Incest - Is it moral?

kakalam777

@Dee I will ignore your illogical rants which makes no sense and you are running in circles with misunderstood terminologies, 

Besides, I said marrying child with conditions on no sex...are you or you can't read...marriage is contact where you can freely stipulate conditions before marriage child or adult makes no difference...which retard takes marriage as sex slavery? Islamic marriage is not your lame western church marriage, were sex is necessity in marriage. Contract can stipulate any time frame, for having sex. 

Anyways you are too green to understand the intricacies of marriage contracts.

Answer me this, and you can choose only one.
Which is more reprehensible to you?
1. Murder.
2. Child marriage.

Dee

@kakalam777

***I will ignore your illogical rants which makes no sense

I know as in your world view a 53 year old peadophile having sex with an 8 year old is totally “logical” 

****and you are running in circles with misunderstood terminologies, 

Incorrect , a 53 year old having sex with an 8 year old is a peadophile .....Muhammad was a peadophile.....Sorry basic terminology as used in civilisation upsets your Bronze Age belief system 

****Besides, I said marrying child with conditions on no sex.

Yet Muhammad consummated his “marriage “ when Aisha was 8 , pity you didn’t tell him about the “conditions” 

***are you or you can't read.

The only one displaying idiocy is you and you’re only partly literate which I guess is an improvement on the peado Muhammad who being the dummy he was couldn’t read or write 

..****marriage is contact where you can freely stipulate conditions before marriage child or adult makes no difference...which retard takes marriage as sex slavery? 

Yet you admitted Muslims in the past sold their daughters that’s slavery which going on your “logic “ makes you the retard

****Islamic marriage is not your lame western church marriage, were sex is necessity in marriage. Contract can stipulate any time frame, for having sex. 

Didn’t stop mad Muhammad from abusing a child , thanfully our “lame marriage “ vows protect kids 

****Anyways you are too green to understand the intricacies of marriage contracts.

Youre right , I don’t get how a Muslim man  can give his 6 year to a peadophile, those pesky  “intricacies “ 

****Answer me this, and you can choose only one.



****Which is more reprehensible to you?

You don’t to get to tell me how many choices I have 


*****1. Murder.
2. Child marriage.

You have to give specific examples as my morality is subjective as you keep pointing out. You cannot prove morality is objective so again you’re just shooting your fool mouth off

kakalam777

Ignoring all else...

You don’t to get to tell me how many choices I have 

I do I am asking to analyse your degree of reprehension. And see you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. And this is why your morality standard is flawed. It is not practical in dealing with real life situations. And if its not doing that its useless.

I rest my case.

Dee

@kakalam777

****Ignoring all else...

Yes because you’ve no defence as usual

****I do 

You still don’t 

****I am asking to analyse your degree of reprehension.

But you haven’t given one case as an example such is your stupidity 

****And see you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

I’m actually not , you cannot give an example why’s that?

****And this is why your morality standard is flawed. 

My morality is not in question as it’s vastly superior to yours , the majority of Muslims and certainty the peadophile prophets 

***It is not practical in dealing with real life situations

As in abusing kids like Muhammad you mean 

.***And if its not doing that its useless.

So on that contention you agree Muhammad was a dog 

***rest my case.

I don’t blame you your complete capitulation was anticipated and a foregone conclusion 

kakalam777

@Dee
You are merely ranting....its a simple question with one choice of two, no example needed and you are struggling so much just from it.
This conversation end.
See you around.
Bye.

RickeyD

@ZeusAres42 What is morality? In order to respond to the topic of incest we must first analyze what is morality and who defines same? If a man or woman lives a life apart from God's infused morality and pursues the morality of men like Dawkins, Harris, Ra, Gervais, men who pursue a relative moralistic ideology, the definition of what is moral and immoral has no bounds other than what each individual defines as moral from their personal perspective.

Incest from God's perspective, the Holy Bible, was not a word or a prohibited behavior until prohibited by the Levitical Law (Leviticus 18:8-18 and 20:11-21) hundreds-of-years subsequent to the creation of Adam and Eve. Marriage between close relatives was, in The Beginning, God's way of procreating and promulgating human KIND until genomic malformations via destructive mutations emanating from the curse on Adam reached a point of manifesting fetal malformations. It was at this point in Time that God placed limitations on marriage between family members and the term "incest" became relevant and prohibited thus "immoral."

Irrespective of the incestuous implications of two-sisters involved in sexual activity with one another, such behavior is immoral as it also involves sexual immorality between persons of the same-sex i.e. lesbianism. Homosexuality-lesbianism are sin against our Creator's Covenant of Marriage who created them male and female in The Beginning and God ONLY recognizes the Covenant of Marriage as existing between one-man and one-woman for life as they become one-flesh in the marriage union.

Therefore, from God's perspective, the Judge of all flesh, incest and lesbianism are sin and it matters not what godless men like Dawkins might say or believe, unless these two-sisters repent of their sin and believe in their heart, confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is God who died to pay their sin-debt and that He was resurrected for their justification, these two-sisters, living in sin against God Covenant, will ultimately die in their sin and lose their soul in Hell subsequent to the Judgment of the Condemned.

