I've no idea if this has been posted before, I never come into this thread. Just happened to see this video, open the Caf and this was top thread so...
Why is that reasoning to say its a pointless video?Atheists love to rant. Pointless video.
Why is that reasoning to say its a pointless video?
I know some believers who also love to rant.
I'm not saying I'm an atheist or follow a religion.
The video is pointless because God doesn't get to answer Fry's question.
I agree, some religious folks like to rant too.
Why is god incapable of answering the question?
The point of the video is a hypothetical scenario in which Fry get's to ask God something. In that same scenario, however, God doesn't get to respond. That's why it's just ranting.
The point of the video is a hypothetical scenario in which Fry get's to ask God something. In that same scenario, however, God doesn't get to respond. That's why it's just ranting.
What justification do you think God would give for giving children cancer if he could respond?
Why doesn't god get to respond to (not in) the hypothetical scenario?
All powerful, all benevolent God gives us "free will" to get horrible diseases.What justification do you think God would give for giving children cancer if he could respond?
And religious people seem to love dismissing what we have to say.Atheists love to rant. Pointless video.
All the extant theodicies have been disproven by Mackie, McCloskey, Rowe et al.The problem of evil has been discussed a few pages back already and there are some solid books on the subject of theodicy out there.
The problem of evil has been discussed a few pages back already and there are some solid books on the subject of theodicy out there.
I like that now with the internet and all that Atheists suddenly get accused of ranting now their voices are heard more.
I travel a lot and have had the pleasure of running into loads of religious nuts shouting in city centres (in my local one there's a group from the church in the centre who do it every weekend in different parts), but not a single atheist. Funny that!
Doesn't the total lack of evidence worry believers? Even more doesn't it worry believers that God is purported to behave a particular way but has now ceased to do so e.g. miracles and the like? Isn't there even a very quiet little voice of reason telling you that there is a problem with belief?
Does is not worry you that god picked a child fecker to spread his message?
Either fecking children is fine, in which case Allah is a cnut. Or fecking children isn't fine and Muhammad was making it all up. And I'm going with the latter because pedophilia is abhorrent. And, obviously, the "different times" defence doesn't work when you're talking about god's final moral statement.Oh no you went there
I don't buy that. fecking children is an awful thing to do regardless of what the times or culture says. It's always been awful and has always harmed them. Be it Muhammad or the cnuts in Pitcairn recently. If you really believe what you're saying, do you want to go defend the Pitcairn Islanders in the thread about them?@Silva
In Islam, as well as Arabia, India, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Old World at the time, a girl is considered a woman when she begins her menses and is physiologically possible of conceiving and carrying a child. A boy is considered a man when he hits puberty as well.
Let's not be purposely disingenuous here.
There is a lot of other information I've left out, but I'm still at work and I have a deadline.
Did you read what I wrote?I don't buy that. fecking children is an awful thing to do regardless of what the times or culture says. It's always been awful and has always harmed them. Be it Muhammad or the cnuts in Pitcairn recently. If you really believe what you're saying, do you want to go defend the Pitcairn Islanders in the thread about them?
The "different times" is especially nonsensical when you're talking about god's final message. If Muhammad went to heaven, why can't someone who fecks children now? And bear in mind, the answer is because Muhammad was a charlatan and his lies weren't future proof.
So what's the answer, do child feckers go to heaven?
I like that now with the internet and all that Atheists suddenly get accused of ranting now their voices are heard more.
I travel a lot and have had the pleasure of running into loads of religious nuts shouting in city centres (in my local one there's a group from the church in the centre who do it every weekend in different parts), but not a single atheist. Funny that!
I don't buy that. fecking children is an awful thing to do regardless of what the times or culture says. It's always been awful and has always harmed them. Be it Muhammad or the cnuts in Pitcairn recently. If you really believe what you're saying, do you want to go defend the Pitcairn Islanders in the thread about them?
The "different times" is especially nonsensical when you're talking about god's final message. If Muhammad went to heaven, why can't someone who fecks children now? And bear in mind, the answer is because Muhammad was a charlatan and his lies weren't future proof.
In fairness, our view of what constitutes 'a child' is a societal one. And has varied throughout all time and culture dramatically. It's hard to argue that from a purely biological view, puberty is the only factual constant.
To answer the first question..not really. I'm not sure what sort of evidence would even make sense. I suppose you could have God or whichever deity appear in the sky or something, but that would rather remove the challenge of faith I think. On a less ridiculous note, the lack of geological evidence for say Noah's flood for me indicates that certain stories/myths in religious texts are probably at least partially allegorical, possibly appropriated from earlier versions or faiths.
As for there no longer being miracles in modern times, it's certainly a question but not one I worry about. Personally, I've always seen it as humanity initially needing guidance or to be awed in a different time. Ie if you're going to claim to be the supreme ruler of existence, you'll probably need to prove your claim to an extent by doing some cool things one wouldn't normally see. I think the presence of miracles in modern times wouldn't make much sense. We're no longer impressed by natural phenomena, ascribing lightning strikes to deities and so on. Certainly in my religion (Islam), there is an overriding theme of "Here's the Quran and Muhammad. This is the last book, he's the last messenger, you have all the guidance you need and now its entirely up to you as to what you do with it". If the idea is that God has created humans with intelligence, then at some point he's going to have to "let go of the reins" so that we can use that intelligence on our own and come to our own conclusions without interference or intervention by way of apocalyptic scenarios, miraculous wonders etc. Sort of like parenting, where a young child will be reminded and reprimanded in obvious ways.
Alternatively, if you go with the "miracles are allegories" approach then its immediately obvious why there are no miracles today, as there never were any to begin with, or at least they were all explicable within natural laws.
