Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
That is a retarded and unrealistic scenario because a policeman is not a God. There is no conceivable way for the policeman to know whether or not you committed the murder unless he does his due diligence by studying the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

fine

if i commit a murder and ur a police investigator
u dont find sufficient evidence but declare me innocent
will it make me innocent ? will i be less of a murderer
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
That is a retarded and unrealistic scenario because a policeman is not a God. There is no conceivable way for the policeman to know whether or not you committed the murder unless he does his due diligence by studying the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
what is this now.. 😅

okay ur saying that insufficient evidence mean no evidence
u found insufficient evidence of God that mean u found no evidence for the existence of God

why dont you then deny him completely
why are u in a limbo
why dont u with cent percent surity say that there can b no Creator
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I think you are struggling with this concept because you are not a rational thinker.

A rational thinker always follows evidence before making his conclusion.

An irrational thinker does not care about evidence. He will make his conclusion first then say fuck all to scientists, theories, facts and look for the dumbest sources to justify his irrational beliefs such as pseudo scientists, conspiracy theories and young earth creation materials.

Now the question of God, the reason why I cant say that God exists is because I have no evidence to believe that God exists. And I also cannot say that there is no God because I do not have evidence to say that. Therefore the only rational position for me to hold is that I do not know whether or not a God exists and I am not convinced by people who say that a God exists because they do not have evidence to support their claim.

what is this now.. 😅

okay ur saying that insufficient evidence mean no evidence
u found insufficient evidence of God that mean u found no evidence for the existence of God

why dont you then deny him completely
why are u in a limbo
why dont u with cent percent surity say that there can b no Creator
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
1. From rational consideration of the consequences of my actions
2. My actions have an effect on people around me and the actions of the people around me have an effect on me. If we are going to live cooperatively and share space we have to recognize that impact.
3. My freedom to swing my arm should not hit someone's nose and I have no right to impose my will over someone else's will.
4. Basically it is an understanding of reality and not an assertion of authority.
5. And if there is any ambiguity, people can have a sober discussion on the rule while keeping in consideration societies'/everyone's interests, well-being, safety and happiness.
1. From rational consideration of the consequences of my actions
2. My actions have an effect on people around me and the actions of the people around me have an effect on me. If we are going to live cooperatively and share space we have to recognize that impact.
3. My freedom to swing my arm should not hit someone's nose and I have no right to impose my will over someone else's will.
4. Basically it is an understanding of reality and not an assertion of authority.
5. And if there is any ambiguity, people can have a sober discussion on the rule while keeping in consideration societies'/everyone's interests, well-being, safety and happiness.
Now that sort of "organic morality" is quite subjective to the society you are living in. Having said that, can you really then question anyone's morality on Women rights or anything? If the people of the society are okay with it, then you should also be okay, as far as they are not compelling you to do the same to your women.

Secondly, you also say that morality has been an evolutionary aspect of human life, for their mutual benefit and 'Continuity of the species', however, I don't see the latter to be workable in case of gay marriages. Though in some societies, there is legislation on this. Suppose if everyone in that society uses the option and goes for gay marriage? how will they then ensure the continuity of their race/species?
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
as long as human are there..there will be this ping pong
and yeah im quitting
what is troubling me is his stance
if one cannot prove or disprove God why should he/she judge believers

if that is actually the case he/she should leave believers be..and try not to engage them bcz in the end they wont be able to contribute anything that is they wont disprove their claim

What's the point of this 'ping-pong'? Agree to disagree and leave it to that.
I think you are struggling with this concept because you are not a rational thinker.

A rational thinker always follows evidence before making his conclusion.

An irrational thinker does not care about evidence. He will make his conclusion first then say fuck all to scientists, theories, facts and look for the dumbest sources to justify his irrational beliefs such as pseudo scientists, conspiracy theories and young earth creation materials.

