🧠｜serious-chat

[lament forge]

is morality subjective ?

[shy summit]

“Being black is immoral”

This is how stupid it is

You take a root neurological development and say its bad

Enough

Find a new topic

[feral river]

that’s disrupting the social order if they be a muslim in public

[dapper laurel]

Minecraft is here

[void arch]

no its objective ,if its subjective then there is no right or wrong just opinions . thats why by necessity morality is objective and thats how our justice system work

[void arch]

when u get wasted u change topic

[sleek epoch]

It was the white people who degraded black people islam always respects everyone

[shy summit]

Mine you didn’t get the context so please stop talking

[lament forge]

so the only morality is the one your goofy ah book says ? everybody else is wrong ?

[shy summit]

Except queer people apparently

[sleek epoch]

What's the social order u talking about

[dapper laurel]

He meant to be joking, I think

[feral river]

That is the law… well yeah I didn’t get that much I just saw that

[lament forge]

yup

[sleek epoch]

Bcz they r queer

[void arch]

false conclusion .. if i have reason to hate an immoral act ,doent mean necessary i hate the person

[lament forge]

u're giving no reasons

[feral river]

Acting against national unity suspect treason and disrupting the social order

That’s it

[sleek epoch]

Just gave the reason

[shy summit]

New topic

We’ve got multiple people on the verge of violating our tos

[sleek epoch]

Queer.

[lament forge]

ayo

[shy summit]

New

Topic

[lament forge]

dont delete 😭

[void arch]

[Homophobia is the irrational fear, dislike, or prejudice against homosexual people specifically. If one perceives the homosexual activity a sin due to his affiliation to a religion, it doesn't remotely make them homophobic. They may not fear them, dislike them, or hold some kind of prejudice against them. Additionally, most religious people don't dislike the people themselves, they dislike the action or activity, that's a crucial distinction.

Additionally, labelling others doesn't mean your argument is sound, though. If siding with the truth threatens of being negatively labelled, I'd personally take the side of truth.]

[sleek epoch]

I should agree with u I need a new topic

[shy summit]

Move on now

Or we be muting

[lament forge]

"don't dislike the people , dislike the action"
tf does that mean ?

[void arch]

thats Flare respond to same claim

[shy summit]

3

2

[formal pilot]

USA is getting wrecked, thanks to Trump

[shy summit]

1

Thank you

[lament forge]

[sleek epoch]

Action= gay stuff

Plz let's change the topic

[lament forge]

so you can be gay man , just don't fuck your bf

[formal pilot]

Trump will make the whole world chaotic

Ayoub left the server?

And SerVat is muted

[void arch]

im here

[formal pilot]

Lmao Diegoss is muted

[formal pilot]

Why I can't see when you joined english hub

[void arch]

idk

[shy summit]

Discord might he having issues

[sleek epoch]

O did I just got unmuted

Wow

Thanks

I'm just a nice guy

I respect everyone

[sleek epoch]

Yes I guess so it's lagging

[prisma cipher]

Why

[sleek epoch]

I respect u

[prisma cipher]

Thanks

[void arch]

dont start throwing nonsense then

[formal pilot]

Yeah it's jummah he should recite surah kahaf instead of yapping with us

[lament forge]

[sleek epoch]

U know so much about Muslims

[formal pilot]

Yeah I'm the imposter in family

[lament forge]

same loll

[lament forge]

[sleek epoch]

Oh i get it

[lament forge]

why u always delete smh

[formal pilot]

Diegoss how trump is affecting your country?

[lament forge]

I've no idea

I was already fucked up so idk

[formal pilot]

USA is home for some of the most smart people, still they keep electing Clowns

[sleek epoch]

Isn't Trump a good guy

Why did they vote him

[formal pilot]

Good for elites

[formal pilot]

I don't know, it's absurd

Lemme pull some papers

[lament forge]

💀

[barren cosmos]

because people are afraid of the ghost of communism (that doesn't even exists nowadays lol)

u can see it mostly on adults

[dapper laurel]

There was never a real risk of communism in America

They voted for Trump just because the Democratic Party has disappointed them, and not a little

[lament forge]

nice campaign

[sleek epoch]

Yeah that shot was kinda cool no cap

[formal pilot]

Lol we never know

[sleek epoch]

Yeah I thought that too

[barren cosmos]

people are still afraid of this lmao

[lament forge]

well well well

[sleek epoch]

It always works

[barren cosmos]

im not saying it had a real risk, but a lot of people thinks that

[formal pilot]

His policies will badly affect non elite average American

[lament forge]

true

[dapper laurel]

People aren't that stupid, at least I like to think so

I just think they get tired easily

[formal pilot]

whole world is shifting towards the right wing government tbh

[thorny steeple]

[barren cosmos]

nahh im almost sure they're, but ofc it didn't was the only reason for him getting elected

[barren cosmos]

btw it's scary

[sleek epoch]

Well I don't know about Trump but I didn't like kamala she looks like a teacher of mine who was really rude to me

[dapper laurel]

In America, the Democratic and Republican parties have been alternating for some time till now

[formal pilot]

Harris definitely fakes one thing

[sleek epoch]

What

[formal pilot]

Indeed it's scary, hate against minorities will rise

[dapper laurel]

At the end of the year they just say "aah, let's stop this Democratic or Republican shit"

[formal pilot]

Nevermind

[dapper laurel]

People want change more than anything, but it doesn't seem to be coming

[sleek epoch]

Ehm ehm

[barren cosmos]

im not from usa so i just get an outside view, it's crazy to see how the things are going

[lament forge]

both are mid

[formal pilot]

If I was american I'll leave the country

[lament forge]

Vote for Brent Peterson

[lament forge]

reasonable

[formal pilot]

Democracy is working great in some European countries

[dapper laurel]

I'm not American either, but the patterns I've noticed are quite alarming

[formal pilot]

I'll take refuge there

[sleek epoch]

Wise desicion

Ww3 is near

[lament forge]

see you there

[sleek epoch]

Why is China building war ships

[dapper laurel]

If Brent ran with the Democrats next year he would definitely win the election

[lament forge]

noo my temu order wont come

[sleek epoch]

I saw a reel about this today

[dapper laurel]

The only reels I get are of Indians dying or people getting hurt

I need to clean my reels page

[sleek epoch]

Lol

[sleek epoch]

Yes brother

[barren cosmos]

oh ik
in brazil we had a time we call “república café com leite” (translates to “coffee with milk republic”)

it's basically when the presidents alternated between people from São Paulo and Minas Gerais, i think it's close enough to the democratic and republican parties

[dapper laurel]

I swear, if I open my insta and open the reels, the first thing I'll see are people getting hurt

[sleek epoch]

US navy and China navy are both no# 1 navies

[dapper laurel]

I didn't know about that, political polarization is pretty common nowadays too

[sleek epoch]

That's creepy I heard that new insta update is weird and it shows weird reels

[barren cosmos]

yeah but here this happened at 1889 until 1930 😭

[dapper laurel]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAXbO6INcn1/?igsh=cXV5bTMxY25sYnhn yeah watch this reel

[formal pilot]

I'm only getting UFC edits like always and some brainrot 💀

[formal pilot]

Wtf did i just watched
Give him darwin award

[dapper laurel]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFEpXBGTr-E/?igsh=bXExZTM2ZmN2N2Rt

[lament forge]

ouu my turn

[dapper laurel]

Where I come from this has been happening since the creation of my country

[sleek epoch]

It's so disturbing when no good reels are coming but u still can't stop watching

[formal pilot]

Stop polluting my feed, I hate you for this

||"God is dead" Nietzsche got real||

[dapper laurel]

😂

[formal pilot]

Doomscrolling isn't good for mind

[barren cosmos]

yea that's why i deleted these apps

[sleek epoch]

I always get headache

[sleek epoch]

Wow

[dapper laurel]

Me too but from tiktok

[sleek epoch]

I never used tiktok cuz all the same reels are on insta

[dapper laurel]

I use the two for two different purposes, on Tiktok I have an educational page with science education videos, on Instagram instead I see people getting hurt because it amuses me

[sleek epoch]

Lol

[dapper laurel]

However, I'm not a bad person, trust

[sleek epoch]

It affected my eyesight

[sleek epoch]

I believe u

[hallow dragon]

Hi

[cloud moat]

Hi all , how are you today

[vernal raptor]

I want to see that

[main bison]

https://images.app.goo.gl/b6DJdKqMoH2LtUR66

Emmm guys? 💀

Do u think the same as i think?

Its in a iranian school

[young edge]

Great buddy what about you?

[cloud moat]

Not bad

[dire aurora]

[torpid dirge]

[mystic bay]

There are certainly problems for divine command theory

Then again, I don't think that theists are obliged to take that position

[obtuse eagle]

[torpid dirge]

I didn't understand?

What is Divine command theory

[main bison]

What do u think happens after death as someone with phd in a cool subject

[mystic bay]

Divine command theory is the view that morality is determined by divine edict. In simple terms, God actively makes something morally right or wrong by commanding people to do it or not to do it

[mystic bay]

I don't think having a PhD qualifies me to answer that

[main bison]

Duh but its in physics and phisolphy

[mystic bay]

I'm not educated in physics

Not that that's relevant anyway

[main bison]

u said metaphysics

[mystic bay]

Exactly

It's a different thing

[main bison]

its physics anyway

E=MC^2 right?

[mystic bay]

Yep, that's physics

Metaphysics is something completely different

[void arch]

From an atheistic worldview, we are biological robots and life is stochastically emergent, so intuition couldn't be trusted because it's essentially a product of random, chance-based mechanisms, which means it could and is likely to be wrong or invalid.
atheism cannot account for objective moral values, given that it portrays humans as mere biological robots, products of randomness and chance-based mechanisms.

there ll stay only one objective source then, which is God

u may argue that some sort of commands may not have a rational reason for it

but establishing objectively a religion is true, then by necessity u have to follow them

and i would argue that homo6 does not have any source of harm

it goes like this : establishing God existence>> establishing a specific religion is objectively is true >> accepting the commands by default as our premises lead..

its kinda absurd when ppl jump to criticize the commands, when they themselves don't have any objective source of morality.

[mystic bay]

I still don't think that necessarily entails divine command theory

[void arch]

that why i wrote this

if u established God existence. by default ull have to follow his commands, mind out God is the Most Just and Most Wise. And we are limited in term of knowledge and decisions.
bcz then God would not command Us of something harmful or irrationally...

[mystic bay]

So things are harmful and/or irrational regardless of whether God commands them?

[bitter zephyr]

Honestly guys, God can do whatever god wants, because if god command us of something harmful, there are absolutely nothing we can do about it, If god is willing, it will happen right?

[void arch]

wdym? .. i may understand it if i say if God is the source of everything ,then he is the source of immorality and evil ,right ?, then i would say God created the action but didn't force ppl to do them ,actually they have free will in this case ,which makes sense if state that this life is a test.

[bitter zephyr]

If god is all knowing, and all is according to God's will, then there is truly no such thing as free will

[void arch]

God is not evil! .. that absurd if u know that ..bcz God is the most Just ..being evil and commanding evil is self contradiction ,and God is not a contradiction. but sure God's will above ours

[void arch]

i believe that , but in Islam humans are free in things which has relation to salvation, choosing between doing bad deed or good deed.

[main bison]

is there any country the majrioty of people love the goverment ?