Dee

@kakalam777

**** You are merely ranting.

Says Osama 

..***its a simple question with one choice of two,

Its a typically question



***no example needed

well yes there is only an like you would think otherwise 


****and you are struggling so much just from it 

No my struggle is actually with a Muslim fanatic who admitted that he’s “familiar “ with children who lust after old men , typical follower of mad Muhammad I guess 


***This conversation end.

Yes your let that beating be a lesson to you , know your place Osama 


***See you around.
Bye.

GTFO 

kakalam777

@Dee
LoL, poor kid.

Dee

@kakalam777

***LO L, poor kid

The type you and the peado prophet have a “fondness “ for .....LOL 

kakalam777

The type you and the peado prophet have a “fondness “ for .....LOL 

No. Poor as in on one's beam ends. I am not interested in you.

Do let me know if you want to marry though, you seem eager.

Dee

@kakalam777

***No. Poor as in on one's beam ends

Beam ends??? Yet your contention was Mo married Aisha because her family were poor yet when I educated you that they were in fact rich you didn’t deny the obvious Mo like you like them very young 

.****I am not interested in you.

Which is why you said “bye “ but are now stalking me .....Like prophet like follower 

****Do let me know if you want to marry though, you seem eager.

I’m married , don’t fret I know you get plenty of kiddie action you did say 8 year olds sit on your knee didn’t you?

kakalam777

@Dee
No I just find you very funny, because you seem more butt hurt about the marriage of prophet you don't even follow, problematic even more so than the non-believer who were alive at the time of the prophet himself and after him for 1300 years. If anyone has right to criticise over his marriage it were the Arabs of his time, which they never did, not even critics of Quran do that, because they understand they can't project moral standards through eras. I mean you can't define a person with a terminology which didn't even exist in his time. Only mentally unstable person would do that.
Its like deep down you want to marry someone young but couldn't due to cultural restraints and projecting your hate and regret on someone else who did. Obviously I am not pointing out its a psychological issue, but it sure is not normal when you already know from history that child marriage was nothing abnormal, and that it was moral for that time for their cultural customs. But instead of accepting that fact you term it as All Arabs were paedophile and still persist which your "composition fallacy"  which means you are prejudiced, anti-semitic and racist, because child marriage was prevalent throughout the world. Now you might go the route of "whataboutism" but that will be a definist fallacy by projecting the term paedophilia just for Islamic prophet and for the other's as a normal cultural practice. Which is downright making a patsy of Islamic prophet. in a simple word LAME.
And imagine if you found out you were a progeny from a similar ancient marriage, or worse rape, can you psychologically handle it, knowing your very being came in existence through such a marriage or such a immoral sexual act? You really need to check your emotions... they are all over the place.

kakalam777

@Dee
I just find you very funny and immature, because you seem to be more butt hurt about the marriage of a person you don't even follow and by using a terminology that didn't exist till early/late 1900 century due to the misbehaviour's of your own culture. If anyone who should object it, it should be the non-believers of ancient Arabs from his time and after, but they didn't because it was morally right to bury daughter before and it was morally right to marry young girls before and after prophet. Your contention to term all ancient Arab as paedophilic which you previously agree is merely a "composition fallacy", because child marriage was and is prevalent throughout the world and these people are not Muslims or Arabs, that is you being anti-semantic and racist. You might take a route of "whataboutism" but that will only be a  "red herring" fallacy on your part. I mean even learned critics of Quran and Islam don't project the moral standards of one culture to another Era past 100 years and you are doing it for a 1440 year old marriage, that is past millennium. And imagine if you found of your very existence is through a progeny of child sex, or rape or slave sex, do you think you can mentally handle it? its looks like you wanted yourself to marry someone young but stopped yourself from doing so from cultural influence and you are in pain and regret and projecting it on Islamic prophet by making him into a scapegoat. Not saying this is the case, but your emotions are all over the place, which is not a way to proceed with a logical debate. And every time you project the moral standards of today to 1400 years that is merely "definist fallacy" and hence irrelevant.

I remember a verse form Quran that suits you:
Those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones. Indeed, your Lord is vast in forgiveness. He was most knowing of you when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers. So do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him.[53:32]

kakalam777

I just find you very funny and immature, because you seem to be more butt hurt about the marriage of a person you don't even follow and by using a terminology that didn't exist till early/late 1900 century due to the misbehaviour's of your own culture. If anyone who should object it, it should be the non-believers of ancient Arabs from his time and after, but they didn't because it was morally right to bury daughter before prophet-hood and it was morally right to marry young girls before and after prophet. Your contention to term all ancient Arab as paedophilic which you previously agree is merely a "composition fallacy", because child marriage was and is prevalent throughout the world and these people are not Muslims or Arabs, that is you being anti-semitic and racist. You might take a route of "whataboutism" but that will only be a  "red herring" fallacy on your part. I mean even learned critics of Quran and Islam don't project the moral standards of one culture to another Era past 100 years and you are doing it for a 1440 year old marriage, that is past millennium. And imagine if you found of your very existence is through a progeny of child sex, or rape or slave sex, do you think you can mentally handle it? it looks like you wanted yourself to marry someone young but stopped yourself from doing so from cultural influence and you are in pain and regret and projecting it on Islamic prophet by making him into a scapegoat. Not saying this is the case, but your emotions are all over the place, which is not a way to proceed with a logical debate. And every time you project the moral standards of today to 1400 years that is merely "definist fallacy" and hence irrelevant.