Now the question of God, the reason why I cant say that God exists is because I have no evidence to believe that God exists. And I also cannot say that there is no God because I do not have evidence to say that. Therefore the only rational position for me to hold is that I do not know whether or not a God exists and I am not convinced by people who say that a God exists because they do not have evidence to support their claim.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Its not about whether or not people are okay with it. You cannot violate another person's right just because thats what the majority of the people want. For matters like women's rights and LGBT, the rules should be based on reason, for example women are as human as men, therefore we ought to treat them equally. Brown people and White people are equally human therefore it should be illegal to discriminate based on ethnicity etc.

The problem with religious laws for example banning beef is that there is no reasoning behind it. There maybe was reasoning for it in the past but now its obsolete for example the status of Pork in Islam. Pork is extremely water consuming which is a disaster for desert people where there is limited water, also the warm weather make it easier for parasites to grow. Therefore it makes sense to ban pork in 7th century Arabia. But it makes no sense to ban it in more milder and water rich countries where Islam has spread.

Reason based laws are one of the reasons why European societies evolved much faster than Ottoman Empire.


Now that sort of "organic morality" is quite subjective to the society you are living in. Having said that, can you really then question anyone's morality on Women rights or anything? If the people of the society are okay with it, then you should also be okay, as far as they are not compelling you to do the same to your women.
First off all being Gay is not an option. People are born Gay without a choice. And in a reason based society we would say its unfair to discriminate against someone based on factors they were born with without their choice as long as it is not hurting anyone. So its unrealistic that one day everyone will become Gay. According to Williamson Institute only 3%-5% of population is LGBTQ.

Also if there was no purpose of the Gay gene then natural selection would have removed this Gene. But since almost every animal has this, there must be something to this gene that serves a purpose. For example sex is used for more than just creating offspring, it is a tool for friendship and bonding. Also imagine a tribe in which men go off hunting and women and children are left behind, so they need to leave a man to protect them, if the men leave behind a Gay man they will be sure that they will not copulate with their women.


Secondly, you also say that morality has been an evolutionary aspect of human life, for their mutual benefit and 'Continuity of the species', however, I don't see the latter to be workable in case of gay marriages. Though in some societies, there is legislation on this. Suppose if everyone in that society uses the option and goes for gay marriage? how will they then ensure the continuity of their race/species?
 
Last edited:

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
If you cannot prove or disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. You cannot prove or disprove that there is a spaghetti monster somewhere in this universe. Does it mean that it exists?

So do you think it is justified to believe in something even if you cannot prove it exist and even if you do not have sufficient evidence that it exists?


what is troubling me is his stance
if one cannot prove or disprove God why should he/she judge believers
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
If you cannot prove or disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. You cannot prove or disprove that there is a spaghetti monster somewhere in this universe. Does it mean that it exists?

So do you think it is justified to believe in something even if you cannot prove it exist and even if you do not have sufficient evidence that it exists?
seriously ???
why are u presuming things
do i look insane to u..why in the first place would i claim that a spaghetti monster exists ??
what rational base do i have to claim it ??
 

AdamA

Senator (1k+ posts)
'Born gay' is and the so called 'gay gene' is all fraud. It's a lifestyle choice and agenda driven. Trying to make it mainstream through prepubescent indoctrination.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I am not saying that you are claiming it. I am giving you a hypothetical example if someone says there is a spaghetti monster somewhere in the universe. Its neither possible to prove it nor disprove it. But it doesn't mean that it exists.

Similarly if you cant prove or disprove God it also doesn't mean that the God exists.


seriously ???
why are u presuming things
do i look insane to u..why in the first place would i claim that a spaghetti monster exists ??
what rational base do i have to claim it ??
 

Tenacious Khan

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
You can define Atheism as much as you want but you do not have authority over my personal beliefs and position, I define my own position.

I do not know whether or not a God exists. If you say that a God exists then I do not believe you until you provide me evidence that he exists as the default position facing any claim in the absence of evidence is disbelief.

Your only reply to me is to try to change my position to something that it is not so that its easier for you to attack or to argue against wording or definitions. That is intellectually dishonest and exposes your bias and duplicity.

