The bible says homosexuality is a sin, right?

[Anonymous]

I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^So you choose to identify one of the groups - the Bnei Menashe - to question the veracity of the link I posted and decide to ignore the very first one in that link, the "Cochin Jews" whose antecedents are less in question.

The origin of the Jewish community in India is not certain. Traditionally Kochi Jews trace their lineage back to the time of the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. Some even claim to go as far back as the Assyrian exile in 722 B.C.E. The Book of Esther actually contains the first written mention of Jews in India when King Ahashverosh refers to the Jews dispersed across his wide empire from Hodu (Hebrew for India) to Kush (Ethiopia)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-planet/cochin/about/cochin-jew-town/

The other PP who questioned the use of tradition made a more legitimate and valid point.

Google is no friend if one chooses to be biased and selects the more questionable claims to challenge the antecedents of Jews in India while ignoring those that may have more basis.

The Bnei Menashe is just one example that the links provided do not support Jews being India before the 1st century. The above quote is another. Note the use of the words "traditionally" and "claim" which indicate lack of empirical evidence and reliance on unfounded reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

^^ classic example of projection

[Anonymous]

What we have here are some not unreasonable questions about empirical evidence but underlying it is the intent to challenge the questioning of what has been conventionally accepted as factual in certain countries and cultures. The reality is that in much of Asia and Africa there is not always what the West has viewed as incontrovertible proof and so such traditions and claims are automatically dismissed.

My British background provided ample examples of this phenomenon combined with the colonial mentality that is part of Britain's history. For example, when I went to school it was standard fare to be taught that Columbus "discovered" America and that Vasco Da Gama "discovered" India and Marco Polo "discovered" China, etc which by implication seemed to suggest that these countries and cultures were non-existent before they were "discovered" by Europeans - an obviously absurd and utterly ludicrous proposition. But we were taught this and it was accepted without challenge by anyone. The fact that these civilizations predated much of the West by centuries is viewed as inconsequential. It was never suggested that Columbus, da Gama and Marco Polo were the first Europeans to come to these countries. No, the countries were "discovered" by them.

In fact, the same rejection of what was deemed acceptable evidence was cited in the case of Alex Haley's claims in "Roots". The griot who narrated the oral history was deemed unreliable because it did not fit into accepted norms - acceptable, of course, to the West.

This cultural bias surfaces in so many ways both in terms of religious and non-religious subjects. In England, the conversion of Indians by St Thomas in the first century was rejected and still is by many in the West because it is based primarily on the lack of proof as defined by the West.

One of the most glaring examples is in the field of mathematics where if you ask the average westerner - or even those proficient in math - you will find that they are totally ignorant of any of the major contributions by other cultures whether it is Chinese, Islamic, Indian, Mayan,etc. Most cannot name a single mathematician of renown from these cultures though they predate mathematics in the West. Any suggestion that certain fundamental concepts in mathematics were in use in these cultures well before they came known in the West are ignored or minimized.

Much of the above is not directly related to this thread but is relevant in the context of rejecting anything that does not comport to standards of acceptable verification as defined by the West.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

There were many people you called Islamophobes on those threads from a few weeks ago. Several identified themselves as atheists, and while 1-2 self-identified atheists were religion-haters and one in particular called Mohammed names, other atheists simply expressed reservations about Islamic scripture or laws, and one very different self-identified atheist actually knew a wholeot about Islam and without insulting anybody seemed really focussed on getting the facts right about scripture and sharia. Then there were several people of faith you called Islamophobes, including myself (and I never insulted Mohammed) and a Pakistani Christian. And more participants it was harder to identify, but you also called them Islamophobes.

Also, if failing to agree on the perfection of various laws makes a poster an Islamophobe, then you have bigger problems.

I do think it's time for you to stop lumping multiple diverse people, with diverse goals and diverse approaches, into single Islamophobe to bash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

There were many people you called Islamophobes on those threads from a few weeks ago. Several identified themselves as atheists, and while 1-2 self-identified atheists were religion-haters and one in particular called Mohammed names, other atheists simply expressed reservations about Islamic scripture or laws, and one very different self-identified atheist actually knew a wholeot about Islam and without insulting anybody seemed really focussed on getting the facts right about scripture and sharia. Then there were several people of faith you called Islamophobes, including myself (and I never insulted Mohammed) and a Pakistani Christian. And more participants it was harder to identify, but you also called them Islamophobes.