As for the quiet little voice...well I personally often if not always have doubts. I was raised in a fairly secular household (Muslim in name but not in practice to any significant extent) and always had serious misgivings about religion in general. But it's only one voice, and there are others equally important and persuasive imo. For instance, there has also always been a voice saying "Existence is more than math and probability. Love, divinity, beauty, transcendence etc are all real, not merely made up in our own minds". I've always been more drawn to Buddha type figures than say Galileo, for example. The challenge, at least in my opinion, is to reconcile all the voices into a consensus that allows one to be the best version of themselves. Through my late teens/early twenties I realized that religion could play a vital role in furthering this goal if only I allowed it. Much easier said than done of course, but the little voice of reason no longer protests the idea of religion in my mind.
Apologies for writing a wall of text to answer a 3 line post.
But if you claim divine inspiration you don't get to use that excuse.
Well, ish. But only if said children are pre-pubescent. Yours and my modern view of a sexually acceptable age (which I'd assume is a few years beyond puberty) isn't devine, and we don't pretend it is. It's what we consider civilised with the benefit of history and a more psychologically based attitude. Even in the 21st century the age of consent still ranges 12-18.
If we're going to have a discussion about the empircal truth of religion, and it's attitude to sexuality, then surely the only empircal truth of sexuality is pre and post puberty?
They've been fecking their kids because the consent "has always been understood to be 12 here [in Pitcairn]" and using your logic, it's fine for them to feck 12 year olds.Did you read what I wrote?
A girl is considered a woman when they have begun their menses and physiologically, they are capable of bearing children. This is the defining moment a child becomes a woman. And the subsequent equivalent for boys to men (whey).
If we look at it laterally-a girl is considered a woman in the UK at 18, but in Spain and other European countries at 16, and in the Netherlands at 15 (I think, not 100% sure here). So, how are these arbitrary ages drawn up? In the Old World, and in the olden times, due to life expectancy, tribal relations and other factors, marriage (and its subsequent consummation) was carried out when the participants were younger than you'd expect in this day and age. Shocking, I know. The mitigating factor was whether the two getting married were adolescents i.e. had reached puberty. This was the defining factor.
There are numerous reasons Muhammad (SAWS) married Aisha (RA) as I said earlier, but I have a deadline due so I can't go into too much depth.
I haven't been following the Pitcairn thread so I'm not sure what you're on about. Is that the one where an Island is for sale?
What Eboue said.In fairness, our view of what constitutes 'a child' is a societal one. And has varied throughout all times and cultures. It's hard to argue that from a purely biological view, puberty is the only factual constant.
Right. And my point is that if such things were divinely approved back then, they still are. You can't claim divine infallibility and also be wishy washy about the changing times.
feck em when they bleed Mockney. Muhammad's in heaven so it's fine.Ok I'm a bit lost. I may be arguing cross purposes late in the game here. What are we saying was divinely approved back then? Pre-pubescent sex? Or a strictly biological view of the age of consent?
Ok I'm a bit lost. I may be arguing cross purposes late in the game here. What are we saying was divinely approved back then? Pre-pubescent sex? Or a strictly biological view of the age of consent?
I was basically starting at @Uzz 's claim that puberty is the starting point.
To answer the first question..not really. I'm not sure what sort of evidence would even make sense. I suppose you could have God or whichever deity appear in the sky or something, but that would rather remove the challenge of faith I think. On a less ridiculous note, the lack of geological evidence for say Noah's flood for me indicates that certain stories/myths in religious texts are probably at least partially allegorical, possibly appropriated from earlier versions or faiths.
As for there no longer being miracles in modern times, it's certainly a question but not one I worry about. Personally, I've always seen it as humanity initially needing guidance or to be awed in a different time. Ie if you're going to claim to be the supreme ruler of existence, you'll probably need to prove your claim to an extent by doing some cool things one wouldn't normally see. I think the presence of miracles in modern times wouldn't make much sense. We're no longer impressed by natural phenomena, ascribing lightning strikes to deities and so on. Certainly in my religion (Islam), there is an overriding theme of "Here's the Quran and Muhammad. This is the last book, he's the last messenger, you have all the guidance you need and now its entirely up to you as to what you do with it". If the idea is that God has created humans with intelligence, then at some point he's going to have to "let go of the reins" so that we can use that intelligence on our own and come to our own conclusions without interference or intervention by way of apocalyptic scenarios, miraculous wonders etc. Sort of like parenting, where a young child will be reminded and reprimanded in obvious ways.
Alternatively, if you go with the "miracles are allegories" approach then its immediately obvious why there are no miracles today, as there never were any to begin with, or at least they were all explicable within natural laws.
As for the quiet little voice...well I personally often if not always have doubts. I was raised in a fairly secular household (Muslim in name but not in practice to any significant extent) and always had serious misgivings about religion in general. But it's only one voice, and there are others equally important and persuasive imo. For instance, there has also always been a voice saying "Existence is more than math and probability. Love, divinity, beauty, transcendence etc are all real, not merely made up in our own minds". I've always been more drawn to Buddha type figures than say Galileo, for example. The challenge, at least in my opinion, is to reconcile all the voices into a consensus that allows one to be the best version of themselves. Through my late teens/early twenties I realized that religion could play a vital role in furthering this goal if only I allowed it. Much easier said than done of course, but the little voice of reason no longer protests the idea of religion in my mind.
Apologies for writing a wall of text to answer a 3 line post.
If having sex with 10 year olds was approved by Muhammed in his time and he is divinely inspired and infallible, then having sex with 10 year olds is still equally as valid now or at any other time.
But God and his prophets don't get to do that. They claim access to all knowledge. Anyone claiming divinity cannot use moral relativism.
feck em when they bleed Mockney. Muhammad's in heaven so it's fine.