You know my position, you can call it atheism, hinduism, agnosticism or whatever the hell you want to call it I do not care. But please do not be dishonest and try to steer the argument towards semantics rather than my actual position.
Dear oh dear! First of all you got into the definition of these terminologies, challenging the long lasting fundamental understanding of atheism and agnosticism. So, the burden of semantics is on you, be honest with yourself. There is no such thing as I define it as I wish, you know how ridiculous that sounds? 😂 Go back to the drawing board kiddo!

Secondly, I don't give a rats ass, whether you change your position or not. You're an "adult", claimed to have "read" religious scriptures as well and developed your interpretation. Whether you accept it or not, is entirely up to you. If I could take the liberty of quoting one of my friends, he used to say "believe in whatever you want, you and only you will be the one facing the music at the end".

However, the issue that I do have with you is your exceptionally arrogant tone, looking down on believers (or theists) and mocking them. I have many an atheist friends and they are as respectful towards my beliefs as I am towards theirs. So, stop acting like you are some special entity the likes of us have never been exposed to and to be precise you are actually giving a bad name to them by looking down on others. You are free to practice whatever you wish to but the moment you start taking a swing at my nose, I will take you to the cleaners.

Nitpicking verses to say that Islam allows/encourages slavery, concubines and the status of women etc. is another example of partial knowledge and intellectual dishonesty. If you haven't read a Holy Book in completeness and in depth, then don't take it upon yourself to lecture those who have some degree of understanding of the scripture. I can bloody fill up this forum with verses and ahadith on how Islam systematically wiped out slavery (whether "muslims" practiced it or not the burden is on them not Islam) and the same Islam encouraged muslims to marry concubines in the same Holy Book to give them the same status as that of their wife. How convenient of you to miss out on the major conditionality of doing justice with women or else marry only one. That is the precise reason, why the large majority of Muslims marry only one. Learn to understand things within their proper context. So, dear Vitamin, I am just touching the surface in this post, you go deeper and I will blow you out of your waters. Don't make the mistake of thinking as though you are dealing with people who were brought up with one religion, who never bothered to look around. We know our stuff (in and out from science to religions), the problem you are dealing with is that the moment we turn to scientific field (supposedly your area of expertise), you don't have the first clue on how to respond and yet you are hiding behind counter questioning, instead of answering the god damn questions. That's the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Where you and I fall apart is that my religion forces me not to mock the GODs of others. So believe me when I say I can easily model/simulate the shit out of your comments but lets just say I am not in the habit of engaging with pompous dickheads who don't have the first clue of what they are talking about. Like I said, start from scratch, develop fundamental understanding, know your stuff and when you are ready (if you still opt for the same position and wish to argue) we will restart the debate. Till then, good life to you!
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
I am not saying that you are claiming it. I am giving you a hypothetical example if someone says there is a spaghetti monster somewhere in the universe. Its neither possible to prove it nor disprove it. But it doesn't mean that it exists.

Similarly if you cant prove or disprove God it also doesn't mean that the God exists.
false anology
i look for a God bcz order in universe necessitate his existence..this is a rational based claim

sphagetti monster ? how would i necessitate his existence

infact a person like u who believes that accidents, randomness can create things might claim it

im a rational person and ill never claim that sphagetti monster existence in the far corner of universe. kindly dont presume things for me
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I am sorry to piss on your bonfire but if I am not mistaken, drinking alcohol and eating pork is banned by your religion but buying and selling human beings is permitted.

Whether or not your religion helped to reduce slavery or whether you have the option to marry concubines is irrelevant to the fact that Islam allows those barbaric practises such as buying and selling people, keeping concubines and then blackmailing slave girls that if they refuse sex to their master then Allah will punish them.

Don't bullshit me that Muslims wiped out slavery. Muslim countries were the last countries on the planet to ban slavery until 1970s when secular countries forced African and Arab countries to ban it.

You are not blowing me out of the water you are just blowing your own piss in your own face.


Dear oh dear! First of all you got into the definition of these terminologies, challenging the long lasting fundamental understanding of atheism and agnosticism. So, the burden of semantics is on you, be honest with yourself. There is no such thing as I define it as I wish, you know how ridiculous that sounds? 😂 Go back to the drawing board kiddo!