I remember a verse form Quran that suits you:
Those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones. Indeed, your Lord is vast in forgiveness. He was most knowing of you when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers. So do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him. 53:32

Dee

@kakalam777

****I just find you very funny and immature, because you seem to be more butt hurt about the marriage of a person you don't even follow 

I find it very funny and retarded that you actually said you're familiar with children that sit on your knee and old men's knees and that fact you revere a peadophile who Muslims claim went to heaven on a  flying  horse 

****** by using a terminology that didn't exist till early/late 1900 century 

You mean peadophile? Right so if a child is abused it's not abuse until the right terminology come about ... You're offensively  

******due to the misbehaviour's of your own culture. 

Blame us for your child abuse ..same as blaming us for 9/11 

******If anyone who should object it, it should be the non-believers of ancient Arabs from his time and after, but they didn't because it was morally right to bury daughter before prophet-hood and it was morally right to marry young girls before and after prophet. 

 No it was never morally right to abuse children even though you admit to knowing of children you know who desire you and other old men 

******Your contention to term all ancient Arab as paedophilic 

Most were and a fair amount including you still are as it's encouraged as you admitted in several Muslim societies 

***which you previously agree is merely a "composition fallacy", 

No, I didn't 

*****because child marriage was and is prevalent throughout the world and these people are not Muslims or Arabs, that is you being anti-semitic and racist. 

Ahh last resort playing the race card, how's Islam a race you ?

Also I now a Jew hater also ,you really are an  

****You might take a route of "whataboutism" but that will only be a  "red herring" fallacy on your part 

You've spent 3 days now defending pedophillia and attempting to label me with your fallacious statements

****** I mean even learned critics of Quran and Islam don't project the moral standards of one culture to another Era past 100 years and you are doing it for a 1440 year old marriage, that is past millennium. 

Yet Muhammad who Muslims think perfect was a peadophile so it wax fine for him to abuse kids because morality was different then ooookay 

*****And imagine if you found of your very existence is through a progeny of child sex, or rape or slave sex, do you think you can mentally handle it? it looks like you wanted yourself to marry someone young but stopped yourself from doing so from cultural influence and you are in pain and regret and projecting it on Islamic prophet by making him into a scapegoat. 

Yet Muhammad is the one who lusted after Ashia at first when she was only 6 and you who admit you're familiar with children that lust after you and others with your illness 

****Not saying this is the case, but your emotions are all over the place, which is not a way to proceed with a logical debate. 

A logical debate with a guy who spends his days defending peadophillia and believes an illiterate peadophile called Muhammad talked with the angel Gabriel and went to heaven on a yellow flying horse ....hilarious 

****And every time you project the moral standards of today to 1400 years that is merely "definist fallacy" and hence irrelevant

A peadophile is still a peadophile and your failure to acknowledge this is why you attempt to justify why you personally know kids that like you and other old men ,it's a cover for your illness 

kakalam777

I find it very funny and retarded that you actually said you're familiar with children that sit on your knee and old men's knees and that fact you revere a peadophile who Muslims claim went to heaven on a  flying  horse 

Yes I do know children that sit on other people knees for talking or because of adoration, not mine, but I never claim they are so doing for lust, because that would be slandering, and I don't do that just to prove my point. And all you have been doing is Appealing to emotion, by taking the marriage of 1400 year old dead girl, which is moral for their community. As for the flying horse, you are deluding, its not horse but a creature of light. If there are creature of water, air, earth, fire, and wood, why can't there be creature of light. Is that too hard to accept biologically?

You mean peadophile? Right so if a child is abused it's not abuse until the right terminology come about ... You're offensively . 

Yes. a crime is not a crime until it is proven as crime. And child marriage was never a crime not 4000 years ago, not 1400 yrs ago if you see legally. You are again appealing to emotion by using words like "abused"

******Your contention to term all ancient Arab as paedophilic 
Most were and a fair amount including you still are as it's encouraged as you admitted in several Muslim societies 
***which you previously agree is merely a "composition fallacy", 
No, I didn't 

Yes you did, in your previous post you said somehow "it was my contention that ancient arab was pedophilic and that you agree...and it now also is"

But my contention is not about paedophilia at all, my contention is Ancient arab already had child marriages and so did other parts of world 1400 years ago. So what happened to other people of the world being paedophilic....This is the  "composition fallacy". You are leaving one demographic and only accusing another demographic for your claims.

Ahh last resort playing the race card, how's Islam a race you ?
Also I now a Jew hater also ,you really are an  

In case you don't know all Arabs are Semites and so am I from my genealogy. Because they are from family of Ishmael son of Abraham.

