Was just in the middle of a discussion with pic related britposter when the thread about the recent fire in London just...

Was just in the middle of a discussion with pic related britposter when the thread about the recent fire in London just closed.

I still dont get how anyone could possibly be half-baked and cherrypicking about something as serious as religion though? If any religion were true, it'd be the most important aspect of your life every single day. something that serious cant just be a half hearted hobby

you say you're a muslim, so can you answer me here? you can you possibly rationalise it to be acceptable to amend and edit texts that you believe to come directly from the one true god?

it would imply you think you're more intelligent. But you cant be more intelligent than your own god, surely?

The student does not mark and grade the teachers work.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/11/pokemon-go-russian-youtuber-convicted-playing-church-ruslan-sokolovsky
archive.is/bvQqi
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Also applies to any christians who cherrypick religion as well.

if you fully believe, you'd have to admit that your god is a fucking asshole who flooded the world (if the bible is literally true) which would mean mass murdering innocent children of all ages.

if the bible isnt fully 100% true, it's at least partially lies. which would not be acceptable to have as divine religious text.

youre a moral absolutist OP and this entire thread is your ego trying to reinforce itself

clean your room.

Furthermore i'm sure whatever beliefs you follow, i'm sure you don't follow them perfectly either

it's nothing to do with my ego.
im genuinely curious as to how people can claim to be true believers in a religion. but seem fine with picking and choosing, being half hearted about it all.

how can you think that god wouldnt be pissed off with you when you reach those pearly gates?

i dont have religion.

any true god wouldnt put me in a world of hundreds of religions, and then burn me just for not coincidently picking the right one.

If such a god exists, he's a cunt and i wouldnt worship anyway.

Atheism is arguably a religion in itself, the point still stands.

Your belief in absolutes stems from your upbringing in a society that has for thousands of years revolved around judeo-christian philosophies of living (until recently encouraging a very absolutist way of thinking).

I don't think anyone who follows a watered down version of a religion would claim themselves to be a "true believer", as if they have any sense, they know that no such thing exists.

> the point still stands.
not really.
You said:
> i'm sure whatever beliefs you follow, i'm sure you don't follow them perfectly either.
How can I 'not perfectly follow' atheism?

There's nothing to follow.

I should have clarified. What i'm saying is despite you not being religious, i'm sure you still follow a "code" (which is likely based distantly on judeo-christian values), and i very much doubt you've adhered to that code 100% over the course of your entire life.

Which is the same thing you're accusing the muslim poster of doing.

No, your point is invalid. Accepting that a code exists that comes from a perfect authority that MUST be followed (because it tells you so), and then not following some of it, is not at all on the same level as your allegations of not having consistent personal ethics.

Rather than calling this criticism moral absolutism, it's the other way around: Moral absolutism is built into sacred prescriptions. To call believers out on it when they do what everyone does - fudge the rules a bit - is legitimate.

If you believe that the word of these religions MUST be followed, then why aren't you following them yourself? It's built into the sacred prescriptions after all.

Code?

Like a moral code? code to live by?

maybe sort of like the pirates code:
>"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do...."
For instance, I could break the law. But the consequences of such are undesirable enough in most circumstances that it isnt worth the risk, so I dont.

Now a religious person might follow laws or rules because they think it's what a god wants. because they want to avoid his smitey wrath.

i'll settle for just avoiding human wrath.
and other than that, just pretty much do whatever the fuck i feel like.

I think I do follow my code 100% there.

Because I don't accept the premise.

Wow i bet you're gonna be lying on your death bed thinking how great it was being such a massive square. Some laws frankly need to be broken. You're sounding very commie.

That's irrelevant, according to you if it's written that you MUST follow it. You must. Stop picking and choosing.

>That's irrelevant, according to you if it's written that you MUST follow it. You must. Stop picking and choosing.
No. Stop being an idiot.

That's ironic, because what i'm saying mirrors exactly what you're saying in the OP

probably not. you missed the part about
>undesirable enough in most circumstances

so for small infractions that will
>a) likely be never found or cared about
>b) lightly punished in the unlikely event they are found

maybe i'll take the chance if the rewards seem worth it.

Other than that, it's smart to play safe.
no point pissing people off by breaking their rules when they can come and kidnap you for several years if you do.
oh sorry, they prefer the term 'inprison'

all just humans to me

>what a man can do, what a man cant do...

wat?

im the OP, not nazi flag.

and it looks like both me and nazi-flag dont have religion. so the texts are just fiction to us.
we dont have to follow what they say any more than the harry potter fucking hogwarts school rules.