[void arch]

Afghanistan

[bitter zephyr]

I mean, who says god is the most just or good? If god is evil, does god cease to be god? My point is, god can be anything god wants, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, can we even classify god's action by human moral standards? Isn't god unlike his creation in al ikhlas? 😅

[bitter zephyr]

North korea, if you disregard the censorship

[bitter zephyr]

Quora says new zealand

[main bison]

no actually a lot of them r moving to australia

[main bison]

i meant a free country

[void arch]

are u not labeling God of something ur ignorant about now ? ,at least we Muslims can prove objectively that our religion is from God , therefore God is absolutely the Most Just . in the Quraan God explain himself and his nature in details , its not an ambiguous thing .

[main bison]

The only way that is in a free election like 90 percent of people vote for same party after 20 years

and they're all happy

[bitter zephyr]

I mean there is a lot of holes need to be filled to be able to define god, like what is god's motive to create something, that alone can determine a whole lot of good or evil in god's part

[void arch]

some reflection on the Universe and the nature , we ll see how God is the most merciful .. just imagine Human is mocking God and doing immoral things , and still God allowing him to exist and opening the door for repentance to him ..
and if he repents God accept his repentance and erase all his past sins .. just imagine how merciful and Just is that !

[void arch]

God is not made of part that the first thing to say ... second God by nature is a creator ,he says be and it it .

[bitter zephyr]

Yes, that is god almighty power, but what is the motive?

[void arch]

there is no motive , God is by **nature ** a creator .. ur question is like why God is God!.

demanding for a purpose , ur assuming God is created and designed for a specific purpose. and that is illogical

[bitter zephyr]

Then how can we determine if something is just or good or bad, if there is no reason, like A gives money to the poor people, based on A motive, it can be a good or not so good act, if it based on arrogance or public image, it's superficial, its not that good, but if it based on he actually want to help, its a good thing no?

[void arch]

whats that has to do with God's nature ?

Allah knows the intention of everyone

based on that he is the Most Just and Most Wise

[bitter zephyr]

A little question, If God is Just, most religion define god as all knowing, everything according to gods will, and so there is no such thing as free will, by definition god is merciful to all, right? So what about people like say Firaun, or maybe satan, with no such things as free will, they are created, they are destined to go to hell, condemned to eternal suffering, how is that just and merciful?

Not that I am against the existence of God, i am just looking for answer bro, so there will be less resistance to me believing

[thorny steeple]

Yeah it’s hella useful to be honest, now i have used both chatgpt and deepseek

[bitter zephyr]

Their deepthink is kinda cool

And they say deepseek is releasing this video or image generation model?

[lament forge]

[thorny steeple]

Yeah i heard about that

[thorny steeple]

They will release the image generation model

[bitter zephyr]

I'll be having myself an uncensored picture of Trump's cake mukbang

[void arch]

there are a lot of misconception here , but look, in Islam we have free will in things that has relation to our salvation but that doesn't contradict that Allah's will is above our will..

Satan in Islam is a Jin and have free will like us , he chooses to reject Allah's commands our of Arrogance, So Allah lower his position and so on ,if u read First chapter u find the story. so if Satan was in hell ,he choose that , and humans if they are there ,they also choose that .
and other thing is to distinguish between God's knowledge of everything and our free will, bcz God knowing our destination does not mean he chooses that destination forcibly on us.
some videos to watch about the topic :
https://youtu.be/6uEKa9ZO9u4?si=L1CgqaDeDV0RlOAL
https://youtu.be/6uEKa9ZO9u4?si=Wg2ldwH8vqS0-aIk

[bitter zephyr]

I'll rest my case brother ayoub, too tired for this kind of talk 😔 maybe later, thanks though

[void arch]

sure u can check it later ,thanks for ur well mannered discussion.

[manic juniper]

Satan was supposed to be a lawyer on god's side, people that didn't get the lore merged him with Lucifer the prince of demons (and he originally wasn't even a demon but a Roman spirit)

The snake wasn't supposed to be Satan either

[peak summit]

@wild sparrow Shall we continue talking?

[wild sparrow]

I don’t wish to upset anyone 🫣

Oh sorry yes serious chat now!

😂 my bad

What questions do you have? ^_^

[peak summit]

some dangerous questions

What is the difference between school theatre and professional theatre?

This is the last question. I'm starting to feel a little sleepy.

[wild sparrow]

In England ‘theatre school’ would be amateur actors so in training, often younger with less experience. Where as professional theatre, is seasoned performers with experience and skill.

[peak summit]

Your answer is very good

Like my answers

So another little question

[fierce umbra]

hello

[wild sparrow]

😊 go ahead

[wild sparrow]

Hello 👋

[fierce umbra]

I need some help

[wild sparrow]

I can try to help 🙂

[peak summit]

If I am an actor and the other actor is standing and the audience is in front of him, do I go in front of the actor or behind him?

[fierce umbra]

do you know how to use java codding

[peak summit]

No I don't about programming

[wild sparrow]

If I understand correctly you’d be expected to stand to the side of him whilst still facing the audience, so they do not block you nor you block them.

[wild sparrow]

Afraid not… sorry!

[fierce umbra]

ok thanks guys

[peak summit]

I am an actor who has a role to play, and my role requires movement. Should I cross in front of him or behind him?

and why

Sorry I think the questions are difficult

[torpid dirge]

Satan was supposed to be lawyer on god's side 😹😭wtf

[wild sparrow]

Behind him I would think although I’m not a seasoned actor! 😂 but due to the proximity of the audience I’d suggest behind is safer and then you’re aware of the other actors position so can position yourself accordingly

[peak summit]

Your answer is good. An actor must cross behind him so as not to block the view of the audience. If he wants to stand in front of the actor, there must be a reason for this action.

I'll go now. Do you need anything else?

[wild sparrow]

No but feel free to dm me if you have more questions if I’m not online ☺️

[peak summit]

okay. see you soon

[thorny steeple]

Are you new here?

[wild sparrow]

Yeah joined today 🙂

[thorny steeple]

Great , welcome, are you going to do events and stuffs like that ?

That would be nice

[wild sparrow]

I’m pretty busy with work so only have evenings and I don’t really know what’s going on here yet 😂 maybe?! Who knows ^_^

[thorny steeple]

Alright, let me know when you do that 😁

[obtuse eagle]

hi

[obtuse eagle]

[obtuse eagle]

awhhh

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcOLlSV-vk0

[feral river]

I don’t even need to be against something does not exist

These guys really thinks they can assume everything exists in their dream to convince other people that it exists for real

This is a battle on recognition

[peak summit]

[feral river]

And that’s spreading influence over society and even disturbing the social order

In some region

[peak summit]

[waxen shale]

Hi

[spiral jackal]

anyone wanna study or co work? let's do it! let's on custom rooom

[main bison]

are you a teacher?

[main bison]

isabella hii

[main bison]

thats ugly

[lavish goblet]

can someone please suggest me a good poem for recitation competition

I had thought of goblin market by Christina Rosetti but i dont know if its a good poem for recitation, can someone please help

[feral river]

Really ho ? I can prove I can be above the god

God does not have enforcement, I have.

Law/rule without enforcement is a toilet paper

https://x.com/elonmusk?s=21

He will use his way to transform the United States of America 🇺🇸

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885594684682080511?s=46

[lime cobalt]

But it's strong 💪, look at the arm

[lime cobalt]

The concept is that God also becomes the enforcement of law, but in the afterlife.

[feral river]

Will you in the afterlife if your brain just shut down for a while ?

[dire aurora]

[feral river]

Dude you’re made of cells me too, if you want to pick a random reason to make people work hard for authorities or privileges, I’m okay with that but don’t fool around with me

[dire aurora]

[feral river]

That stuff was a total political tool lol

[manic juniper]

God is like that

Laws and rules, no enforcement whatsoever

[void arch]

your wasting time by throwing ur bigoted Jokes ,Go learn What is the consept of God in Islam.

You can't be Above God ,bcz ur a limited, weak, dependent creature.. humble urself a bit and consider choosing better words to make the conversation more polite.

[feral river]

A toilet paper

[feral river]

Im not affiliated with Islam

I’m just telling the truth

[void arch]

Then stop talking about things out ignorance and arrogance, ur just showing how you're full with hate and arrogance.
And if u want to learn be better than that ur a Human.

[void arch]

how mocking God is allaowed here?

[manic juniper]

That's the God I pray to, what does that have to do with mocking?

That's the God everyone prays to

[feral river]

You know it is so fucked that you would assume a guy who is not affiliated with Islam is not a human being right ?

And I don’t give a single fucking shit of your stupid definition of a human

Just read what you have said and realize how stupid and offensive it was then speak back

[void arch]

Im not sure a Decent Human talks like You

[feral river]

You don’t have to be

I never asked you to aware that fact

Which you are offensive towards me because of my religious affiliation

I don’t wanna attack your religion, but when you start to offend people by that, think again

And I’m not a soft guy will just leave that stupid comment

[void arch]

Your the one start ur Bigoted full of hate jokes , and when I ask u to be polite for the conversation to keep on , ur just increasing vomiting ur Ignorance and arrogance on me. end It here, Slam alyakom
ان لم تستحي فافعل ما شئت.

[feral river]

Try to pick one

When did I said something hateful towards you ?

[manic juniper]

https://tenor.com/view/call-of-the-night-nazuna-yofukashi-no-uta-captain-qwark-ratchet-and-clank-gif-11731837527996054931

[feral river]

And you did that piece of shit just because i’m not affiliated with your stupid ideology

That was totally fucked

[thorny steeple]

Totally i got 26 red envelopes so far

Maybe i will get more

[feral river]

Cool dude

How much did you receive

I got 3400 CNY by now

[thorny steeple]

3k -4 k probably

[feral river]

Great

Have a good time with that money

That’s around 600 USD

[thorny steeple]

Imagine Yuan ever become as valuable as the USD

[feral river]

Not a chance and we don’t have to be

Things would be so different if yuan’s value is above the USD

[formal pilot]

[ashen mortar]

fight fight

https://tenor.com/view/broob-broseidon-smitty-gif-24263466

[lime cobalt]

Dude, can u stop using the F word !!!

[obtuse eagle]

https://tenor.com/view/verycat-cateat-gif-7339469281817108398

[thorny steeple]

Yeah we don’t need to be like exchange rate to 1:1, somehow it’s benefited that by China making its exports in other ways

[thorny steeple]

Attack on titan ?

[thorny steeple]

In real life i like using f word a lot

[dire aurora]

[lime cobalt]

Sometimes we forget that there is no absolute truth.

[dire aurora]

Okay

[lime cobalt]

Even Human science will fall along with the destruction of the universe. so dont fucking use F word please !!

[dire aurora]

Hypocrite

[lime cobalt]

oh, u dont get my jokes

why so serious

[dire aurora]

Bro it's serious chat

See properly

[lime cobalt]

Why are you interpreting it literally? Serious doesn’t mean banning jokes.

[dire aurora]

Okay

[lime cobalt]

But I'm serious about well-mannered discussions, and religious debates clearly have no end because they are fundamentally different in their frameworks—one is based on science, which requires empirical evidence, while the other is based on dogma.

[dire aurora]

Yeah

[lavish goblet]

[dire aurora]

We don't read poems buddy.