You've spent 3 days now defending pedophillia and attempting to label me with your fallacious statements
****** I mean even learned critics of Quran and Islam don't project the moral standards of one culture to another Era past 100 years and you are doing it for a 1440 year old marriage, that is past millennium. 
Yet Muhammad who Muslims think perfect was a peadophile so it wax fine for him to abuse kids because morality was different then ooookay 

I am not defending paedophilia and I am also not defending child marriage of this day and age, I am correcting your appeal to emotion that you are projecting on 1400 yr old marriage of a dead husband and wife, who I might add loved each other. Let me tell you Aisha's own words: 

narrated Aisha "I saw no one cooking food like safiyyah, she once cooked food for the messenger of Allah and sent it. I got angry [jealous] and broke the vessel. I then asked: O messenger of Allah, what can I do to make up for what I have done? He said A meal for a meal "replace it."   

This shows her jealousy and you only get jealous of other wives when you love the husband...not because you are taking revenge on husband to make him go hungry.

Yet Muhammad is the one who lusted after Ashia at first when she was only 6 and you who admit you're familiar with children that lust after you and others with your illness 

Again here you are making an Ad hominem fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy to make your point as valid, when it is not, because its not immoral to marry child in 700AD.  

A logical debate with a guy who spends his days defending paedophilia and believes an illiterate paedophile called Muhammad talked with the angel Gabriel and went to heaven on a yellow flying horse ....hilarious 
****And every time you project the moral standards of today to 1400 years that is merely "definist fallacy" and hence irrelevant
A paedophile is still a paedophile and your failure to acknowledge this is why you attempt to justify why you personally know kids that like you and other old men ,it's a cover for your illness 

Again you are going with Ad hominem, appeal to emotion, and circular reasoning [a paedophile is paedophile like really?] 

And no I don't find that there are creatures of other elements to be hilarious, it is even scientifically possible. So on what basis does it becomes hilarious? and there are only two kinds in unseen - Angels and Jinns...there are tons of videos on possessions in real life happenings I can even direct you to go watch yourself [since seeing is believing] And we are already made aware that these are creature of fire [jinn kind] beforehand. Science cannot find solutions to problems related to their so called  "supernatural" entities....but for us there are merely jinn kind which are not that harmful.  

I don't acknowledge him as paedophile on following reasons:

1. He had 11 other adult wives  2. Aisha was not his last wife, he married more after her

3. The ones he married after were all adults not kids. 4. He waited for 3 years before consummation.

5. He had children from only two women. 6. His daughter was married at age 9.

7. It was marriage accepted by both of her parents, 8. The wife never complained about being abused sexually. 

9. Th wife expressed her love for him, in man places in her narrations. 10. He didn't go around picking up young girls for marriage after one. 

11. The marriage was socially accepted 

12. There was not law to make it immoral 

13. Mortality rate was high due to hygiene and poverty some people used to die as infants or by adolescent, hence whether she was from rich or poor doesn't matter they were married earlier.

14. Your claiming child marriage as paedophilia does't make it paedophilia...it will still be child marriage...because it already happened and you were non existent at that time. o your opinion mean nothing.

Paedophilia has its distinct meaning and implications, and none of the above 14 points shows that this was a case of paedophilia.  

Based on all the above reasons, your statements are.

Ad hominem, False Dichotomy, Appeal to emotion, definist and composition fallacy, and also circular reasoning.

Basically your entire responses were full of fallacy and irrelevant, to the topic of this thread and morality itself.

 

Dee

@kakalam777

****Yes I do know children that sit on other people knees 

I bet you do 

***for talking or because of adoration, not mine, but I never claim they are so doing for lust, 

But yet that's exactly what you claimed 

****because that would be slandering the girls, and I don't do that just to prove my point. 

Didn't stop you before 

****And all you have been doing is Appealing to emotion, by taking the marriage of 1400 year old dead girl, which is moral for their community. 

Peadophillia was never moral but in fairness to you the Quran totally approves and sanctions it 

***As fr the flying horse, you are deluding, its not horse but a creature of light. If there are creature of water, air, earth, fire, and wood, why can't there be creature of light. Is that too hard to accept biologically?

It's and again you're wrong as it's depicted as a horse in Islam 

****Yes. a crime is not a crime until it is proven as crime.

So abuse is not abuse until proven and murder is not murder till proven, you are offensively  

***** And child marriage was never a crime not 4000 years ago, not now. You are again appealing to emotion by using words like "abused"

Right so peadophillia was the norm in Arabic society yes I agree and that's why it's still permitted as approved by the Quran 

****Yes you  did, in your previous post you said somehow "it was my contention that ancient arab was pedophilic and that you agree...and it now also is"

What are you on about?

****But my contention is not about paedophilia at all, my contention is Ancient arab already had child marriages and so did other parts of world 1400 years ago. 

Yes agreed Islam encouraged sex with children who hadn't reached puberty 

*** so what happened to other people of the world being paedophilic....This is the  "composition fallacy". You are leaving one demographic and only accusing another demographic for your claims.