Again, even partaking in small infractions means you're no different from a muslim not following every word in their religious code.

inb4 "most infractions with religion are considered far greater"

The size of these infractions is subjective. To anyone who isn't stupid as fuck they can read these books and tell which ones apply to their modern life and which don't.

except they believe the code comes from an all powerful all knowing god who can punish you with eternal hellfire and sees everything you're doing at all times with perfect precision.

minor infractions against the law arn't really comparable because a fine and some community service dont really compare to eternal hellfire, and the authority figure(s) are a bunch of narrow minded politicians, rather than a supreme deity.

>youre a moral absolutist OP
No he isn't. That is literally what religion is; moral absolutism. The retarded 'muslim' that thinks he can just leave out the bad bits has missed the point of religion completely. Moral absolutism in semetic religions is the reason I'm agnostic.

He doesn't identify with any religion you sperg. Whatever 'code' he follows doesn't violate a particular doctrine, despite his code perhaps being influenced by one.

>despite his code perhaps being influenced by one.
yep. unfortunately religion does still influence laws.
it shouldnt, but it does. at least UK got blasphemy laws off the books. that was a long time coming.

theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/11/pokemon-go-russian-youtuber-convicted-playing-church-ruslan-sokolovsky
hate reading shit like that. what harm did he cause? really?

just offending some religious sensibilities. they should grow the fuck up.

Clickbaiters into archive
archive.is/bvQqi

lol, im no shill for the guardian.

do people really care so much giving 1 click to a site, they wont see a link for a few seconds?

i have adblocker on permanently anyway.

Just stop. There's no way for either of us to win this argument. All it boils down to is how happy someone is to follow rules, and that varies between everyone. Can you not see that?

it's not about how happy they are to follow rules.
'happy'?
no, look, just leave emotion completely out of it for now. look at this perfectly cold and logically:

if the religion is wrong, it's a waste of time following the rules because their is no enforcement of it. you may as well not waste time and effort playing along for no benefit to yourself.

if the religion is right, you should follow it 100%, because the enforcement is so strict and terrifying (if it exists, which it does if the religion is true)

going halfway is illogical because if the religion is wrong, you've wasted time and effort partially following rules, and if it's correct you would still be punished for partial disobedience.

it's lose-lose.

The problem with Islam is not the religion you can always make some convoluted rationalization to change meanings.
The problem with muslims is the overwhelming majority of muslims alive today and the way they are trending towards.
There is no Islamic nation today that is trending towards a more tolerant or secular society, even countries like Turkey and Indonesia, they are all trending towards fundamentalism.
They have been consistently trending towards fundamentalism for the past 500 years (save for some short interludes like Ataturk).

Any country that lets a significant number of muslims today will be doomed to suffer another 500 years.

also if you believe you can change cultural inertia with dialogue and good arguments just look at what will happen to the Republican party in America within a generation.
They believed they could convince Hispanics to not desire a strong centralize welfare state, the fools.
Trump is really the only hope they got and they are all fighting against him.

You're making the assumption that people only think of themselves. I know to a degree that's true, but following certain rules makes perfect sense if it benefits your community or family.

You're looking at this like a true autist. Most religious types believe that their god loves them (because religious books say this themselves), and that as a result of this he would be willing to weigh up your transgressions vs your achievements. Not just base his entire decision on hellfire only on your sins.

>Any country that lets a significant number of muslims today will be doomed to suffer another 500 years.

why would they necessarily suffer, though?
the muslim I was talking to in the OP pic said he had no desire to 'wage war on unbelievers', and didnt believe the parts about non believers having to burn in hell.
didnt seem to show any antipathy towards unbelievers at all, to be honest.

so if the muslims of the future turn out like him, and the rest fade out, and dont pass their beliefs to the next generation, we might just get along fine witth them, right?

if they arnt hostile, why be hostile back?

i only hate the ones that hate me (so, if they take the texts 100% seriously. like ISIS do)

maybe the future of islam might soften up a bit. be less hateful and more accepting.

>but following certain rules makes perfect sense if it benefits your community or family.
Rules like what?

Im no autist. I understand humans are a social species, and only got such a great and advanced civilization due to cooperation and reciprocation.

So sure, i play. You scratch my back i scratch yours. I'll take this watch, you sleep for an hour, then swap.

So there's clearly room for some rules or 'code' to have loyalty and charity even without religion.

But what about everything else? things that dont actually have any tangible benefit to anything?

Marriage. Charity. Most of the ten commandments benefit the community just as much as the follower.

>But what about everything else? things that dont actually have any tangible benefit to anything?

Those are the ones people get lazy with, and the ones they think their god will forgive them for.

>so if the muslims of the future turn out like him, and the rest fade out, and dont pass their beliefs to the next generation, we might just get along fine witth them, right?

Yeah but as you know the problem is radicalism is growing so thats not gonna happen for a long long time.

if they arnt hostile, why be hostile back?
Because that's pretty much the definition of being an asshole, and lots of people are assholes.