Also, if failing to agree on the perfection of various laws makes a poster an Islamophobe, then you have bigger problems.

I do think it's time for you to stop lumping multiple diverse people, with diverse goals and diverse approaches, into single Islamophobe to bash.

Heck, PP called people Islamophobes for challenging her asserting that Islam in the US is growing faster by conversion than by immigration, and asking her provide statistics. Which she still hasn't done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we have here are some not unreasonable questions about empirical evidence but underlying it is the intent to challenge the questioning of what has been conventionally accepted as factual in certain countries and cultures. The reality is that in much of Asia and Africa there is not always what the West has viewed as incontrovertible proof and so such traditions and claims are automatically dismissed.

My British background provided ample examples of this phenomenon combined with the colonial mentality that is part of Britain's history. For example, when I went to school it was standard fare to be taught that Columbus "discovered" America and that Vasco Da Gama "discovered" India and Marco Polo "discovered" China, etc which by implication seemed to suggest that these countries and cultures were non-existent before they were "discovered" by Europeans - an obviously absurd and utterly ludicrous proposition. But we were taught this and it was accepted without challenge by anyone. The fact that these civilizations predated much of the West by centuries is viewed as inconsequential. It was never suggested that Columbus, da Gama and Marco Polo were the first Europeans to come to these countries. No, the countries were "discovered" by them.

In fact, the same rejection of what was deemed acceptable evidence was cited in the case of Alex Haley's claims in "Roots". The griot who narrated the oral history was deemed unreliable because it did not fit into accepted norms - acceptable, of course, to the West.

This cultural bias surfaces in so many ways both in terms of religious and non-religious subjects. In England, the conversion of Indians by St Thomas in the first century was rejected and still is by many in the West because it is based primarily on the lack of proof as defined by the West.

One of the most glaring examples is in the field of mathematics where if you ask the average westerner - or even those proficient in math - you will find that they are totally ignorant of any of the major contributions by other cultures whether it is Chinese, Islamic, Indian, Mayan,etc. Most cannot name a single mathematician of renown from these cultures though they predate mathematics in the West. Any suggestion that certain fundamental concepts in mathematics were in use in these cultures well before they came known in the West are ignored or minimized.

Much of the above is not directly related to this thread but is relevant in the context of rejecting anything that does not comport to standards of acceptable verification as defined by the West.

Not really, it seems more like a justification for continuing to believe things for which there is not good evidence.

While I was taught that Columbus "discovered" America, (for Spain), I was also taught that he was greeted by natives who were obviously here first. They became known by europeans as indians, because Columbus thought he'd traveled a western route to India. I think there's a famous painting of it.

Also, irrespective of how different people interpret what Columbus did, there is a lot of reliable evidence, recorded at the time and verified since then, that he did it. The same cannot be said of the Jews in India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

There were many people you called Islamophobes on those threads from a few weeks ago. Several identified themselves as atheists, and while 1-2 self-identified atheists were religion-haters and one in particular called Mohammed names, other atheists simply expressed reservations about Islamic scripture or laws, and one very different self-identified atheist actually knew a wholeot about Islam and without insulting anybody seemed really focussed on getting the facts right about scripture and sharia. Then there were several people of faith you called Islamophobes, including myself (and I never insulted Mohammed) and a Pakistani Christian. And more participants it was harder to identify, but you also called them Islamophobes.

Also, if failing to agree on the perfection of various laws makes a poster an Islamophobe, then you have bigger problems.

I do think it's time for you to stop lumping multiple diverse people, with diverse goals and diverse approaches, into single Islamophobe to bash.

Why do you keep mentioning that you are Pakistani? How is it relevant?

And many? No. I don't believe so. A few only. People here are generally educated and civilized, and education dispels ignorance, bigotry, and racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

did you notice that you are putting words into my mouth? I'm offering explanations for any humans who are motivated to do the same kind of good things for humanity by different conscious motivators, suggesting that they originate from a common source - our innate morality.

Can't you hear how idiotic, not to mention arrogant, you sound?

You: "I'm sure there is no God. Therefore it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe* in God and it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe" that religion is the source of his motivation to do good works."

You make zero sense.