But tell me a country that has a sacred book that approves of child abuse ? You cannot thus your attempt at another red herring

****In case you don't know all Arabs are Semites and so am I from my genealogy. Because I am from family of Ishmael son of Abraham.

How utterly fascinating 

*****I am not defending paedophilia and I am also not defending child marriage of this day and age,

You are , you continue to do so 

**** I am correcting your appeal to emotion that you are projecting on 1400 yr old marriage of a dead husband and wife, who I might add loved each other. Let me tell you Aisha's own words: 

Another attempt by you at deflection , child abuse is clearly approved of in the Quran 

**^^*narrated Aisha "I saw no one cooking food like safiyyah, he once cooked food for the messenger of Allah and sent it. I got angry [jealous] and broke the vessel. I then asked: O messenger of Allah, what can I do to make up for what I have done? He said A meal for a meal "replace it."  

**** Do I really need to educate you on the practice of thighing as approved of by Mo and the Quran 

****This shows he jealousy and you only get jealous of other wives when you love the husband...not because she is taking revenge on husband to make him go hungry.

Yet Muhammad is the one who lusted after Ashia at first when she was only 6 and you who admit you're familiar with children that lust after you and others with your illness 

Again here you are making an Ad hominem fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy to make your point as valid. when it is not, because its not immoral to marry child in 700D 

Your continued defence of child abuse is getting desperate now

****Again you are going with Ad hominem, 

I call you a peadophile as you admitted you know children who lit for you and now you're butt hurt 

*** I appeal to emotion, and circular reasoning [a paedophile is paedophile like really?] 

I know 

****And no I don't find that there are creatures of other elements to be hilarious, it is even scientifically possible. 

Prove it? You cannot 

*^**So on what basis does it becomes hilarious? and there are only two kinds in unseen - Angels and Jinns...there are tons of videos on possessions in real life 

There's not one verified by science 

****happenings I can even direct you to go watch yourself [since seeing is believing] And we are already made aware that these are creature of fire [jinn kind] beforehand. Science cannot find solutions to problems related to their so called  "supernatural" entities....

Because it's B S , prove otherwise ....What? .....Oh you cannot 

****but for us there are merely jinn kind which are not that harmful.  

Ha , ha jinn and yellow flying horses .....ooookay 

******I don't acknowledge him as paedophile on following reasons:

1. He had 11 other adult wives  2. Aisha was not his last wife, he married more after her

3. The ones he married after were all adults not kids. 4. He waited for 3 years before consummation.

5. He had children from only two women. 6. His daughter was married at age 9.

7. It was marriage accepted by both of her parents, 8. The wife never complained about being abused sexually. 

9. Th wife expressed her love for him, in man places in her narrations. 10. He didn't go around picking up young girls for marriage after one. 

11. The marriage was socially accepted 

He was a predatory peadophile totally approved of by the Quran. 

kakalam777

@Dee
Again your entire post is fallacy....its like inception of fallacies...do you think I can't even know such stupidity.

I bet you do, But yet that's exactly what you claimed  Didn't stop you before ... Ad hominem + fallacy fallacy

Peadophillia was never moral but in fairness to you the Quran totally approves and sanctions it ....Base Rate fallacy + definist fallacy + motte and bailey fallacy

It's and again you're wrong as it's depicted as a horse in Islam ....false attribution fallacy+

So abuse is not abuse until proven and murder is not murder till proven, you are offensively ,,, equivocation fallacy+ appeal to emotion fallacy+ definist fallacy+false equivalence fallacy+poisoning the well fallacy

Right so peadophillia was the norm in Arabic society yes I agree and that's why it's still permitted as approved by the Quran - Hasty generalisation fallacy+historian's fallacy

What are you on about? ...appeal to the stone fallacy

****But my contention is not about paedophilia at all, my contention is Ancient arab already had child marriages and so did other parts of world 1400 years ago. 

Yes agreed Islam encouraged sex with children who hadn't reached puberty - magical thinking fallacy

*But tell me a country that has a sacred book that approves of child abuse ? You cannot thus your attempt at another red herring

- Loaded question fallacy

How utterly fascinating ....appeal to common sense fallacy

You are , you continue to do so...appeal to stone+ ad hominem+poinsoning the well fallacy 

You are better than Donald Trump why don't you run for president, you have more than 70 logical fallacies in your post....I didn't even want to bother with the rest.

Basically your entire posts so far are poisoning the well fallacy, I don't think I need to justify anything anymore since it will be waste of knowlege on you..try to grow some brain cells before you come for a debate you incest+child abusing person.

I can ad hominen you too, since you support a grandfather doing sex abuse to his child granddaughter by using a hasty generalisation fallacy.

Do tell me which is moral, choose only one.

1. Murder

2, Child marriage

3. Grandfather sleeping with child granddaughter

You will be stuck again, since your morality compass false and can crumble anytime, you have no authority to judge other era's morality with your historian's fallacy. 