It's annoying

[quasi needle]

striking is basically non existent in the us and how do you sue against a company when you don’t even have a job

the difference between union participation & distribution of wealth directly correlates

union membership has been dropping for 40+ years

striking is only possible in a union

the rich get richer, the rich lobby against unions, unions collapse, the poor have no means to fight the rich, the rich get richer

i believe in economic freedom as long as that freedom doesn’t oppress the working rights of those lower down the ladder

[cerulean granite]

Biryani or mandhi

[dire aurora]

None of them

[cerulean granite]

Okke bro

[dire aurora]

👍 👍

[cerulean granite]

https://tenor.com/view/spongebob-anxious-nervous-bite-nails-gif-15423608

[cerulean granite]

I can't see this
gifs only see that's link

[thorny steeple]

https://tenor.com/view/spongebob-anxious-nervous-bite-nails-gif-15423608

[thorny steeple]

[cerulean granite]

I shared but can't see my gifs

[thorny steeple]

That is a Phenotype you know , if a white dude who was born and raised in china and get a Chinese citizenship ,people would assume that he is non Chinese, he is European

[thorny steeple]

Be active, you will get that permission

[lime cobalt]

Even if your English or German is excellent and being a citizen,if u in the UK or another country, they wouldn't consider you British or Germany. They see race—that's how racism works.

not all but neo nazi will

But if we take it positively, it would be more dignified to build our own country. We can learn there, but we shouldn't forget our identity. Rather than flooding them with immigrants, they will get fed up at some point.

[sturdy tinsel]

@opal fox

[dapper laurel]

That was the point, he's not Chinese

[lethal sparrow]

"b-BuT iT wAs JuSt A hAnD wAvE!" 🤓
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LESg_e2HW7c

[shy summit]

The obvious attempt by conservatives to gentrify an obvious use of the Seig Heil is fucking disgusting

[thorny steeple]

He is not yes but i just make an example, most Americans simply identify as “American” rather than “European American, should we call them European??

[dapper laurel]

It's different because, except for Native Americans, no American is native to the place, being American is a nationality, anyone born in America is considered American by law

America is not an ethnic state, unlike China, for example, or with a predominant indigenous ethnicity

[waxen shale]

Yo what are you even saying?! Last time i check elon was pro jews

Are you being paid to stating things like that?

[shy summit]

Do you need to watch the video of him doing?

[dire aurora]

[waxen shale]

I watched it but still haven't convinced me

[shy summit]

Oh boy … the literal seig heil doesn’t sell you on it?

[elder seal]

Which one of them - Because a random guy doing it doesn't mean much; if we're talking Elon Musk, you've also got to admit that Taylor Swift did a roman salute

It says a lot that they just call him "priest" and not his name in the title. I can find any nobody and make them do something and then say "Look what x) does, they're so bad 🤯"

As for Elon Musk - Similar to how removing Swift's "kiss to the crowd" and clipping it out of context, Musk holding his hand on his heart before 'giving his heart out' probably has entirely different connotation than the left seek to play it out to be

all this Musk business has proven is that the left is delusional - Pathologically suffers from group-level neuroticism

[waxen shale]

Guys i have a question. Why when us taking care of animal from they were baby, they don't act like a human or their caretaker. But when a baby human nurtured by an Ape.. they might possibly acts like an Ape does? Meanwhile they believe in that we have an ancestry like an ape does.. that were just an animal too 🤫

[elder seal]

I don't even know what this means

Fixed the grammar with copilot:

"Guys, I have a question. Why, when we take care of animals from when they are babies, don't they act like humans or their caretakers? But when a baby human is nurtured by an ape, they might possibly act like an ape does? Meanwhile, they believe that we have an ancestry similar to that of apes, which are also animals. 🤫"

[elder seal]

As for the answer: They do. Cats are substantially more talkative when raised by humans than in the wild, they change their behaviour to surround humans. We see that bears and raccoons has alters their actions from typical hunting to going into the suburbs to 'trash dive,' and we have evidence that birds such as ravens and crows has begun using human technology as a way to ease their own access to food

So while you're right that they don't literally 'turn into humans,' they still change their behaviour to accomodate humans. And, as for humans raised by apes or other animals, the 'degree of change' is likely debatable. They don't become 1-1 of the animal raised by them; but humans are more flexible due to fewer instinctive characteristics

Also, anecdotally we have evidence of animals changing their entire sequence of behavioural cues if they're raised by other animals. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L7EwGt5yOd0

@static pivot @opal fox

obvious scam

It literally says "steam-u-commun(n!)ity" literally not even steam

GUess I've got to ask other moderators - @tough gull

[tough gull]

It's been dealt with

[elder seal]

scam's still up

I'd probably remove the link

[tough gull]

Thank you, but please next time open a ticket

[tough gull]

Where?

[elder seal]

Alright 🫡 I'll keep that in mind

[tough gull]

I don't see it so I'm confused

Are you using Vencord?

Cuz that message was deleted

[sturdy tinsel]

it's deleted for me too 🤔

[elder seal]

No - I'm using regular discord. Could be a bug

Because it's still there for me

Yea - it was a bug. Just restarted discord and it disappeared

[feral river]

well if that's the case he is technically a Chinese citizen but without an ethnical status of Chinese, most people will not recognize him as a Chinese.

or we just call them, "foreign citizens"

they will have the most rights as majority of Chinese people have and it might not share the same level of regulatory rights

for instance according to the law when you are 18, you are subjected to register for comply with the conscription demands by the state which might happen in the future, and report your duty.

but I don't think naturalized citizens are subjected to it

because we have our method to execute what laws are selected by authorities

and it would also be different on the society for a lot of stuff just because you are a Chinese citizen it doesn't literally mean anything because everyone is Chinese citizen, so there's much potential to have random opportunities for those people especially white are somehow popular and it's easier than blacks to get a job in China

that's not racism, because the term "racism" technically does not exist in Chinese society

China is an ethnic state.

I know selective execution was stupid and that's not rule of law at all, but we do that

and we are doing great.

[waxen shale]

But animals doesn't need to be taught on how to be themselves. While human is different. cats might adapted to their surroundings in a cat way. While the other hand, i would say that if human were to be raised by an Ape they don't act like human anymore. They can't speak like most humans and they will communicate in an Ape way.

So therefore... Human is not an Animal. Were different.

[elder seal]

Are dolphins not an animal?

[waxen shale]

We descend from a heaven 😇

[waxen shale]

Dolphin is animal

[elder seal]

The standard you just applied would mean dolphins aren't animals

and are descended from heaven

[waxen shale]

How so ?

[waxen shale]

Racism is just a pattern recognition behaviour

[elder seal]

Because while you're correct in saying that some animals has more instinctive actions than humans; dolphins are generally "smarter" than humans looking at their brainmass, and often can, within possibility of their action, take similar actions that are called 'unnatural' by your standard

[waxen shale]

I mean its not about can a dolphin would beat a human on something.

If you take a colony of humans and a colony of dolphins. The human would build a rocket while dolphin cant even learn to speak or develop a language on their own.

[hard coyote]

[feral river]

read that again

[waxen shale]

Well I'm just saying.

[feral river]

yeah extremely vague

confusing messages equals no message to me

being vague doesn't displays your good english exactly is

[waxen shale]

What?

I'm just like stating that.. not like i was disagree with you.

You already roasting me ? With just that...

Sheeeshhh

[feral river]

well nah don't take it too much

just straight to the point

my message can't be more clear at this point

[waxen shale]

Just make it more vague. I want it more vague

Probably some spoiled child or 4chan user

[feral river]

#🧠｜serious-chat message

you got it

[waxen shale]

Just forget about it..

[umbral narwhal]

Today is my birthday 🎉🎉

[thorny steeple]

Happy Birthday bro @umbral narwhal

[umbral narwhal]

Thanks

[manic juniper]

Dolphins have the same language gene (FOXP2) as humans', it's just mutated in a different way. So we cannot assume they have no speech like ours

Not being able to build a rocket is a result of having fins instead of digits

[waxen shale]

I'm not talking about speech. Im referring to a language

And way we evolve with it.

[manic juniper]

Speech is the ability to talk 🤦🏼‍♀️

[torpid dirge]

First of all dolphins haven't resembling with any kind of languages or genes

[waxen shale]

But you need a language in order to speak

[tight carbon]

Good evening ,my Name is Peter ,everyone, I have a question for you, is anyone interested in watching me on screen sharing on the voice channel, some new Captain America here, but in the Russian version from this year because I have the opportunity online to show someone that it is available there?

[waxen shale]

Like cat can just meows so its like a cat speech in the sense. But we have to formulate words and structure in order to communicate

[waxen shale]

Monkey cant, or ape

[manic juniper]

Apes can (humans)

[manic juniper]

Because most mammals don't have anything resembling a language, why would they need one

[waxen shale]

Nah we descend from a heaven

[manic juniper]

That's like complaining that there are bicycles despite cars being a thing

[waxen shale]

You can also apply the unecessity. of why human have need a language(throughout its history)

[manic juniper]

Because we are physically weaker and slower than most mammals we have to fare against

[waxen shale]

Some mammals also weaker than us. They still exist and hasn't developed any language

[main bison]

i like ur bike

[manic juniper]

They are smaller or have shorter incubation times

You can kill 100k rats yet just 80 of them will rebound their population back to the same numbers after just few months

[waxen shale]

Okay well you can make any reason is to why you explain the miracles of god scientifically

[manic juniper]

What miracles

Didn't he create the world in 6 days or something

[waxen shale]

Us human descendants from a heaven. Being the most smarter than any animals.

[manic juniper]

He also needed to rest lmao I guess god must be some sort of animal too

[manic juniper]

Bro how old are you? There is no way you don't have enough experience to say we are the smartest

[waxen shale]

What do you mean ? Didn't we on top of the food chain?

[manic juniper]

No? Being smart has nothing to do with being at the top of the food chain

Many dumber animals are higher in the chain than their respective preys

Snakes have no social structure comparable to any rodent yet they prey over most of them

[waxen shale]

Yeah but we're not an animal

[manic juniper]

Scolopendras can hunt bats

[manic juniper]

??? Are we mushrooms then?

I knew it, I'm a big sunflower

[waxen shale]

We are devine creatures descendants from the great heaven above

[manic juniper]

What is divine about us?

[waxen shale]

I mean does science said that were an animal?

[manic juniper]

Yes

[waxen shale]

Okay thats wrong

[manic juniper]

Sure

Perhaps eggplants are humans then

[mystic bay]

Aristotle says that we are rational animals

[manic juniper]

Science is wrong, there ain't no way eggplants aren't humans

[waxen shale]

Anyway i have to go. Its Nice chatting with you

[manic juniper]

I guess I'll never know what's divine about humans

[waxen shale]

Well when you keep holding on the believe that we were apes. You will never know

[manic juniper]

I can believe that we are mushrooms

Still don't see how we are divine

[main bison]

So estonia is scandivian?

[waxen shale]

I came back. I brought you following question : why human have the unique evolutionary path that have the capability of forming a complex thoughts and refined Ideas throughout generations ?

If you can answer this then you know why and how human are devine creatures

[wooden star]

wait what

[mystic bay]

Great, another phantom ping

[waxen shale]

Hi how are you?

[mystic bay]

I'm fine

[void arch]

calling Humans "Merely an Animal" is very problematic bcz

Reducing a human being solely to their biological or animalistic aspects ignores the multifaceted nature of human existence. As Humans have complex social, cultural, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual dimensions that arent easily captured by purely biological descriptions. It's a reductionist view that strips away these crucial aspects.

Human societies are built on a foundation of human rights, dignity, and moral responsibility. these concepts are difficult to justify if we view humans as "merely animals," as it blurs the lines of moral agency and the special considerations we give to human life.

