaries of late have changed and down graded the meaning of homosexuality as to previous definitions so lets take the latest.

Homosexuality, a liking or sexual attraction to the same sex etc;

Abnormality, a deviation, if homosexuality is not a deviation then what is it?.

All the dictionaries of late have done is to attempt to cloud the issue to go along with the present attempt to appease as many people of different opinions as possible.

What a word indicates is what the majority of people accept it as and as I have stated several times that the majority of the world populations will agree that homosexuality is abnormal.

Why you are concerned at the actual definition I cannot understand, one either agrees with it and accepts it or disgrees and feels otherwise.

There are numerous occasions when opinions differ but nothing other than a difference of opinion is involved.

You claimed all dictionaries defined homosexuals as perverts. You also claimed the dictionary you were using was the most current. You're now lying again, so don't make me quote and link your posts yet again because I'll do it.

The definition of abnormality is moot, Sharina covered this extensively and debunked your nonsense completely. Again I'll happily start quoting and linking those posts if you insist on misrepresenting or denying them.

It's sad you can't see how ludicrous it is for you to claim to know how the majority of people define a word, just to try and redefine it to support your prejudiced views. You seem to think claiming it's your opinion justifies hateful and homophobic remarks, this is simply not the case. Just because everyone is entitled to an opinion and to free speech, doesn't mean there are not consequences.

"Why you are concerned at the actual definition I cannot understand, one either agrees with it and accepts it or disgrees and feels otherwise."

Obviously because you lied and claimed all dictionaries defined homosexuals as perverts. Would you like me to link the post again and quote it?

"There are numerous occasions when opinions differ but nothing other than a difference of opinion is involved."

Some opinions are pernicious and it behoves all decent people to challenge them. Racism, xenophobia, mysogyny and homophobia for example.

by Sponsored content