Another thing grow up you are already married and you are debating to an unmarried youth in mid 20s. So even if I let little 8-9 yr old girls sit on my lap nothing wrong with it, they can marry in another 8-9 years if they want, I won't be too old.

Dee

@kakalam777

 Like a Muslim half - wit you list of a copy and pasted list of fallacies and yet you don't not even know what the term means 

****Try to grow some brain cells before you come for a debate 

 This from a towel head who believes in yellow flying horses is hilarious 

****you incest+child abusing person.

Says Osama the towel head who admitted to lusting for children 

****Another thing grow up you are already married and you are debating to an unmarried youth in mid 20s. 

An unmarried peadophile you mean surely?

*****So even if I let little 8-9 yr old girls sit on my lap nothing wrong with it, 

But you said they lust after you , you're a filthy dog 

***they can marry in another 8-9 years if they want, I won't be too old.

Yes , but they will be for you as you admitted you prefer them a lot younger 

kakalam777

@Dee
I can't be considered paedophile because I have sexual inclination towards girls with full breast size.... hence your accusation is false...I don't even like kids why would I even be interested in them?
I do know what those terms means and I have to read each and every of your sentence and look into each on of those to put it there.
I will be honest I don't know many, but your posts had too many...its like inception of fallacies.

Dee

@kakalam777

*** I can't be considered paedophile because I have sexual inclination towards girls with full breast size.

Yet you boasted about you girls lusting for you and sitting in your knee what’s the name for that?

***hence your accusation is false

Yet you admitted such 

**** I don't even like kids why would I even be interested in them?

Well according to you they lust after you , remember?

***/I do know what those terms means and I have to read each and every of your sentence and look into each on of those to put it there.

I’m not responsible for your ignorance 

***/I will be honest I don't know many, but your posts had too many...its like inception of fallacies.

My posts had none , you’re  butt hurt because I’ve destroyed all your childish arguments 

kakalam777

irrelevant and self delusional and self assumption statements about me = Ad hominem

Dee

@kakalam777

**** irrelevant and self delusional and self assumption statements about me = Ad hominem

Incorrect , you admitted children lust after you , you’re just like your “boss”.....

kakalam777

@Dee
I am young and handsome, so what if child lusts after me? What matters is I am not lusting after the child.

Dee

@kakalam777

**** I am young and handsome, so what if child lusts after me? 

Yet you said you knew personally that children lust after you , how did you deduce this?

****What matters is I am not lusting after the child

Yet you said you like them sitting on your knee ..... Did you take “lessons” from the “prophet”?

kakalam777

Yet you said you knew personally that children lust after you , how did you deduce this? 

Where is your prove that they come and sit on my lap...look the chats again...I bet you won't find it.

Dee

@Kakalam

***/Where is your prove that they come and sit on my lap...look the chats again...I bet you won't find it.

Delete option is great for people like you , are you denying you stated you knew children that lusted after you and others? 

Here is the problem for you , you’re admitting such disgusts you . so tell me why is it ok if the prophet does it?

Beaten again using your “reasoning” , you really need to work on your “logic” 

kakalam777

@Dee
I don't want your rants I want prove. [I won't believe until I see it]  So how are you able to believe that girls are lusting after me and other without seeing it? Yet you don't believe in God without seeing it.....the inconsistencies in your mentality is coming out bit by bit. First it was the lack of coherent morality standard then all logical fallacies just to prove your statements have substantial prove just because you type them, and now this believing without seeing.

So I need proves for everything, Why is your morality standard right? Why are your fallacies relevant? and why do you believe without seeing?

Produce your prove...if you are truthful.

Dee

@kakalam777

Are you drunk or on drugs because that post is meaningless gibberish , get an adult to assist you in penning something coherent that’s if you can find one amongst your fellow towel heads 

kakalam777

@Dee
It is coherent...you said you believe girls are lusting after me and others and said that I deleted the post....so since you believe without seeing, how is this same principle not applicable to God.
So prove it to me why do you believe my statements without seeing me? But not God's.

Dee

@kakalam777

**** It is coherent...you said you believe girls are lusting after me and others and said that I deleted the post....so since you believe without seeing, how is this same principle not applicable to God.
So prove it to me why do you believe my statements without seeing me? But not God's.

Which gods statements? Do you mean Zeus , Odin , Woton , Shiva , Neptune do you not believe their statements as you’ve never seen them? 

Beaten again , your logical skills are appalling 

kakalam777

Which gods statements? Do you mean Zeus , Odin , Woton , Shiva , Neptune do you not believe their statements as you’ve never seen them? 

Not talking about God's that were defined by humans, talking about God who defines Himself, and he has been sending telegraphic messages from before 4000 years, but you are being deaf eared, blind eyed to those, but are aware of Gods that were define by humans, with human qualities like, progeny and death, but you believe they belong to category of gods. Is this a quality of someone with logical skills?

Its common sense anyone which consciousness and ability to communicate by anyway can define himself or herself. I can define myself and you can define yourself, by that logic God if there should be capable to define Himself.