While humans share characteristics with animals, we also possess unique traits that significantly differentiate us:

Human language is far more sophisticated than any animal communication system, enabling abstract thought, nuanced expression, and the transmission of complex ideas.
Human cognitive abilities, including reasoning, problem-solving, abstract thought, and self-awareness, are vastly more developed than any other animals.
add that Humans create complex cultures, develop advanced technologies, and engage in symbolic expression through art, music, and other forms of creativity.
No to mention Humans possess the capacity for complex moral reasoning. allowing us to consider ethical dilemmas, understand consequences, and make choices based on principles .

[void arch]

Focusing only on the biological or evolutionary similarities between humans and animals leads to confirmation bias Fallacy. this means selectively emphasizing the evidence that supports the "humans are just animals" view while downplaying or ignoring the vast body of evidence that highlights human uniqueness. It's crucial to consider the totality of the evidence, including not just biology but also anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and other disciplines that explore the human experience.

Historically, the idea that humans are "merely animals" has been used to justify social inequalities, discrimination, and even violence. Dehumanizing certain groups by denying their full humanity is a dangerous and ethically reprehensible practice.
without mentioning that some type of ppl use it to Justify Crimes, or Immoral act . or even Justifying their dangerous extremist Ideologies.

[waxen shale]

What do you think about my question above?

[mystic bay]

What was the question?

[manic juniper]

Helou

[waxen shale]

This @mystic bay

[manic juniper]

No it's Baltic

[manic juniper]

It was never used historically, literally no source whatsoever

[mystic bay]

I'm not an evolutionary biologist

[void arch]

hhhhh are us sure?

[waxen shale]

Okay but you were philosophy major right? Dealing about why question rather than how.

[manic juniper]

This is just assuming other animals don't have anything of the sort, I could assume the same thing about most other people and think that only I experience complex thoughts. Wouldn't make me right

[manic juniper]

Yes

[alpine ridge]

Hello there

[waxen shale]

Animals can have complex thoughts like human does?

[manic juniper]

Do humans have complex thoughts? Or just few of them?

[waxen shale]

We have complex thoughts better than any animals does

[mystic bay]

Isn't it the same here? It sounds as though you are asking for an explanation. The evolutionary explanation for any trait is that it offered an adaptive advantage in its environment, and was therefore more likely to be sexually selected. To ask why this happened assumes that natural selection is directed towards something, which is not a part of the theory.

[manic juniper]

Not really, just look at WW2

[waxen shale]

What do you mean WW2?!?

What? Well animals doesn't have missiles or nuclear

[manic juniper]

People followed orders just because their leaders told them to

[waxen shale]

Yeah exactly. Thats why

[manic juniper]

They were not free thinkers
Even ants don't do this

[waxen shale]

You said like theres no free thinkers in human

[manic juniper]

Nope, I said that many of those people certainly weren't

[waxen shale]

Okay

[mystic bay]

Everyone thinks they are a free thinker until the food truck pulls up

[waxen shale]

Hmmm good thinking. Then we because instinctive like animals. But still were not animals

[void arch]

ur statement was used throughout the history to justify many extremists ideologies or acts .
used for Social Darwinism:
https://www.historycrunch.com/social-darwinism.html
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/social-darwinism/
used in Eugenics:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: https://www.cshl.edu/
This institution has a complex history with eugenics. Their website provides information on the history of eugenics, but also critical perspectives.  
University of Vermont: https://www.uvm.edu/~dewitt/eugenics.html
A collection of primary source documents related to the eugenics movement in the US.  
Facing History and Ourselves: https://www.facinghistory.org/
Offers resources and lesson plans for teaching about eugenics and its connection to the Holocaust.
used in Dehumanization in Conflict:
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: https://www.ushmm.org/
Offers extensive resources on the Holocaust, including the role of dehumanization in the persecution of Jews and other groups.
Yale University: https://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/Dehumanization.pdf
An academic paper exploring the concept of dehumanization in the context of genocide.
used in Animal Rights Extremism:
Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/
Tracks extremist groups, including those involved in animal rights extremism.
used in Environmental Extremism:
Political Research Associates: https://www.politicalresearch.org/
Publishes research on right-wing extremism, including some environmental extremist groups.

[manic juniper]

Eugenics is pseudoscience and social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism, it's a textbook misrepresentation and hijacking

Won't even waste my time with a wall of useless content

[thorny steeple]

people identify primarily by nationality rather than ethnicity,what is wrong if i identify myself by my nationality,if a person has legally citizenship,why not, hypothetically speaking,if a white dude wanna be Chinese culturally? 75% Singapore's population is of Chinese descent,but people identify themselves as Singaporean,rather than their ethnic background,in South Africa there is a lot of white people tho,counties with a predominant indigenous ethnicity like in Asia,japan,china, korea, what a Chinese dude who identify himself as a Japanese by nationality?

[void arch]

ik its has nothing to do with that , its has to do with ur statement "Humans are merely Animals" so stop red herring

[manic juniper]

So you know it has nothing to do with humans being considered animals in taxonomy and you still sent it? Lol

Can I also send stuff that is completely unrelated? Just for fun

https://youtu.be/puQJNPaGcYc

[void arch]

it has nothing to do with science , it has to do with ur statement ,ohhh man

[dapper laurel]

It can't work

[manic juniper]

My statement is based off cladistics, which is monophyletic taxonomy (a science)

Cladistics wasn't even a thing when social Darwinism was made, or when eugenics were conceived

[waxen shale]

Saying scientific term doesn't make you looks smart. It made you look nerdy

[void arch]

confermation bias fallacy

[manic juniper]

https://tenor.com/view/star-wars-yoda-how-embarassing-thats-so-embarrassing-embarassing-gif-17362984

[manic juniper]

Don't argue science if you aren't able to then

[waxen shale]

You called it science like its a believe with lifestyle lmao

[manic juniper]

?

[void arch]

Focusing only on the biological or evolutionary similarities between humans and animals leads to confirmation bias Fallacy. this means selectively emphasizing the evidence that supports the "humans are just animals" view while downplaying or ignoring the vast body of evidence that highlights human uniqueness

[manic juniper]

Sciences are just something you study, there is nothing special about it. Just like IT or languages

[waxen shale]

Okay. I thought you were hardcore atheist

[manic juniper]

A parrots is less repetitive than this to be honest

[mystic bay]

I think there is probably a semantic problem. There are at least two different concepts of 'animal'. There is the Greek concept of zōon, which just means a living being. This would include all life, including plant life. Then there is the Greek concept of thērion, which means beast or animal.

Humans are undoubtedly 'animals' in the sense of being living things. This is just true by definition.

Are humans merely animals? No. But that is because no animal is merely an animal, because 'animal' is not a species. Just like nothing is merely a mammal.

[manic juniper]

I'm an atheist, no atheist believes in sciences. Anyone can study it, it's not a belief

[void arch]

Ignoring the argument is just a sign of ignorance and arrogance

[waxen shale]

Yeah exactly. not that hardcore.

[manic juniper]

I never said that we are merely animals btw, I don't think that other animals are merely animals either. That guy just likes to misquote

[mystic bay]

I wasn't trying to represent your position. I was just speaking generally.

[manic juniper]

I was using the taxonomic definition of animal
Just like you can say that a table is made of the iron element but it can have a particular meaning to your family

[manic juniper]

Yes don't worry, I was just specifying since you likely missed the beginning of the discussion

[waxen shale]

But why don't just make another category of Living things.? Intelligent living ghings

[void arch]

She is focusing on the Cladistics and biology to prove her claim while ignoring the vaste body of other evidences that show the uniqueness of Humans , isnt confermation bias ?!

[manic juniper]

There is no argument, you simply said "since you're using preestablished concepts that's confirmation bias"
What kind of argument is this?

[mystic bay]

The point is, that would be a subclass. But all species are distinguished by being a subclass within a genus. That's just how taxonomy works.

[manic juniper]

Because that definition would be polyphyletic

[mystic bay]

What exactly are you saying? That we are not living organisms?

[manic juniper]

Cladistics is monophyletic and strives to use monophyletic groupings

[peak summit]

[manic juniper]

Polyphyletic means classifying organisms based off their features rather than ancestry

[void arch]

U took ur words back now .

[mystic bay]

What do you think about morphological classification?

[manic juniper]

I didn't, I said:

1. Humans are animals in cladistics
2. There is nothing divine about humans

[waxen shale]

So were not an Ape ?

[void arch]

no , im saying focusing on just Biology to establish Humans are merly animals is illogical and problematic as they are different from animals more than they are similar .

[manic juniper]

It was good for its times, and it's still used within cladistics whenever we don't have molecular classifications and genetics at our disposal. I admire how it moved away from the superficial Linnaean taxonomy that wrongly grouped many living beings together out of superficial similarities

[mystic bay]

What do you think 'merely animals' means?

[void arch]

1 humans are animals here u see ???

[manic juniper]

We are, apes are a monophyletic group. Some apes are closer to humans than they are to other apes

[manic juniper]

? Where does it say "Merely"? Lol

Can I also misquote you and say that you consider humans to be divine? Since I'm against that position and claim

[mystic bay]

Why are molecular and genetic classifications preferable?

[waxen shale]

Then why another ape are not human ?

[void arch]

what do u mean by divine , I could say that Humans are above animals but not Devine

[manic juniper]

They're usually more precise and accurate because morphology can be misleading (since convergent evolution is a thing)
With molecular phylogenetics and cladistics based off genetics you are using the shared ancestry of living organisms, in a way it's like classifying people through a DNA test vs how they look like. The second is of course less precise because even people of different nationalities may look like they are related

[void arch]

It implies that humans are nothing more than animals, and it diminishes or reduces the perceived value and complexity of human beings.

[manic juniper]

For example the thylacine skull often misleads inexperienced biologists into thinking it's some sort of canid, usually a dog breed. While in reality it's a marsupial, not even a placental. You can correctly guess this from other less evident morphological features such as their teeth formula

[manic juniper]

Those aren't things zoology is concerned with, that's part of philosophy

It'd be like asking why chemistry doesn't consider computers as anything more than various molecules put together, unlike computer science

[void arch]

that's rational thinking , we cant based that only on one field, it leads to confirmation bias , and many ppl used only that field to justify extremism and dangerous ideologies

[manic juniper]

Because you are your sister's brother, but you aren't your sister. Or you aren't your cousin. It's called speciation, we separated long ago

[manic juniper]

The argument was never about ethics or anything else, just about biology. And no so far you couldn't prove that people used humans' taxonomic classification to justify atrocities

[waxen shale]

But my sister is human not an ape

[manic juniper]

Humans are a species of ape

Not all apes look as you expect. Dolphins are mammals yet they look nothing like us or bats

[torpid dirge]

I think she forget about evolutionary species about humans

[manic juniper]

We look more similar to bats than dolphins
But according to cladistics we are all mammals

[peak summit]

[waxen shale]

Its like a circular reasoning fallacy.

[void arch]

U should state before that Humans are biologically similar to animals , and not make it general statement .
Yes , they used evolution as evolution based on the hypothesis of Common Ancestor ,therefore indirectly to Taxonomic Classification or cladistics .

[mystic bay]

Do you think there is a risk of confusing what makes an organism what it is - that is, what distinguishes a species - and where is came from? The question 'What is it?' and 'What are its origins?' are two different questions.

