(July 2, 2021 at 8:24 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(July 2, 2021 at 6:37 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: There is not a single verse about the punishment for consuming alcoholic beverages, either. It's widely known that the punishment for that is forty lashes.
You are an adept of Quranism, you only accept what is in the Qur'an and reject all major collections of authentic hadiths. That's the only reason why you consider homosexuality to be a banal sin. Rigorously, no sin is banal in Islam


Um.. You're not taking Muhammad's sayings into account, which are, for most Muslims who take their religion seriously, a reference for jurisprudence, in addition to the Qur'an.


You're free to open a thread about "leaving poor bastard kids to battle the world" (???), this thread is about homosexuality, so we're going to discuss homosexuality

---

WLC said in his debate with Hitchens that he cares about what's true, not about what the majority of christians say or do. Leviticus clearly condemns the homosexual act. The discussion really should stop here for a christian. It's a non-starter and there is no way around forbidding it

If you don't have a trusted source book that is revealed from God to back your sayings; then debating you is a worthless "walls of texts".

The source book I follow and debate from it is the "Quran". All Muslims agreed that it's the source book of the religion. Please keep your folklores away because "they are rejected" by me . I only discuss what all "Muslims" agreed to call "source book and a heavenly revelation".

HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT TO BE HARMED ACCORDING TO THE QURAN.

People also debate Star Wars and Star Trek too.

(July 2, 2021 at 11:16 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Well it's true that Newton was interested in alchemy for example. OFC smart people can have erroneous beliefs/positions. But such beliefs are usually related to mundane subjects like the interpretation of some natural phenomenon, not beliefs about ultimate reality, which are -we can assume- something that these people very carefully thought about.

Gödel even attempted a mathematical proof of God, a formulation of Anselm's variant of the ontological argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...ical_proof

And some fools here are trying to convince me Gödel is a moron because he believed in God

More that this was one of their moronic ideas, and you understand that smart people have them. You have them as well, this thread has been full of them. You could stop, though, in ways that dead people from history can’t. Mind you I’m not talking about you not believing in your ridiculous god anymore- I’m referring to your stunning incompetence as an apologist. You could get better at it. , or just stop.

Quote:If scientific laws are descriptive, they describe a universe that is in accordance with these laws. This universe still needs an explanation (according to the principle of sufficient reason, as it's usually called) and a lawgiver is by definition a better explanation of a universe following laws than some ordinary natural cause.

There’s no if, they are descriptive and require no law giver. It was a moronic idea of yours. The universe isn’t following anything, and gods explain nothing.

Have you given any thought to the question I asked you? Of what happens to a faith when a false thing is insisted to be necessarily true?

Simple rule.... other people's sex lives are none of your business if those involved are over the legal age of consent and willing.

Whatever is in your magic book of myths is irrelavent

(July 3, 2021 at 12:28 am)Astreja Wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a "non-empirical being" is indistinguishable from an imaginary being and can just be ignored.

That's an unproven assertion. Now since you asserted that non-empirical= imaginary, the burden of proof is on you : prove a non-empirical being doesn't exist. 

Good luck.

(July 3, 2021 at 7:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There’s no if, they are descriptive and require no law giver.  It was a moronic idea of yours.  The universe isn’t following anything, and gods explain nothing.

Have you given any thought to the question I asked you?  Of what happens to a faith when a false thing is insisted to be necessarily true?

If that's what you mean by descriptive, then you just committed a moronic question-begging. You actually should demonstrate that they are descriptive -which is something that no one ever succeeded in doing AFAIK

And OFC that if a faith says x and x is false, the faith would be false. Nobody disputes this.

That’s what the laws of nature are explicitly defined as. They are descriptions of behaviors. This is why the law / lawgiver claim that you made is a fallacy of equivocation.

As ever, you supplied this fallacy of equivocation with a demonstrably false assertion even if we correct the equivocation. Gods are not required for descriptive laws of nature, nor are they required for the normative laws of mans construction.

Now consider for a moment that, similar to your stated opinions and positions on homosexuality, you are plain and simply wrong here. If these were insisted to be required as concurrent truths, necessary to your beliefs, wouldn’t you want to live at least some room for some human having gotten something wrong about a god?

Don’t you think that it puts Islam and the notion of a god in an awkward position to be subject to and verifiably false based on the whims of your own narrow biases?

If I must believe in a fallacy of equivocation supplied with demonstrably false premise for your god to exist, for your religion to be true.....if I must believe that homosexuality is evil or unnatural.... then, put plainly, these are the criteria by which your god and your religion can be shown to be false as you would concede and as no one disputes.

(July 3, 2021 at 9:38 am)K-PopPowerBottom69 Wrote: That's an unproven assertion. Now since you asserted that non-empirical= imaginary, the burden of proof is on you : prove a non-empirical being doesn't exist.