There a simple method to disprove God. There are few question God asked in Quran that you just need to do it and viola you can disprove God easily

1. Are you a more difficult creation or is the Heaven [The visible universe for you] that He constructed?

Here you have to disprove by providing evidence that you are more difficult than the whole universe in your composition.

2. Were they created from nothing or did they create themselves?

Here you have to prove that you were created from nothing, and by nothing. which Atheist already do claim, so you just need to prove your claim.

3 A) This is the book/record in which there is no doubt, 

3 B.) They say "He (Prophet) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!"

Here it is claiming that the Quran is a certified record, 

(a) and you just have to disprove that it is not. I hope you do know what certified record means. It should have 4 points :source of authority, Certification, preservation and contradiction.

(b) You have to prove your literary superiority against the Quran, and beat it in its Arabic (which might b difficult for you) 

4. "Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower or subtleties, the Aware." 

This statement or similar is there in every previous monotheist religion scriptures.

a) "He cannot be seen, neither above, nor across, nor in the middle. He is beyond grasp. There is no image that is true to His from. His name is glory itself."  The Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4:19

b) "Neither the eye can behold Him nor the power of thinking can conceive Him" Dastir p 68.

"I can quote more but these are the oldest 4000 year old statements from three sources and should be enough as evidence"

So here, you just need to prove that your eyes are superior and have capability to see God, for that you just have to stare at midday sun without blinking or and aid for 5 minutes, to prove your superior eyes.

Gooduck disproving God.

Dee

@kakalam777

***/Not talking about God's that were defined by humans, 

You mean like Allah .....Oooookay 

****talking about God who defines Himself, 

Prove it

***and he has been sending telegraphic messages from before 4000 years, 

Prove it 

****but you are being deaf eared, blind eyed to those, but are aware of Gods that were define by humans, with human qualities like, progeny and death, but you believe they belong to category of gods. 

So you hear gods voices in your head ......you’re mentally unwell 

****Is this a quality of someone with logical skills?

You mean like people who recieved “telegraphic messages from gods “? 

That sort of logical?

****Its common sense anyone which consciousness and ability to communicate by anyway can define himself or herself. I can define myself and you can define yourself, by that logic God if there should be capable to define Himself.

Well tell Allah to show up and define himself ?

****There a simple method to disprove God. There are few question God asked in Quran that you just need to do it and viola you can disprove God easily

1. Are you a more difficult creation or is the Heaven [The visible universe for you] that He constructed?

Here you have to disprove by providing evidence that you are more difficult than the whole universe in your composition.

2. Were they created from nothing or did they create themselves?

Here you have to prove that you were created from nothing, and by nothing. which Atheist already do claim, so you just need to prove your claim.

3 A) This is the book/record in which there is no doubt, 

3 B.) They say "He (Prophet) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!"

Here it is claiming that the Quran is a certified record, 

(a) and you just have to disprove that it is not. I hope you do know what certified record means. It should have 4 points :source of authority, Certification, preservation and contradiction.

(b) You have to prove your literary superiority against the Quran, and beat it in its Arabic (which might b difficult for you) 

4. "Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower or subtleties, the Aware." 

This statement or similar is there in every previous monotheist religion scriptures.

a) "He cannot be seen, neither above, nor across, nor in the middle. He is beyond grasp. There is no image that is true to His from. His name is glory itself."  The Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4:19

b) "Neither the eye can behold Him nor the power of thinking can conceive Him" Dastir p 68.

"I can quote more but these are the oldest 4000 year old statements from three sources and should be enough as evidence"

So here, you just need to prove that your eyes are superior and have capability to see God, for that you just have to stare at midday sun without blinking or and aid for 5 minutes, to prove your superior eyes

Read on 

****Gooduck disproving God

So prove your god , you cannot can you?

kakalam777

@Dee
I can prove God, with just 2 claims
1. Quran is a certified record from God.
2. It has superior preservation compared to your human certified records.

There I proved God.
Because certified record is prove in of itself.

kakalam777

@Dee
You are an atheist, you won't be one unless you can say you were created from nothing cosmologically ...and this is the burden of prove on all atheist...and you have done nothing to prove it yet.

So the burden of prove is still on you.

Dee

@kakalam777

**** I can prove God, with just 2 claims
1. Quran is a certified record from God.

It’s not it’s a book of contradictory

***/2. It has superior preservation compared to your human certified records.

I have no “human certified” records you clot , the Quran is still a book of

***There I proved God.

You didn’t , you proved you’re an  


*****Because certified record is prove in of itself.

Certified by who you clown?

kakalam777

It’s not it’s a book of contradictory

Prove it

I have no “human certified” records you clot , the Quran is still a book of

Prove it, your birth certificate, bank pass books, passport, ID cards, Bank cards, marriage certificates, property papers,,,,these all are certified records and are used as prove of your existence and your belongings, so prove me you don't have any. Or tear them and prove me that all property and money still belong to you.

Certified by who you clown?

You are an if you don't know how certified record works...this question proves that.

Dee

@kakalam777

***/Prove it

Muslims believe that Allah wrote the Qur'an, verbatim, and that Muhammad merely transcribed it.[1][2]

However, the entire first surah is a prayer to Allah.