[manic juniper]

It's not, you just don't understand the concept. You can simply look it up or just search how mathematical groups work

[hot thorn]

Hi

[waxen shale]

No, no i understand we were just arguing about semantics here. Your definition of human are not the same as my definition of human. Its ina different dimensions

[manic juniper]

Well of course, my favourite example of that are Eurasian bisons and the domestic cow. Those two animals are (at times) the same species if you go by the strict definition, since they are closely related and domestic cows and Eurasian bison bulls can produce fertile offspring. In the end taxonomy is just about making it simpler for us when it comes to classifying all these organisms and use less ambiguous terminology.
Humans like to put things in boxes, and I think that in order to understand certain concepts we must also understand why they actually don't really make sense in real life, just how we perceive quantities or many other concepts

[torpid dirge]

That's what evolution works systemicly over the time of period, we have ancistrr genes from ape and whatever but it has changes over the time as we evolutionaise to genetics changes

[hot thorn]

After 4 hour anyone wanna do speaking practice with me

[manic juniper]

In short, yes, Eurasian bisons and domestic cows have extremely close origins. By definition we could say that they are the same species. Do people consider them as different? Yes. Do most scientists think the same as the average person? Also yes

[torpid dirge]

Hi what's up frend

[waxen shale]

Do you differ the evolution of human with the evolution of animals ?

[hot thorn]

Hi 🤝

[mystic bay]

So do you consider all of our taxonomic classifications in biology as purely stipulative, and don't carve any objective natural divisons?

[hot thorn]

I'm new can i join what you guys discussing

[manic juniper]

Mostly because nature doesn't really have anything of the sort, every single living organism is its own thing, worthy of its own clade. That's why clades are often defined as "unranked" unlike Linnaean taxonomy that has ranks like kingdom, order, class, genus, species...

You can see it similarly to how the average person perceives quantities versus a concept of irreducible quantity, one unit that cannot be reduced to a smaller unit

[waxen shale]

Can you explain it in the term i understand? Cuz its really hard to learn English through science

[hot thorn]

I think It's hard but fun

[waxen shale]

They talking science bro not English lol

[manic juniper]

Obviously when you are going to buy oranges you buy them by calculating their weight, which is more objective than just selecting two oranges, three oranges. Because every orange is unique

[hot thorn]

Talking science in English that's very good

[mystic bay]

It's one thing to say that our systems of classification do not need to correspond with any objective natural divisions. It's another thing entirely to say there are no such divisions. I'm not sure how science could possibly demonstrate that. I would consider that a philosophical claim.

[mystic bay]

In short, I'm asking Isfrun whether she considers biological classifications to be things we invent or discover

[manic juniper]

In nature there are no actual divisions, yeah. You could consider every organism as its own thing, we made definitions that are more or less consistent to more easily classify and define these organisms

[manic juniper]

It's a mix of both

[waxen shale]

I would say invent

[manic juniper]

Just as we invented numbers, but quantities exist

[mystic bay]

But there are philosophers of biology (and philosophers of science generally) who defend objective divisions in nature. Now, they may perhaps be wrong. But I don't think that science itself adjudicates the question one way or another.

[hot thorn]

Infinite

[manic juniper]

A definition can be objective but still exist mostly for practical uses more than its objectivity. Going back to the cow and bison they each share more with their respective other cows and bisons but they have ancestors in common that kept mixing and generating fertile offspring to this day

This would make it a bit shaky to define them as separate species

I would agree with them that those taxonomic definitions are more useful than not having them, they are quite informative most of the times

[hot thorn]

That's give pure destruction

[waxen shale]

No no just like you would invent a computer. In my opinion. The classification of Living things has its own.. "realms". I could Theories that were different species than apes. Just cuz we walk on two legs and have a hair in our body. Doesn't mean that we were related. Not like how cats relates to lion atleast

[manic juniper]

Hm not really, you'd have to change the definition of apes in modern cladistics too to exclude our ancestors, they are shared with other apes that still exist to this day

[torpid dirge]

Nope I just wanna say biologically we haven't fairly genetics factors about evolution of being humen from our ancistrs genosome though evolution works to changes for establishing ( gradual changes , genetics variations, natural salection ) and it's like apelike structure that have same behaviourl fellecies as humen beings

[manic juniper]

Cladistics are monophyletic, this means that every descendant and ancestors up to a point aren't excluded. That's why birds are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are reptiles, so birds are reptiles as well

In simple terms you'd have to convince taxonomists to change the definition of Hominoidea (apes) to perhaps just refer to gibbons(?)
But we already have a term for gibbons, it's Hilobatidae

[void arch]

Just next time consider adding Biologically or Taxonomically similar to your statement

[manic juniper]

Why would I, it was pretty clear

I didn't even say "merely animals" you literally accused me of something I didn't do 😭 why would I bother specifying if people look for ways of getting offended anyway

[void arch]

It wasn't, it was general statement that erase a whole body of fields that differentiate between Humans and Animals deeply .

[manic juniper]

Plenty of animals have more in common with humans than other animals, it makes no sense to make arbitrary definitions like those

[void arch]

a lot of ppl used same statement to Justify extremism or discrimination

[manic juniper]

Compared to a human and a bee, a sponge is more unique and different

They didn't

You couldn't even bring any evidence of it, eugenics has nothing to do with cladistics

[void arch]

ur the one making an arbitrary def, when we define Humans.. we dont usually limite the definition to Biology

[manic juniper]

The guy said that humans aren't animals, I said that humans are animals which is commonly accepted. What's the problem

https://tenor.com/view/patrick-spongebob-fishnet-leggings-im-a-goofy-goober-rock-gif-17670341

[void arch]

he is true to according to many fields , and ur true according to biology. thats it

[manic juniper]

PJeong quoted at least one philosopher that said "we are rational animals" so no, it's not just biology

Probably plenty of other fields as well

[void arch]

yes , if u search for the definition of Human, it doesn't say merly an animal , it s way more than that.

[manic juniper]

That's the same if you search the definition of a dog

Doesn't make a dog not an animal

[void arch]

it makes him merly a dog . same for human it makes him only a human .. u get it

[manic juniper]

I just get that people look for every way possible to get offended

[void arch]

we can call a thing to be another thing just when they are 100% similar

[manic juniper]

I straight up said earlier that no living being is similar to one another, not even single oranges are

You can simply listen to what others have to say instead of making up things or getting offended

[void arch]

i dont get offended by that , i get offended by ppl when they act arrogantly.

so we are animals can we kill and eat each other ?

without a clear reason!

[manic juniper]

Way to generalise all animals

Humans already kill one another unlike parrots

[void arch]

I said without purpose and way from a reason to value life , bcz we do value life and have ethical and moral awareness that makes as very different from animals.

[manic juniper]

I guess parrots also value other lives since they don't kill one another despite having strong beaks that would allow them to

They don't even kill parrots of other species

[void arch]

what makes human human is not limited to valuation of life only .

[manic juniper]

It's also its complete disregard for it

[void arch]

in other words what makes a human human is not simply biological or social ,it is the global of things that make a human human

[manic juniper]

This is the meme of Obama giving medals to himself

[void arch]

yes bcz humans have complex decision making

[manic juniper]

What complex decision making drives them to kill then?

Since you said that animals do that

But apparently we have better reasons to

[void arch]

Free will to choose between what we alr conceive to be wrong or Good, although we have deep innate belief of valuing life and recognizing Good and evil . we sill can choose to be bad and evil person . it s a very important question , but i would argue that what drives as is completely not biological or genetical.

[manic juniper]

That's a non-answer

[void arch]

saying we choose to do so is not a answer , what do u think something innately drives as to do bad things ?

[manic juniper]

You said "complex reasoning" now it's simply a matter of choice?

[void arch]

if that the case and everything is determined as any Atheist should accept , there is no morality , and there is no reason for the Justice system bcz killing and raping is natural.

[void arch]

there is not juts the the ability of complex reasoning. there are ethical agency ,conscience and consciousness. the ability to form complex emotions.

[manic juniper]

You still didn't explain why those lead someone to kill another human when they have no defensive justifications to

[void arch]

they dont lead , there is no drive here , its a matter of choice.. i would say maybe social drives like poverty that can drives someone to steal but in the end it is his choice and he could not steal .

[manic juniper]

So there is no complex reasoning, just a matter of choice... Wtf

[void arch]

what do u think ,what are the reasons?, I would like to hear .

[manic juniper]

Are you just going to steal my answer? Lol

[void arch]

hhh why i would steal something

[manic juniper]

Easy cop out I guess

Since you cannot come out of your own cage now

[void arch]

I gave all my cards

[mortal depot]

Jesus is the King of kings the Lord of lords the alpha the Omega had no degree called him master had no medicine called him healer was buried in a tomb and still lives today

[void arch]

but I would think u would say it s determined or natural

[mortal depot]

[obtuse eagle]

[mortal depot]

Hello

[mortal depot]

Yo

[void arch]

it s not about u brother.

[mortal depot]

[icy bane]

It's foolish to think otherwise.

[obtuse eagle]

[west kiln]

Test

[mortal depot]

?

[west kiln]

Bring mely

[mortal depot]

@pearl rain

[pearl rain]

Hello

Quran actually talked about beating women

Gave men the right of having 4 wives

And more women

[mortal depot]

Ummm yeah

[mortal depot]

No only 4

[mortal depot]

It only gave Muhammad permission to marry more then 4 women

[pearl rain]

They can have more
Not as real wives.

[bold chasm]

In a one condition, if he can afford them equal affection and money.

[bold chasm]

Proof?

[mortal depot]

Ah yes yes they can have concubines

[pearl rain]

@high igloo

And you say
" I haven't studied that religion. But i am sure the information must be limited and might be reformed with the passage of time.

While Quran and ISLAM has defined all aspects in depth and there's no doubts on the authenticity and preservation of Quran."

[west kiln]

The Quran's verse 4:34 is often misunderstood, but most scholars agree it doesn't promote domestic violence, instead emphasizing communication, forgiveness, and reconciliation in marital relationships.

[pearl rain]

How come God has said those words?

[mortal depot]

Chat gpt

[high igloo]

What? Where? Src?

[pearl rain]

I have read Quran
And checked the ayats before.

[mortal depot]

4:34 there is arguement between islamic scholars here

[pearl rain]

Wait I'll show you

[west kiln]

Identity yourself are you an atheist

[pearl rain]

Quran talks about peace but all I see is war

Even the history

[mortal depot]

When he is talking about preservation he means the text being preserved not the text being moral

[pearl rain]

They killed a lot of people who followed Zoroastrianism

[mortal depot]

Bro look at my username

[pearl rain]

And raped their wives

[west kiln]

No i disagree

[pearl rain]

Or made them to believe Islam

[west kiln]

Can i ask you

why every atheist has a problem only with islam

[pearl rain]

وَ اللاَّتِی تَخافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَ اهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِی الْمَضاجِعِ وَ اضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَکُمْ فَلا تَبْغُوا عَلَیْهِنَّ سَبِیلاً إِنَّ اللَّهَ کانَ عَلِیًّا کَبِیراً» نساء (4)، آیه 34

[west kiln]

Okey my bad

[pearl rain]

@west kiln

[mortal depot]

Atheists have far more problems with Christianity they mock us every day on social media and real life

Bruh

[pearl rain]

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانْكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلَّا تَعُولُوا ٣﴾ [نساء:3]
@west kiln

[mortal depot]

Where did steezy go?

[pearl rain]

The Prophet had a lot of wives

How was that possible?

[pearl rain]

Trying to find some texts in chat gpt and other websites.

[mortal depot]

He actually had 9 at the same because Allah allowed him to when he only allowed 4 for others very convenient for him

[pearl rain]

That's true, and also he had a lot of slaves.

[west kiln]

So you have a problem with daraba wich means beat right?

[pearl rain]

Not only that.

the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria.

[west kiln]

Daraba in Arabic can also translated to distance or separate

[mortal depot]

No it literally means in every translation to beat

[pearl rain]

It's beating there, we all know.
I can't understand why Muslims try to change that and say it doesn't mean beating.