No, you're the one coming to us with the view that God is Real, the burden of proof is still on you. The fact that something DOESN'T have evidence for existing is proof enough that it's most likely made up.

(July 3, 2021 at 9:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That’s what the laws of nature are explicitly defined as.  They are descriptions of behaviors.  

Okay, so what? We know laws describe how nature behaves and are not some independent entity which physically exists. You explicitly said they don't require a god. And you didn't bother to prove this.

(July 3, 2021 at 9:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: As ever, you supplied this fallacy of equivocation with a demonstrably false assertion even if we correct the equivocation.  Gods are not required for descriptive laws of nature, nor are they required for the normative laws of mans construction.

You just keep asserting that they're not required. How do you know? That nature's behavior follows laws is usually presented as evidence of fine-tuning.. Wouldn't a universe designed by a deity be expected to have these descriptive laws ?

Also, you can't compare the universe with man's construction. As man only transforms existent matter.

(July 3, 2021 at 9:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Now consider for a moment that, similar to your stated opinions and positions on homosexuality, you are plain and simply wrong here.  If these were insisted to be required as concurrent truths, necessary to your beliefs, wouldn’t you want to live at least some room for some human having gotten something wrong about a god?

Don’t you think that it puts Islam and the notion of a god in an awkward position to be subject to and verifiably false based on the whims of your own narrow biases?

If I must believe in a fallacy of equivocation supplied with demonstrably false premise for your god to exist, for your religion to be true.....if I must believe that homosexuality is evil or unnatural.... then, put plainly, these are the criteria by which your god and your religion can be shown to be false as you would concede and as no one disputes.

How exactly do you get from "homosexuality is evil" to "Islam is false". ?? There are homosexual Muslims out there, and although they are commiting a sin, this fact alone doesn't negate their faith. Islam states that a number of practices are evil, not just homosexuality, there is fornication, usury, consuming alcohol, etc. these are just rules of behavior and their existence doesn't prove in any way that Islam is false.

(July 3, 2021 at 10:36 am)AkiraTheFighter24 Wrote: No, you're the one coming to us with the view that God is Real, the burden of proof is still on you. The fact that something DOESN'T have evidence for existing is proof enough that it's most likely made up.

God's existence is supported by deductive, analogical and inductive arguments. Inductive arguments do start from empirical observation of aspects of design/fine-tuning, etc. The reason why God's existence can appear impossible to fully articulate is probably because it's the most self-evident fact, such that trying to reach it begs its truth.

(July 3, 2021 at 10:54 am)K-PopPowerBottom69 Wrote: God's existence is supported by deductive, analogical and inductive arguments.

An argument without proof is just that, an argument.

(July 3, 2021 at 10:54 am)K-PopPowerBottom69 Wrote: Inductive arguments do start from empirical observation of aspects of design/fine-tuning, etc.

Did you actually preform a series of tests, collected data and found evidence for this to be the case? Or did you just assume it was so because Josh Shitstain said, cars were made by people, therefore everything in the world must be intelligently designed. If you have actual research and data that shows everything on earth was intellegantly designed, then present it. If not then save yourself the embarassement.

And even if  things were intellegantly designed (though science has already proven otherwise) what proof do you have that your imaginary friend did it? For all you know all this was created by Zordon from the planet Eltar.

Just because humans and animals can make things, it doesn't mean everything was created by a being.

(July 3, 2021 at 10:54 am)K-PopPowerBottom69 Wrote: The reason why God's existence can appear impossible to fully articulate is probably because it's the most self-evident fact, such that trying to reach it begs its truth.

So your "logic" is basically God is impossible to understand, therefore, that is enough proof that he is real. I've heard this strawman time and time again. It's litterally on the same level as "God works in mysterious ways". Come on man!

(July 3, 2021 at 2:44 am)Astreja Wrote:

(July 3, 2021 at 2:09 am)no one Wrote: You know, kpop, for someone so dead set against homosexuality, you sure do think a lot about the motions.

Apparently there's some sort of resonance there.  Normally people focus on their own sex lives and don't bother worrying about what other people are doing.  Why concern yourself at all with what other people are doing with their private parts, behind closed doors, in consensual adult relationships?

Someone (may have been Mencken, I’m not sure) once defined religious fundamentalism as the gnawing fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

Boru

You just told me how to get there, Kloro. As you’ve agreed and described as indisputable, if a faith requires x to be true and x is false, that faith is false.

If your faith demands any of the fallacious arguments supplied with demonstrably false premises that you’ve littered throughout this thread over multiple topics.... then what am I left to conclude about your faith?

I’ve repeatedly cautioned against this, suggesting that you might want to leave room for your being wrong about something- but here we are, predictably.