Oh my oh my. How did I miss this? You are hilarious. All atheists begin with the premise they can neither prove or disprove, that there is no God, and all arguments rest on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we have here are some not unreasonable questions about empirical evidence but underlying it is the intent to challenge the questioning of what has been conventionally accepted as factual in certain countries and cultures. The reality is that in much of Asia and Africa there is not always what the West has viewed as incontrovertible proof and so such traditions and claims are automatically dismissed.

My British background provided ample examples of this phenomenon combined with the colonial mentality that is part of Britain's history. For example, when I went to school it was standard fare to be taught that Columbus "discovered" America and that Vasco Da Gama "discovered" India and Marco Polo "discovered" China, etc which by implication seemed to suggest that these countries and cultures were non-existent before they were "discovered" by Europeans - an obviously absurd and utterly ludicrous proposition. But we were taught this and it was accepted without challenge by anyone. The fact that these civilizations predated much of the West by centuries is viewed as inconsequential. It was never suggested that Columbus, da Gama and Marco Polo were the first Europeans to come to these countries. No, the countries were "discovered" by them.

In fact, the same rejection of what was deemed acceptable evidence was cited in the case of Alex Haley's claims in "Roots". The griot who narrated the oral history was deemed unreliable because it did not fit into accepted norms - acceptable, of course, to the West.

This cultural bias surfaces in so many ways both in terms of religious and non-religious subjects. In England, the conversion of Indians by St Thomas in the first century was rejected and still is by many in the West because it is based primarily on the lack of proof as defined by the West.

One of the most glaring examples is in the field of mathematics where if you ask the average westerner - or even those proficient in math - you will find that they are totally ignorant of any of the major contributions by other cultures whether it is Chinese, Islamic, Indian, Mayan,etc. Most cannot name a single mathematician of renown from these cultures though they predate mathematics in the West. Any suggestion that certain fundamental concepts in mathematics were in use in these cultures well before they came known in the West are ignored or minimized.

Much of the above is not directly related to this thread but is relevant in the context of rejecting anything that does not comport to standards of acceptable verification as defined by the West.

Not really, it seems more like a justification for continuing to believe things for which there is not good evidence.

While I was taught that Columbus "discovered" America, (for Spain), I was also taught that he was greeted by natives who were obviously here first. They became known by europeans as indians, because Columbus thought he'd traveled a western route to India. I think there's a famous painting of it.

Also, irrespective of how different people interpret what Columbus did, there is a lot of reliable evidence, recorded at the time and verified since then, that he did it. The same cannot be said of the Jews in India.

I understood what the PP was saying, but your post didn't seem to address her valid point. Wasn't she saying there was no justification for american perception, which was false?

[Anonymous]

Yes . It is a sin.

So what. Being hetero and lusting after the hottie next door is a sin.

Christianity says we all need to be washed by the blood of Christ to face God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes . It is a sin.

So what. Being hetero and lusting after the hottie next door is a sin.

Christianity says we all need to be washed by the blood of Christ to face God.

That's metaphorical, you know. The sacrifice in question happened over 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hunch this may be the same atheist who lurks around religious threads to challenge believers. Her writing style is distinctive. She doesn't like to admit when shes wrong. She seems knowledgeable in many religions until you realize she's just a google queen. I think she is also the same Islamophobe from a few weeks ago. I think she has a lot of time on her hands and simply likes to derail threads, all out of her anger towards religion and those who practice religion. Ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

There were many people you called Islamophobes on those threads from a few weeks ago. Several identified themselves as atheists, and while 1-2 self-identified atheists were religion-haters and one in particular called Mohammed names, other atheists simply expressed reservations about Islamic scripture or laws, and one very different self-identified atheist actually knew a wholeot about Islam and without insulting anybody seemed really focussed on getting the facts right about scripture and sharia. Then there were several people of faith you called Islamophobes, including myself (and I never insulted Mohammed) and a Pakistani Christian. And more participants it was harder to identify, but you also called them Islamophobes.

Also, if failing to agree on the perfection of various laws makes a poster an Islamophobe, then you have bigger problems.

I do think it's time for you to stop lumping multiple diverse people, with diverse goals and diverse approaches, into single Islamophobe to bash.

Why do you keep mentioning that you are Pakistani? How is it relevant?

And many? No. I don't believe so. A few only. People here are generally educated and civilized, and education dispels ignorance, bigotry, and racism.

You are responding to me and I never said I was Pakistani. I'm definitely not Pakistani. Go re-read.