Secondly, I don't give a rats ass, whether you change your position or not. You're an "adult", claimed to have "read" religious scriptures as well and developed your interpretation. Whether you accept it or not, is entirely up to you. If I could take the liberty of quoting one of my friends, he used to say "believe in whatever you want, you and only you will be the one facing the music at the end".

However, the issue that I do have with you is your exceptionally arrogant tone, looking down on believers (or theists) and mocking them. I have many an atheist friends and they are as respectful towards my beliefs as I am towards theirs. So, stop acting like you are some special entity the likes of us have never been exposed to and to be precise you are actually giving a bad name to them by looking down on others. You are free to practice whatever you wish to but the moment you start taking a swing at my nose, I will take you to the cleaners.

Nitpicking verses to say that Islam allows/encourages slavery, concubines and the status of women etc. is another example of partial knowledge and intellectual dishonesty. If you haven't read a Holy Book in completeness and in depth, then don't take it upon yourself to lecture those who have some degree of understanding of the scripture. I can bloody fill up this forum with verses and ahadith on how Islam systematically wiped out slavery (whether "muslims" practiced it or not the burden is on them not Islam) and the same Islam encouraged muslims to marry concubines in the same Holy Book to give them the same status as that of their wife. How convenient of you to miss out on the major conditionality of doing justice with women or else marry only one. That is the precise reason, why the large majority of Muslims marry only one. Learn to understand things within their proper context. So, dear Vitamin, I am just touching the surface in this post, you go deeper and I will blow you out of your waters. Don't make the mistake of thinking as though you are dealing with people who were brought up with one religion, who never bothered to look around. We know our stuff (in and out from science to religions), the problem you are dealing with is that the moment we turn to scientific field (supposedly your area of expertise), you don't have the first clue on how to respond and yet you are hiding behind counter questioning, instead of answering the god damn questions. That's the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Where you and I fall apart is that my religion forces me not to mock the GODs of others. So believe me when I say I can easily model/simulate the shit out of your comments but lets just say I am not in the habit of engaging with pompous dickheads who don't have the first clue of what they are talking about. Like I said, start from scratch, develop fundamental understanding, know your stuff and when you are ready (if you still opt for the same position and wish to argue) we will restart the debate. Till then, good day to you!
 
Last edited:

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
So we have been through this already and established that intelligence is not necessary for order to exist. Order and Patterns are found throughout in nature from rounded stars and blackholes, to the orbits of planets around stars to the structures of atoms and molecules. And we understand very well how all of these formed through natural process.

false anology
i look for a God bcz order in universe necessitate his existence..this is a rational based claim
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
So we have been through this already and established that intelligence is not necessary for order to exist. Order and Patterns are found throughout in nature from rounded stars and blackholes, to the orbits of planets around stars to the structures of atoms and molecules. And we understand very well how all of these formed through natural process.
again presuming things ?
u might have established it in ur mind maybe

read our posts again and tell me where did i say im convinced

u dismiss the claim of God by giving me false anology of sphagetti monster

i still stand where i was..
atheists are as good as believers
both presume one thing and then turn data/info/evidence in its favor
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
This reminds me of a young Earth Creationist Phd in Geology from Harvard.

When he was asked the question how old is the Earth? He said from all the study, experiments and evidence I have seen it seems the Earth is billions of years old. But regardless of what evidence says, I will still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old because that is what the bible says.

When you say that you cannot comprehend a world without God, I believe you are telling the truth. We are brainwashed since childhood these stories before even our brains have been fully formed. At this age whatever you teach a child it will become nearly permanent. So doesn't matter what biologists, geologists, chemists, biochemists say, you will ignore that information and only specifically look for the information that conforms with your world view, regardless of the credibility or reliability of the source..

In North Korea children are brainwashed that the North Korean leader is a God and can read their mind at all times. This effect is so strong on their minds that even after these people become adult and escape to South Korea they struggle to take those beliefs out of their minds and fear of thinking things because they think Kim Jong Un will know what they are thinking.

