Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[Fake Messiah]

I didn't know cornholing kids is wrong according to atheism. Please share with us your holy moral book of atheism, it has to be some fine masterpiece.

I also think "terrible person" is hard to parse in your worldview. Terrible... according to whom? why should anybody's opinion matter to me.. especially if it's unfounded .? The religious may judge someone to be terrible if they repeatedly go against their holy book... and you ?

Yeah, Loaded Dice has a point since rape, pedophilia, and murder are frequently not immoral in Islam and are called "Honor killing", "Honor suicide", "Revenge Rape", and "Child marriage."

So who are you to tell a Muslim he can not rape a child like Mohammed did? The only way to do it is to prove that Allah does not exist so there is no reason to torture someone. But you know how stubborn Muslims are when it comes to belief in Allah, for some reason they just don't want to let it go.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I didn't know cornholing kids is wrong according to atheism. Please share with us your holy moral book of atheism, it has to be some fine masterpiece.

Morons like you need a book to tell them not to fuck children I don't 

I also think "terrible person" is hard to parse in your worldview.

Not at all 

Terrible... according to whom? why should anybody's opinion matter to me especially if it's unfounded .? 

Again only you would need another persons to tell you not to be a POS 

 The religious may judge someone to be terrible if they repeatedly go against their holy book... and you ?

And you do so ironically enough based on unfounded opinions written in a book 

The irony is amazing your so-called morality is simply projection  

[Bucky Ball]

Or Mohammed's, or Allah's perspective either.  Just as subjective as my perspective.

I think you're having a hard time understanding what a hypothetical is.

Let me remind you of the context of this discussion : you're here claiming that hell, if exists, is immoral. Under the hypothetical of hell's existence, one presupposes that God exists and that some religious account of hell or similar eschatological worlds turned out to be true.

So, in this context, God's perspective isn't subjective, it's objective, as God is the absolute moral arbiter. If you want to play the "all religions are subjective" trump card, fine, but you can no longer object to hell. 

Take some time to grasp all that before writing any more stupid one-liners.

One criminal dying a natural death is infinitely more moral and just than torturing the criminal for eternity.  I find all hell-focused religions, and their deities, to be utterly abhorrent.

Again, presupposing that eternal punishment exists means that you should abide by the rules of the religious worldview. Your goal, as an atheist, should be to bring out a contradiction in this worldview if we accept all of it. 

You can't have it both ways : if you want to criticize the eschatology that is claimed by theistic systems, you should take into account all the elements of the theistic system, which usually include God being more acquainted with moral facts than you.

Another example to help you understand : if you want to win in chess, you need to accept all the rules of chess (and so should your opponent) and then play optimally, even if you think you would have a winning position if such and such rule is omitted. Back to our discussion : once you find yourself cornered and not able to bring out any logical problem in the concept of hell, you arbitrarily change the rules : God is no longer the objective moral lawgiver, God is subjective... that's not how it works. And needless to say that by doing so you're begging the question of your worldview being correct.

So, I hope I am not playing chess with a pigeon.

Now all you have to do is to prove your god exists, ... take your time, ... and we'll be all good with this rubbish. 
You're playing checkers against the demented guy in the park. 
We get it's quite a challenge for you.
You're very good at these attempts at pretending you have an argument. Instead of actually responding or making an argument,
Your irrelevant blusterings are not arguments.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Muslims have no business speaking on child molestation

[h4ym4n]

Sounds like a yes to me.  Jesus christ you're a terrible person..aren't you?  I wouldn't leave one of my kids in your care.  You'd probably cornhole them within minutes....

I didn't know cornholing kids is wrong according to atheism. Please share with us your holy moral book of atheism, it has to be some fine masterpiece.

I also think "terrible person" is hard to parse in your worldview. Terrible... according to whom? why should anybody's opinion matter to me.. especially if it's unfounded .? The religious may judge someone to be terrible if they repeatedly go against their holy book... and you ?

Nice to see the true YOU if you didn’t have a holy rule book.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think you're having a hard time understanding what a hypothetical is.

Let me remind you of the context of this discussion : you're here claiming that hell, if exists, is immoral. Under the hypothetical of hell's existence, one presupposes that God exists and that some religious account of hell or similar eschatological worlds turned out to be true.

So, in this context, God's perspective isn't subjective, it's objective, as God is the absolute moral arbiter. If you want to play the "all religions are subjective" trump card, fine, but you can no longer object to hell. 

Take some time to grasp all that before writing any more stupid one-liners.


Again, presupposing that eternal punishment exists means that you should abide by the rules of the religious worldview. Your goal, as an atheist, should be to bring out a contradiction in this worldview if we accept all of it. 