[west kiln]

But the problem here why everyone having a problem with islam, why atheist don't debate with Christians

[mortal depot]

They do debate with us I just did a debate with two atheists 1v2

[pearl rain]

Six out of the twenty slaves and freed slaves of Muhammad were either fully or partially of African descent.
" Al-Tabari Kitab al-Rusul, 1778, 1780–81; Ibn Saʿd, al-Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, 1:2:180, 184; Ibn Hisham, Kitab Sirat Rasul Allah"

[mortal depot]

Bro how do you know this much?

[pearl rain]

Slaves were particularly numerous in Muslim armies. Slave armies were deployed by Sultans and Caliphs at various medieval era war fronts across the Islamic Empires, playing an important role in the expansion of Islam in Africa and elsewhere.
@west kiln What do you think about this one?

Is that fair? Okay let's say for Prophet who was the kindest and the best person ever?

[pearl rain]

I used to memorize Quran before.

[mortal depot]

He is not the best

During his earthly life Jesus Christ is a moral example he did not keep slaves he did not marry a 9 year old he lived a pious and honest life

[mortal depot]

Uhmm

[pearl rain]

Btw
https://youtu.be/RelwzXe1Hy4?si=ZDvLyzJ154gqg90J
This priest doesn't have an eye.
he was attacked by a Muslim a year ago and the guy stabbed him I think.

[mortal depot]

This was an unfortunate event

[pearl rain]

I don't believe Jesus as God.

[west kiln]

Yo mely

[pearl rain]

Yes

[west kiln]

Can we do a vc

[pearl rain]

When?

[west kiln]

Tomorrow

[mortal depot]

I know but he lived a far greater and moral example life then Muhammad did in the 7th century
Jesus also teached to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

[pearl rain]

I'm in

[west kiln]

Morning

You have so much informations and that's something cool and i really admire people like you so let's do a vc tmrw and debate okey?

[pearl rain]

Both of them are respected, I'm just saying I don't follow any religion.
And I hate when religious people think that their religion is the best and true and others are wrong.
Even in Christianity, there are a lot of funny stuff that's not rational.

[pearl rain]

Sure.

[mortal depot]

Uhm ok but bro its 4:24 am rn I gotta go to sleep

[pearl rain]

Goodnight.

[mortal depot]

We will talk later about Christ tomorrow

[pearl rain]

Jesus won't be happy if he realize you're still awake.

Sleep well.

[bold chasm]

Look, I'm not the best in English but i will try, It was explained. How do you want to convince me it was said they must be hit and the prophet (pbuh) prohibited to slap a mere animal? The animal which has not awareness or brain. And the woman who has a brain and allah made her think and decide for herself is hit? Plus ضرب in my native Arabic means many meanings which is ignore and avoid as well. Since the quran is old arabic https://m.youm7.com/story/2018/10/10/حسام-فخر-الدين-يكتب-واضربوهن/3983917#:~:text=أما (واضربوهن) فهى ليست بالمدلول,والتجاهل، خلافاً للمعنى المتداول الآن

[elder seal]

That's nothing to do with being 'smarter' and neither would this position mean anything. If we took a group of humans next to a group of apes, they'd beat us and we'd lose. Also, this argument presupposes that the average human can 'build rockets,' the average human can't, so this wouldn't actually happen

So unless you think only some people are "humans," this argument must admit defeat on the basis that by its own proxy, the average person would still remain animal

[pearl rain]

But if we read the whole ayat, we'll realize the meaning of it. I have checked it so many times, and other meanings don't really fit.
I still don't know why Muslims try to say it doesn't mean hitting.
I even read somewhere (written by a sheikh) that it means hitting, but not violently, in a way that the woman doesn't get hurt.
What is that definition, bro? 💀

Well, it's not only this ayat that doesn't make any sense, there are still more.

[elder seal]

Atheists primarily debate with christians - That's a universal thing

Cosmic skeptic, now going by his real name "Alex O'Connor" is just a prime example

[thick pulsar]

If the amount of energy and hours people put into debating about religion was instead put into actually going out and helping people, they would actually be following their own religions better

[elder seal]

This argument is redundant. Most people don't know how to "help people," so even if they didn't spent time on religion and tried doing that, it'd likely not help anyone.

Most people "helping people" don't know how to help people as it is - Something anyone who's ever been homeless would tell you

[pearl rain]

https://youtu.be/R2OljP8th2s

[thick pulsar]

Quite the opposite in fact, it’s as simple as making a donation

[elder seal]

You can't debate religion and donate money?

[thick pulsar]

No, I simply pointed out that religious debates help no one

[elder seal]

Religion encourages people to donate money, that's a conversion strategy - So this argument is actually an argument in favor of debating religion

[pearl rain]

Nice video, but some parts still doesn't make sense.

[elder seal]

Except it's the opposite

Religious people on average are more charitable. So on just a basic statistical framework, that argument of yours run in direct contradiction to your position

[thick pulsar]

I really don’t care about how charitable religious people are, I simply pointed out that religious debates do nothing but divide people

[elder seal]

That's an idiotic argument. Is it debate that divide people, or is it people that's divided that debate?

Your entire position is redundant. Banal, even

[manic juniper]

There is a nice video of it by the American Academy in Berlin, in short: no one knows for sure but it likely was a generic monotheist revival movement, where every generic monotheist was allowed to be part of. It turned into the religion people preach nowadays, but it was a process that took at least two centuries of changing the narrative

The hadiths are a good part of that process that lasted two centuries, since as you know there were no written hadiths at the time of Muhammad before they curiously started popping up

[thick pulsar]

no idea what you are trying to say here, it is undeniable that religious debates and feuds help no one

[elder seal]

That's an assumption you've got to substantiate.

[formal pilot]

[elder seal]

Any disagreement produces positive outcomes; that's the heart of development and evolution, competition

[thick pulsar]

using big words doesn't make your point any more valid lol

[elder seal]

you're essentially arguing that evolution or the force that produces evolution is negative.

I find that to be a spurious presumption

[thick pulsar]

no, thats what you took from what I said, I simply said that religious debates will never be productive

[glad patio]

What's the topic?

[elder seal]

Why not? Is becoming smarter and more knowledgeable not productive?

[glad patio]

True

[thick pulsar]

You can debate about public policy to find the best possible solution to a problem, religion isn't a problem, it's a personal belief, and debating about it simply causes anger and resentment in folks because religion can't be proven or disproven

[glad patio]

Also true lol

[thick pulsar]

If people cared more about actually living according to their own religions rather than arguing/ ensuring their own religions is the "correct one" , the world would be a better place

[elder seal]

That's, firstly, incorrect. Religion isn't "personal belief," personal belief is a part of it, but is not identical to, religion. Religion is a cultural practice often spanning centuries. So factually incorrect.

Debates also encourage improving linguistic and rhetorical skills, while expanding process and knowledge through application of dialectics

[elder seal]

It's entirely wrong. Factually, wrong, actually.

[glad patio]

I've seen debates go on for more than an hour because two people are trying to prove and disprove the existence of a deity

There's never any middle ground

[pearl rain]

Because religious people are bigoted people who think they're all right and others wrong.

I really believe bigotry is one of the byproducts of semiliteracy.

[thick pulsar]

I really don't care what definition you give it, to individuals it is a personal decision

[elder seal]

That's not what religion is. Religion applies series of practices beyond the indiviudal; rituals like marraige is just a clear example of that.

[glad patio]

It does cause divides among people. I can't talk on other religions but it certainly happens within Christianity

[elder seal]

That's an assumption that's yet to be proven.

Religion induces as much 'divides' as humans do without religion. The assumption is unfounded.

[thick pulsar]

You can go take a walk around the middle east and see first hand the centuries of war caused by religious differences

[glad patio]

You may laugh at this but it happens all the time on tiktok

[elder seal]

Around 4% of all wars can be directly attributed to religion, majority has secular causes. Even most religious conflicts can be reduced to secular justifications if need be.

Religion didn't stop the Abassids from waring with the turks. So to assume religion 'divides' when there's internal divisons between religious groups is a false premise to begin with

[glad patio]

Also take all the denominations of Christianity for example, why are there so many of them if it doesn't divide people?

[elder seal]

This argument is the same as saying that democracy causes divides between people.

[thick pulsar]

Because it does..?

Thats what democracy is lol

[elder seal]

Democracy instititutionalize existing divides, it doesn't cause them.

[thick pulsar]

buddy, again utilizing big words doesn't make you sound smarter

[elder seal]

Same way that denominations only occur due to existing disagreements, it doesn't cause them

[elder seal]

"Big words," these are fairly basic terms.

All you've said is attributable to the inverse cause. That is, "divides -> religions," most religious groups occurs and develop by themselves without direct division, it occurs even internally. Catholicism and Orthodoxy occurred formally in the 8th century; but the tendencies were already in existence in the 4th.

[pearl rain]

I've always thought that religions were meant to guide people towards a peaceful and happy life or how to live in this world. But all we can see even in past, people are always arguing over their beliefs and trying to push their religion on others. it's causing more fights and divisions.

[thick pulsar]

living definition of grandiloquence here

see I can use big words too

[manic juniper]

The way I see it, I guess that they were trying to get rid of the last traces of polytheism and make anyone a monotheist instead of "mixed" forms like henotheism

[elder seal]

People like being right - Shocker

[void arch]

That's not a an accurate or an authentic tafseer (interpretation).

[void arch]

https://youtu.be/xSJWDDYfD_Y?si=XgsiA5Ow_oAFRKq9 watch this , answer all ur misconception

[thick pulsar]

Nils the sophist here negating the idea that religious feuds aren't productive

thats the topic

[elder seal]

'Sophist,' or, to translate this statement "I can't actually come with a sound argument, so I'll pretend to be right."

I know it's difficult to understand that blaming 'divides' on a subject when 'divides' are innate to people is redundant and, actually, within basic greek terminology, sophistic

meaning that you'd fit that term better than me

[void arch]

u can say same for any ideology ,its not limited to religions

[pearl rain]

Yeah, I get that people want to stand up for their beliefs, but using violence or force just isn't the way to go. True faith should bring peace and understanding, not cause fights and split people apart. I've read about a lot of wars that Muslims have with other Muslims (Shia and Sunnis) for having different beliefs, or the wars between Christians and Muslims, or Christians with other Christians. That is the funniest thing ever.

[thick pulsar]

I really can't be bothered to deal with another poli sci wannabe debater on a topic that most people with common sense would agree on

[pearl rain]

Like this priest was stabbed by a Muslim guy,
For what? Defending his religion.
They probably call it Jihad or something.

[bold chasm]

I tried to look for it. But thx for the inf.!

[elder seal]

I don't know if i'd agree with that. Though I wont comment. But the idea that it 'splits people' ignores that people are innately already split; for you to talk to me, assumes that I am not you, it assumes a divide.

[elder seal]

'Most people with common sense' often time don't really grasp much of anything - Just because it's "common"-sense does not mean it's correct. Back in the 19th century, beleiving in racial superiority was 'common sense,' and in the 11th century, belief in god was "common sense," so if common sense contradict itself throughout history, why's it a relevant proxy for truth?

[pearl rain]

That's true, but now we're talking about religions, which is why I mentioned it. Like how Muslims say Islam is the religion of peace, but all I see is anything but peace.

[thick pulsar]

You’re not making a deep argument, you’re just overcomplicating basic logic to sound smart. Common sense isn’t about absolute truth, it’s about practical reasoning. The only thing contradicting itself here is your argument. You’re not disproving common sense, you’re just proving that pseudo-intellectualism is alive and well.