I think the world will be a better place if everyone is taught how to use their brain instead of being brainwashed and taught what to think. And if we live in a world based on reason rather than on faith.


i would like to quit here..
i respect u ive learnt things discussing with u
and ive lost my cool at one point..i dont want that again..i dont want to offend or disrepct u in any way

maybe some other day we will carry it on
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
This reminds me of a young Earth Creationist Phd in Geology from Harvard.

When he was asked the question how old is the Earth? He said from all the study, experiments and evidence I have seen it seems the Earth is billions of years old. But regardless of what evidence says, I will still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old because that is what the bible says.

When you say that you cannot comprehend a world without God, I believe you are telling the truth. We are brainwashed since childhood these stories before even our brains have been fully formed. At this age whatever you teach a child it will become nearly permanent. So doesn't matter what biologists, geologists, chemists, biochemists say, you will ignore that information and only specifically look for the information that conforms with your world view, regardless of the credibility or reliability of the source..

In North Korea children are brainwashed that the North Korean leader is a God and can read their mind at all times. This effect is so strong on their minds that even after these people become adult and escape to South Korea they struggle to take those beliefs out of their minds and fear of thinking things because they think Kim Jong Un will know what they are thinking.

I think the world will be a better place if everyone is taught how to use their brain instead of being brainwashed and taught what to think. And if we live in a world based on reason rather than on faith.

im itching to inititate debate on every para that u have written here
but im controlling it this time 😅

u might not believe it but if im convinced ill change my world view..and this discussion hasnt convinced me
 

Sohail Shuja

Minister (2k+ posts)
Its not about whether or not people are okay with it. You cannot violate another person's right just because thats what the majority of the people want. For matters like women's rights and LGBT, the rules should be based on reason, for example women are as human as men, therefore we ought to treat them equally. Brown people and White people are equally human therefore it should be illegal to discriminate based on ethnicity etc.

The problem with religious laws for example banning beef is that there is no reasoning behind it. There maybe was reasoning for it in the past but now its obsolete for example the status of Pork in Islam. Pork is extremely water consuming which is a disaster for desert people where there is limited water, also the warm weather make it easier for parasites to grow. Therefore it makes sense to ban pork in 7th century Arabia. But it makes no sense to ban it in more milder and water rich countries where Islam has spread.

Reason based laws are one of the reasons why European societies evolved much faster than Ottoman Empire.



First off all being Gay is not an option. People are born Gay without a choice. And in a reason based society we would say its unfair to discriminate against someone based on factors they were born with without their choice as long as it is not hurting anyone. So its unrealistic that one day everyone will become Gay. According to Williamson Institute only 3%-5% of population is LGBTQ.

Also if there was no purpose of the Gay gene then natural selection would have removed this Gene. But since almost every animal has this, there must be something to this gene that serves a purpose. For example sex is used for more than just creating offspring, it is a tool for friendship and bonding. Also imagine a tribe in which men go off hunting and women and children are left behind, so they need to leave a man to protect them, if the men leave behind a Gay man they will be sure that they will not copulate with their women.
Let us just not discuss any religion here. Though, I can debate on that e.g. Taenia solium in Pork and the hilarious reality of the gay gene (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720828 ) and perhaps on the differences in male and female brains, body, thought pattern etc and their social implications, in purview of the evolutionary aspects.

But that will perhaps divert the discourse of our discussion.

Now coming back to the point of "organic morality", which, according to you has evolved over the time in human race. So, according to that, any one is free to do as he will unless he hits your nose. Moreover, there is no assertion of authority, rather a discourse of discussion over a matter of conflict, and to whichever side the majority inclines, becomes the rule/law.

Now within this pretext, I don't find any reason why would a person sitting in a corner of the world in society X has any right to judge society Y sitting on the other end of the world. Even if they are close by, both should have full right to practice what they feel is right, unless one is imposing their rules on the other.

Your initial definition of "morality" which is "organic" in nature is quite a volatile one. It is subjective to a group/society, where majority is the authority. It also implicates that if you move from point A to B, then you should subject yourself to the morality of the people at point B.

Am I correct on this one or would you like to add/remove something, before I progres any further in our discussion?
 
Sponsored Link

Featured Discussions