You can't have it both ways : if you want to criticize the eschatology that is claimed by theistic systems, you should take into account all the elements of the theistic system, which usually include God being more acquainted with moral facts than you.

Another example to help you understand : if you want to win in chess, you need to accept all the rules of chess (and so should your opponent) and then play optimally, even if you think you would have a winning position if such and such rule is omitted. Back to our discussion : once you find yourself cornered and not able to bring out any logical problem in the concept of hell, you arbitrarily change the rules : God is no longer the objective moral lawgiver, God is subjective... that's not how it works. And needless to say that by doing so you're begging the question of your worldview being correct.

So, I hope I am not playing chess with a pigeon.

Now all you have to do is to prove your god exists, ... take your time, ... and we'll be all good with this rubbish. 
You're playing checkers against the demented guy in the park. 
We get it's quite a challenge for you.

This guy isn't even playing a game he's just shoving the game pieces up his nose and declaring victory 

[Loaded dice]

Now all you have to do is to prove your god exists, ... take your time, ... and we'll be all good with this rubbish. 
You're playing checkers against the demented guy in the park. 
We get it's quite a challenge for you.
You're very good at these attempts at pretending you have an argument. Instead of actually responding or making an argument,
Your irrelevant blusterings are not arguments.

It takes a lot of preliminary work to present an argument. It also takes smart and well-mannered people to understand the argument that is being presented.

I am not going to present my best work here for you to crap on it with even more Robert Spencer links, or for other morons like you to flood the thread with all kinds of anti-Islam allegations. Sometimes it only takes hours for an answer of mine to get lost in pages upon pages of insulting comments and gratuitous slurs.

Whoever made the rules of this forum did a huge a disservice to it by allowing insults and open blasphemy even in the threads made by theists. I'm convinced now there will never be a decent environment here for any kind of genuine, fruitful discussion.

[arewethereyet]

Now all you have to do is to prove your god exists, ... take your time, ... and we'll be all good with this rubbish. 
You're playing checkers against the demented guy in the park. 
We get it's quite a challenge for you.
You're very good at these attempts at pretending you have an argument. Instead of actually responding or making an argument,
Your irrelevant blusterings are not arguments.

It takes a lot of preliminary work to present an argument. It also takes smart and well-mannered people to understand the argument that is being presented.

I am not going to present my best work here for you to crap on it with even more Robert Spencer links, or for other morons like you to flood the thread with all kinds of anti-Islam allegations. Sometimes it only takes hours for an answer of mine to get lost in pages upon pages of insulting comments and gratuitous slurs.

Whoever made the rules of this forum did a huge a disservice to it by allowing insults and open blasphemy even in the threads made by theists. I'm convinced now there will never be a decent environment here for any kind of genuine, fruitful discussion.

You are welcome to go find a forum that better suits your needs.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you’re drawing a blank on why that would be wrong, you’re only telling me that that you don’t think it is.

An amoral person asks me a moral question and then goes on to completely butcher moral terms. No surprise there. God as “absolute moral arbiter” is a fundamentally subjective worldview. I’m not a subjectivist.

Allow me to cut to the chase. You think that your gods moral view is objective because you think it’s the real moral view…just as and explicitly because you think your god is real. However, all moral systems are real. An objective morality, by definition, cannot be a matter of individual fiat. Translated for accuracy, you believe that subjectivism is true, and that your god is the king subject. That things are not wrong with respect to any fact about those things. Hence your unfortunate line of questioning.

In objective moralities, facts are the absolute moral arbiter. Not gods…even if gods did exist.

[Anomalocaris]

Now all you have to do is to prove your god exists, ... take your time, ... and we'll be all good with this rubbish. 
You're playing checkers against the demented guy in the park. 
We get it's quite a challenge for you.
You're very good at these attempts at pretending you have an argument. Instead of actually responding or making an argument,
Your irrelevant blusterings are not arguments.

It takes a lot of preliminary work to present an argument. It also takes smart and well-mannered people to understand the argument that is being presented.

I am not going to present my best work here for you to crap on it with even more Robert Spencer links, or for other morons like you to flood the thread with all kinds of anti-Islam allegations. Sometimes it only takes hours for an answer of mine to get lost in pages upon pages of insulting comments and gratuitous slurs.

Whoever made the rules of this forum did a huge a disservice to it by allowing insults and open blasphemy even in the threads made by theists. I'm convinced now there will never be a decent environment here for any kind of genuine, fruitful discussion.

religion define blastphamy to be anything it can’t answer.  religion fails because of things it can’t answer.   if you are sensitive about blasphemy then you know your religion should fail but are too conceited and morally cowardly to face it and improve yourself.