[elder seal]

Right - "Practical reason," so not truth. If it's not truth, then why'd we'd defer to it to establish truth? Your argument relies on a series of false assumptions which I've essentially established to be at best spurious, at worst incorrect. We've no reason therefor to defer to them in discourse in any serious tone

So either you shouldn't be in serious-chat, given the object of inquiry is "serious," or you've got to admit your position is incorrect

[thick pulsar]

So by your logic, unless something is ‘absolute truth,’ it’s useless? Good luck applying that to literally any decision in real life.

[elder seal]

Specifically - Saying that something that's divided causes division is a prime example of unsound reasoning; it's not that it 'causes divide,' it's that it already is divided. It causes nothing, the division is already there

[void arch]

if ur judging the religion and not ppl, then Islam is indeed religion of peace , as the religion value life and peace and condemns injustice and extremism.

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. [60:8]

Fight in the way of Allāh those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allāh does not like transgressors. [2:190]

[pearl rain]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1217269836988682271/1335401704895545480/IMG_20250202_010810_337.jpg?ex=67a00941&is=679eb7c1&hm=114eec90048f150e408642419994c1c98f21777e3788b2d737b4615ba78c1a07&

[elder seal]

Right, because discourse is identical to me buying food in the store.

[thick pulsar]

So let me get this straight. You’re trying to sound profound by arguing that division doesn’t cause division because division already exists? That’s not deep, that’s just playing word games. Saying something is already divided doesn’t mean it can’t be made worse—just like a crack in a dam doesn’t mean the dam can’t still collapse.

[elder seal]

Firstly, by definition, this wouldn't be a word-game. That would be basic reasoning.
Secondly, this isn't "deep," it's fairly base-line reasoning. Something you didn't seem to grasp given your position relies on the assumption that this isn't true.

If anything - it follows basic laws of logic; specifically law of identity.

[void arch]

could not say ur bigoted arrogance more than that

[elder seal]

To say that 'religion causes division,' when "religion" isn't any one thing, and there's already division prior to it, tells us that it isn't religion that causes division, but division that causes religions

[pearl rain]

I always get those answers, even you were saying the same.

[elder seal]

same way that division causes political parties

or party factionalism

[thick pulsar]

You’re not making an argument—you’re just playing with semantics and pretending that’s ‘basic reasoning.’ A word game is exactly what happens when someone manipulates definitions to sound correct instead of engaging with the actual point. If your argument relied on anything more than semantics, you’d be proving your case, not hiding behind wordplay. And calling something ‘basic’ doesn’t make it correct. Flat-Earth theory is ‘basic’ if you ignore reality. If your claim were so obvious, you wouldn’t need to keep declaring yourself right—you’d be explaining why you’re right. But instead, you’re just restating your conclusion and acting like that proves anything. That’s circular reasoning at best, and lazy at worst. Saying my position ‘relies on the assumption that this isn’t true.’ That’s just a fancy way of dodging the discussion. You haven’t identified any assumption, you’ve just assumed you’re right and tried to frame disagreement as an error. That’s not reasoning, that’s just hand-waving away counterarguments because you don’t want to deal with them.

[bold chasm]

You're judging from the people now. Not the religion. Our deen never said to hurt people like that. It's like you're saying japan is a bad country just because a Japanese man attacked another nationality person. Even though japan putted rules against violence clearly.

[void arch]

ur not trying to learn, ur just to spend misconceptions and hate

[pearl rain]

What about the Prophet?
He attacked people who followed Zoroastrianism because they didn't accept his request to join to Islam.
He killed a lot of men, and got the women to be his slaves.

Is that what you call peace in a religion?

[elder seal]

Proving you're intellectually dishonest again. Reducing something to 'word game' proves you're entirely unable to deal with the subject; this is basic reasoning, exactly because the subject you've produced is "religion causes division," this assumes religion causes religion, which is a tautology and hence false. Religious occur by someone or something, specifically, a series of beliefs being institutionalized; religion doesn't "cause itself." Your argument is hence redundant.

The only circular reasoning in another word, is yours.

[pearl rain]

Isn't prophet the person that all Muslims follow?

[manic juniper]

Not all hide it, some are honest about it

[thick pulsar]

Your entire response is just a mix of strawman arguments and empty declarations. You twisted my argument into something no one actually said, then refuted that fake version instead of addressing the real point. And when called out, you just doubled down on misrepresentations while acting like declaring something ‘redundant’ is the same as proving it false. If you actually had a counterargument, you wouldn’t need to fight against an imaginary one.

[pearl rain]

I've read Quran for years before having these thoughts.

[elder seal]

Also, I've already dealt with your assumptions @thick pulsar so either you don't comprehend english, or you're unable to deal with my argument

[void arch]

be specific bcz the prophet never leads an army to persia or Roman.

[bold chasm]

Yes.

[elder seal]

See - Another nonargument. Fact is, your argument is "religion causes division," if you're unable to prove this, which you've sofar not proven, and unable to formulate it in a way that's intelligible, that tells us you've in essence got no argument.

[pearl rain]

I'm not even arguing with you.

[elder seal]

I didn't mean you

[void arch]

erasing the context is childish from u

[pearl rain]

Prove?

[elder seal]

If, as you admit, division predate conflict, and that division is what causes conflict, you can't say "religion causes conflict," because if there was only one religion, then we'd have no religious conflicts @thick pulsar If this is true, we can't make any declaration the way you've just done

[pearl rain]

He supported them.

[void arch]

just be specific in time and place

[manic juniper]

Do you know the difference between murder and homicide?

[thick pulsar]

The idea that religion has caused division isn’t even controversial—it’s a historical fact. The Crusades, Protestant vs. Catholic wars, Sunni vs. Shia conflicts, Hindu-Muslim riots, and countless more. No serious historian denies this, and neither do most rational people. But instead of actually refuting it, you’re playing the ‘prove the sky is blue’ game—acting like basic historical reality needs to be spoon-fed to you just so you can pretend to have a point. Sorry, but I’m not playing that game. If you want to argue that religion doesn’t cause division, go ahead and explain why all those conflicts don’t count. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrMgKulU-xs

[thick pulsar]

You’re just twisting definitions at this point. Saying ‘division causes conflict, not religion’ is meaningless—because religion is one of the things that creates division. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change history, it just makes your argument sound more desperate. If your best defense is hypothetical scenarios where only one religion exists, you’re not debating reality—you’re just dodging the point.

[void arch]

sorry im not interested anymore.

[glad patio]

Just a question but didn't the Quran also say to kill non Muslims?

[elder seal]

This is a nice example of a redundant claim; "religion" as we've established, isn't just a matter of belief; that divisions between religions has induced conflicts historically doesn't conclude that 'religion causes division,' because these divisions existed prior to any religious proclamations; regional disagreements are necessarily secular, yet they've the prime cause of conflicts.

Many of the examples you're given are only secular disputes which exist and are amplified in religious terms; the crusades themselves were directly caused by geopolitical concerns, that's why the orthodox church of constantinople asked the catholics for help in reclaiming land for the byzantines, known as the first crusade 🤯

[manic juniper]

We already knew your intentions anyway

[thick pulsar]

You’re trying way too hard to separate religion from conflicts where it was obviously a major factor. Just because a conflict has multiple causes doesn’t mean religion isn’t one of them. You admitted that religious divisions have led to conflicts, but then claimed religion doesn’t cause division—that’s a contradiction. The reality is, history is filled with wars, persecutions, and violence that were either driven or amplified by religion. You don’t have to like that fact, but you can’t just rewrite history to avoid it

[elder seal]

No - That's not remotely true. Religions don't cause division, rather, religions are divided. Division predate the religions themselves, religions are merely the product of pre-existing divisions.

[void arch]

just in case of defense as i mentioned

Fight in the way of Allāh those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allāh does not like transgressors. [2:190]

[elder seal]

something easily proven by the fact that religious differences are a matter of regionality

[manic juniper]

How tf do you end up conquering three quarters of the Iberian peninsula in self defence

[thick pulsar]

You’re acting like religion is just some passive byproduct of division, when in reality, it has played an active role in creating, reinforcing, and deepening divisions throughout history. Saying ‘division existed first’ doesn’t change the fact that religious conflicts, sectarianism, and ideological clashes have divided societies for centuries. If religion wasn’t a factor in division, we wouldn’t see countless historical and modern examples of sectarian violence, religious wars, and persecution. You can try to reframe it all you want, but you can’t erase the role religion has played.

[manic juniper]

That's nowhere near the Arab peninsula

[bold chasm]

Ya a5 a9dar maghodak bas fih nas minhom hadfhom nhom ye9rofok. Msh yet3lemo ao 7ta yefhmo://

[elder seal]

I don't think geopolitical concerns are a 'major factor,' these are strategic factor. The crusade only had religious connotation as part of its production; it did not start with it. Specifically, the pope was strongly encouraged by the massacre of Armenian by Turks, as a good example. The concern was humanity; political and also religious. But even if you remove one, the rest doesn't dissipate.

[glad patio]

Ahh okay, thank you

[elder seal]

This is a claim that's fairly ignorant; this is lik saying that 'division entrenches division,' that isn't a meaningful claim. It's technically true insofar that division is divided, exactly what you just accused me of saying, which is ironic, because when abstracted, that's all your claim is. Division causes division. It's redundant. Divisions exists with or without religion; to say 'religion causes conflict' is as meaningful as saying that geography causes conflict.

[thick pulsar]

The Crusades weren’t just about strategy—they were explicitly framed as a religious war. Pope Urban II didn’t call knights to defend Byzantine territory—he called them to reclaim Jerusalem and offered absolution of sins. The fact that the People’s Crusade happened even before the nobles mobilized proves that the religious fervor was real and independent of ‘strategy.’ If this was just about geopolitics, why did common people march across Europe believing they were fighting for God? You’re trying to rewrite history to fit a modern, secular framework—but medieval rulers didn’t separate religion from politics. The Crusades weren’t just political wars with religious branding—they were holy wars with political consequences. If you can’t acknowledge that, you’re not debating history, you’re just cherry-picking facts to avoid reality.

[void arch]

didn't understand u change letters to Arabic but u can keep thedialect

[thick pulsar]

You keep trying to reduce religion to a passive background force, but history proves otherwise. Religion has actively shaped societies, justified wars, and deepened divisions for centuries. Saying ‘division exists anyway’ is just dodging the fact that religious differences have been a direct cause of countless conflicts. And comparing religion to geography? That’s just desperate. Geography doesn’t tell people to go to war for their faith. Religion has. You’re not debating history—you’re just trying to redefine it so you don’t have to acknowledge the role religion has actually played.

[elder seal]

'Framed,' you're using a term while failing to understand it. It was framed as one, correct. But it wasn't caused by it. As I mentioned earlier, the crusades were largely political in nature; raids from arabs through the mediterreanian alongside difficulty in Europe mean that crusades would serve as a unitary force within Europe as well as an economic tool to dissimate economic difficulties brought out by rampant piracy during this period - Furthermore, byzantines desired a source of which they could re-establish control over their previous land

[bold chasm]

يا اخ بقدر مجهودك دا جزاك الله خيرًا والله بس فيه ناس هنا هدفهم يقرفوك بس مش انهم يتعلموا او يستفهموا حتي او يعرفوا اجابات أسألتهم عن الدين نفسه.

[elder seal]

something every historian will tell you, by the way

[thick pulsar]

You keep acting like politics and religion were separate in the Crusades, but medieval rulers didn’t think that way. Religion wasn’t just the ‘frame’—it was the core reason ordinary people fought. If this was just about politics, why did Pope Urban II call it a holy war? Why were soldiers promised salvation for joining? Why was ‘Deus Vult’ the rallying cry instead of ‘For the Byzantines’? You’re trying to rewrite history as if religion was just branding, but the people who fought in the Crusades didn’t see it that way. You can’t erase the role religion played just because you don’t like the answer.

[elder seal]

History proves nothing of the sort - As I've stated, the claim is redundant, you're only proving its redundancy. Religion is a unifying force in conflicts; but to say it 'causes them' trivializes actual concerns that people had during this period - Demonstrating also detachment from records and reduces motivation to religious justifications. None of which is true today, and none of which was true a thousand of years ago.

[void arch]

you're right but it's not limited only to religion, I can use nationalism to justify same purpose

[elder seal]

and yes, geography does tell people to go to war - it's claled nationalism, lmao

[thick pulsar]

You keep trying to separate religion from conflicts it was clearly involved in—first by saying it was just a ‘unifying force,’ then by pretending acknowledging it as a cause ‘trivializes’ other concerns. But history doesn’t work in absolutes. Religion has played a role in both justifying, intensifying, and directly causing conflicts throughout history—and it still does today. Trying to downplay this isn’t just inaccurate, it’s an intentional attempt to rewrite history to fit your argument. But facts don’t care about your revisionism.

[elder seal]

See - Demonstrating a lack of comprehension. So no, this is even true either - The success of the first crusade is actually largely due to the promise of land that petty nobles could acquire as a way of expanding their holdings. Religion could serve as a reasoning for some people; but it was also economic, political in nature.

[glad patio]

Nationalism isn't about going to war

[elder seal]

Neither is religion.

[pearl rain]

Prophet's teachings and the principles of Islam did influence the actions and motivations of his followers ofc, also the Prophet's letter to Khosrow Parviz is one of the historical tales from the time of the Sassanian Empire, Prophet invited him to Islam but he didn't accept so they attacked Persia to force them and make them Muslims.
There are a lot of historical proofs that they killed a lot of men and raped a lot of women as well.
Is that what you call peace?

[thick pulsar]

You just made one of the dumbest arguments possible. You confused a physical reality (geography) with a political ideology (nationalism) and then laughed like you just dropped some profound truth bomb. Geography is mountains, rivers, and landmasses—it doesn’t ‘tell’ anyone to do anything. Nationalism is a belief system that convinces people that land is worth fighting for. You’re out here acting like tectonic plates are out here whispering battle plans to people. If geography caused nationalism, then deserts would have national pride, mountains would be recruiting soldiers, and rivers would be drawing borders by themselves. But that’s not how reality works. Japan isn’t nationalistic because it’s an island, and Germany didn’t invade Poland because ‘the land told them to.’ Wars happen because people create ideologies that justify them—religion, nationalism, or other belief systems. The funniest part? Nationalism is actually more like religion than geography—both create a strong sense of identity, both justify wars, and both rely on myths and narratives to define who belongs and who is ‘the other.’ So in trying to downplay the role of religion in war, you actually just proved my entire point. Next time, try actually understanding what nationalism is before you try using it in an argument. Because right now, you just sound like a dude who thinks hills have political opinions.

[elder seal]

If it doesn't "work in absolutes," any claim you've produced, which are absolutes, are then by virtue incorrect. If religion 'causes division,' yet we can prove the problems which caused the issue would exist without religion, we can't conclude that "religion causes division," those divisions already existed, religion merely served as a source to justify them at worst. The position therefor is, as I stated, redudant.

[thick pulsar]

If land was the main motivation, why did so many younger sons, poor knights, and peasants join? The People’s Crusade wasn’t made up of nobles—they fought and died believing they were doing God’s work. Land was a factor for some, but religion was the unifying cause that made the Crusades possible.

[elder seal]

This proves your inability to think. Physical realities shape and are shaped by thought and thinking; religion often defers to relational frameworks, nationalism is just a clear example of that. Nationalism is shaped and shapes geography. Something anyone with just a small understanding of history would know.

The fact that more extreme nationalisms speak of "blood and soil" tells you exactly this.

What do you think "soil" means?

[thick pulsar]

Just because a problem can exist without religion doesn’t mean religion hasn’t caused it. Car crashes can happen without drunk driving, but drunk driving still causes car crashes. You also claim that religion ‘justifies’ division but doesn’t ‘cause’ it—ignoring the fact that justification is a form of causation. Racial ideology justified slavery—would you argue that racism didn’t contribute to slavery? Of course not. Calling it ‘redundant’ is just your way of avoiding the reality that religion has created, fueled, and intensified division throughout history. You can play semantic games all you want, but history isn’t on your side.

[void arch]

ur agreed with him indirectly i guess as u says ''Wars happen because people create ideologies that justify them—religion, nationalism, or other belief systems''

[elder seal]

Poor knights and peasants join - See, is joining a conflict the cause of a conflict? No, there has to be a conflict to join it. As or poor knights, land was a very large incentive in that. Becoming landed was many of the knights goal.

[thick pulsar]

I see what you’re saying, but there’s no contradiction here. Acknowledging that wars are often justified by ideologies—including religion and nationalism—doesn’t mean religion hasn’t also been a cause of conflict. Some wars use religion as a justification for deeper political or economic struggles, while others—like the Crusades or the Wars of Religion—were directly driven by religious belief. In both cases, religion plays a significant role in fueling division and conflict. So rather than contradicting the argument, recognizing that multiple factors contribute to war actually supports it. Just because something isn’t the only cause of conflict doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a major one.

[pearl rain]

Isn't that normal now?

[elder seal]

Again - The problem with this analogy is you've essentially said that a car crash causes a car crash. It can cause a car crash, but this specific car crash doesn't cause itself. It's caused by something. Religion is merely a framework that exist within pre-existing divisions. The unification of the arabs is largely what lead to the war with the byzantines and sassanids; but there's no reason to assume that 'Islam' caused the war between these 3 groups. Even if a christian united the arabs, these wars were likely going to happen; many conflicts between the romans and arabs already did happen, even though both groups were christian

[thick pulsar]

Sure, some knights saw land as an incentive, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Crusades were called, justified, and fueled by religious motives. If land was the main reason, why were peasants, monks, and non-noble warriors joining? The Church didn’t promise land—they promised salvation. Of course, joining a conflict doesn’t create it—but that’s not the point. The Pope called for the Crusades as a religious war, and people fought believing it was God’s will. That’s not just ‘joining’ a war—that’s a war being driven by religion.

[thick pulsar]

That’s not what the analogy says. The point is that something can be one of multiple causes without being the only cause. Drunk driving isn’t the only cause of accidents, but it still causes them. Religion isn’t the only cause of division, but it has still caused division. You’re twisting the argument to avoid addressing it.

[pearl rain]

So all your saying is that Jihad is a joke?

[thick pulsar]

Religion hasn’t just existed within pre-existing divisions—it has actively created and deepened them. The Catholic-Protestant divide in Europe led to centuries of war, and the Sunni-Shia divide has fueled conflicts for over a thousand years. Religion isn’t just a passive ‘framework’—it has shaped history through direct action.

[thick pulsar]

The Arab conquests weren’t just about ‘unification’—they were religiously motivated expansions of Islam. If Islam wasn’t a cause, why were these wars framed as Jihad? Why was conversion a central part of expansion? You’re acting like the spread of Islam had nothing to do with Islam, which makes no sense.

Just because wars happened before Islam doesn’t mean Islamic expansion wasn’t religiously motivated. The Roman-Arab conflicts were not the same as the Islamic conquests, which were explicitly tied to spreading Islam and establishing an Islamic empire. You’re ignoring the difference between territorial skirmishes and religious expansion.

You keep trying to minimize religion’s role in history, but every time, you have to ignore historical records and make excuses for why religious wars weren’t really religious. But no matter how much you try to reframe it, the fact remains: religion has played an undeniable role in shaping conflicts throughout history.

[elder seal]

'Justified,' maybe, but the conflict was already on the way prior to any justification. You're conflating post-hoc reasoning and justification with causation. That's not how things work. Furthermore, "joining a conflict" may be encouraged by religion, but that doesn't tell us it causes the conflict. There needs to be a conflict o join to be able to join it; something you admitted - Yet, what you're saying in the latter part is already contradicted by your former claim; so this latter position is self-contradictory

[elder seal]

You've clearly not grasped my point.

[thick pulsar]

Religion wasn’t just post-hoc justification—it was the reason people went to war in the first place. The promise of salvation, remission of sins, and reclaiming Jerusalem weren’t side details; they were the central reason people fought. You’re arguing as if knights just happened to go to war and then used religion as an excuse afterward—but that’s not how history unfolded. The Crusades were religious wars, and no amount of semantic dodging changes that.

[thick pulsar]

That’s not a counterargument—that’s just a way to avoid engaging. If I ‘haven’t grasped your point,’ then clarify exactly what I missed instead of just dismissing the argument. Otherwise, it just looks like you don’t have a real response.

[void arch]

I see, but u have to distinguish between self- intern motive of the religion as the religion could justify that ideology or purpose or not ,and extern motives that comes from social, political ,economical and even imperial drives.

[elder seal]

'Framed' doesn't mean cause. I'll repeat this for the 5th time now. Does framing a commercial as being about human right mean it's about human rights, or is it about profits? This argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Islam served as a ground-force for the unification of arabs; you're entirely ignoring the point of the argument - The fact that conflicts already existed between arabs, romans and sassanids prior to any 'religious expansion,' tells us very little about the framework you're working under.

The conflict would've happened even without Islam, which is the central point. Yet, for the framework you're working under, we must believe it to be caused by Islam. Something you can't claim when presented by a counterfactual.

[elder seal]

See - Now you're working within sophistry. Poetic terms but no substance to them. People joined a conflict for those reasons, correct. Those reasons didn't cause the conflict, however.

[manic juniper]

What is? Killing for apostasy? I guess it is to some people

[thick pulsar]

You keep trying to separate religion from wars that were explicitly fought in its name. Religion wasn’t just framing—it was a cause because it created the justification, motivation, and structure for conquest. Saying ‘conflicts existed before’ doesn’t change the fact that the Islamic conquests had different motivations than earlier wars. And claiming ‘it would have happened anyway’ is pure speculation, not history. Islamic expansion wasn’t just a political movement—it was a religious one, fought under religious justification, with religious goals.

[pearl rain]

No, how the Muslim guy reacted after showing him his words.

[elder seal]

No ,it isn't, but neither was the argument you presented a counterargument. It didn't deal with anything i said.

[manic juniper]

He's in denial I guess

[elder seal]

This is a postulate - Something you've not proven; as I established above, most of these conflicts has causes far beyond religion, many of which can't even be found to have any religious meaning; economics definitely isn't religious. So if we can find this to be a concern, why'd we assume religion is? So just because that you can point to a religious framing, does not lead us to conclude that religion caused it, just that religion was used as part of, a conflict

[thick pulsar]

Every time an argument disproves your claim, you shift the discussion instead of engaging with it. You’re not debating—you’re dodging. You dismiss counterarguments as ‘sophistry’ without actually addressing them. That’s not intellectual honesty, it’s just running from reality. If you actually believed your argument was correct, you’d defend it with evidence instead of pretending counterpoints don’t exist. But since you can’t do that, you just repeat yourself and hope no one notices.

[elder seal]

I've already dismissed them. This is just a "waa-waa" argument.