Numerous other verses have similar issues.

• Qur'an 6:114 states: "Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers." The first two sentences refer to Allah in the 3rd person as "Allah" and "thy Lord", while in third sentence Allah talks to "thou (O Muhammad)".
• Qur'an 37:164 states: "There is not one of us but hath his known position." Does Allah have a known position in space?[note 2]
• Qur'an 37:168-169 states: "If we had but a reminder from the men of old we would be single-minded slaves of Allah." Does Allah require a reminder from humanity in order to be a single-minded slave of himself?
• Qur'an 37:180-181 states: "Glorified be thy Lord, the Lord of Majesty, from that which they attribute (unto Him) and peace be unto those sent (to warn)." Is Allah referring to himself in the third person again?
• Qur'an 37:182 states: "And praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds!" Is Allah praising himself again?
• Qur'an 51:50-51 states: "Therefor flee unto Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from him. And set not any other god along with Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from Him." Muhammad is the "plain warner", not Allah; so why is Allah referring to himself as a "plain warner"?
• Qur'an 51:58 states: "Lo! Allah! He it is that giveth livelihood, the Lord of unbreakable might." Is Allah referring to himself in the 3rd person again?
• Qur'an 84:15 states: "Nay, but lo! his Lord is ever looking on him!" Is Allah referring to himself in the 3rd person again?
• Qur'an 84:16-19 states: "Oh, I swear by the afterglow of sunset, and by the night and all that it enshroudeth, and by the moon when she is at the full, that ye shall journey on from plane to plane." Is Allah swearing by these objects? Why would he need to, when he's Allah and his Word is TruthTM?

As I said a book of B S 

*****Prove it, your birth certificate, bank pass books, passport, ID cards, Bank cards, marriage certificates, property papers,,,,these all are certified records and are used as prove of your existence and your belongings, so prove me you don't have any.

Ha , Ha right tell the peado Allah to produce his birth certificate , passport and Visa card Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

****You are an if you don't know how certified record works...this question proves that.

Yet you cannot say who certified the Quran you peado 

kakalam777

wait wrote why wrote? Quran is a oral recitation not a paper book. 

Certified record is called such because it is from authoritative source...if it is not it wont be called as such.. And that is why it is considered as prove.

If you can't prove me that Quran is not a certified record then you proved nothing substantial.

So carry on.....the burden of prove is still on you.

Dee

@kakalam777

****wait wrote why wrote? Quran is a oral recitation not a paper book. 

Muslims believe that Allah wrote the Qur'an, verbatim, and that Muhammad merely transcribed

****Certified record is called such because it is from authoritative source..

A source you cannot prove 

*****if it is not it wont be called as such.. 

Which is why it’s not except by the ignorant 

****And that is why it is considered as prove.

Not by rational beings 

****If you can't prove me that Quran is not a certified record then you proved nothing substantial.

So carry on.....the burden of prove is still on you.

Like the dummy you are you still don’t know what burden of proof means ......

Poor Osama still didn’t know what burden of proof is get an education son 

Dee

@kakalam777  @AmericanFurryBoy


@kakalam777 admits that he finds Islam offensive .....well done you have woken up 

How is what’s written in your Hadiths offesnsive to you? Tale it up with Allah son

kakalam777

@Dee ;
You can't see how you are so ....you don't believe in Quran as a word of God from its written copies, but yet you believe in Aisha being married at 6 and being consummated at 9 from written source.

A source you cannot prove yourself.

Again the burden of prove is on you.

kakalam777

@Dee
 So far you have 5 burden of prove. I can add more but don't think you are smart enough...I need prove for all this.

1. Universe came form nothing. 
2. Quran is not a certified record,
3. You don't consider written certified record as prove and consider yourself "rational"  yet you use your birth certificate and passport as prove for your existence and in future your prove of death will be a death certificate. again a written certified record. 
4. You use written record about Prophet to accuse him as a "rational" being.
5. Prove your rationality.

Dee

@kakalam777

@kakalam777 admits that he finds Islam offensive .....Kakalam admits the Quran is and admits he finds these Hadiths offensive but true 

How is what’s written in your Hadiths offesnsive to you? Tale it up with Allah son

Dee

@kakalam777 ;

 *****So far I  have 5 burden of prove. I can add more but don't think I am smart enough...I cannot prove any of this .

I know 

****1. The Universe came form Allahs anus 

O k 


***/Quran is a pile of horse  manure 

I agree 

***i don't consider written certified record as prove and consider myself  "irrational"  yet I use my  certificate and passport as prove that I’m a peado 

I know 

****You use written record about Prophet and you’re right again he’s a pervert 

I know 

***you have  proved  I’m an irrational  

That’s true also 

kakalam777

@Dee
changing words won't change reality.
Produce your prove.

Dee

@kakalam777

***I’m changing into women’s clothes at the moment

That does not surprise  me in the least 

****I feel a desire to make love to farm animals 

Well Muhammad “liked “ goats rumor has it 

kakalam777

@Dee
prove it..

Dee

@kakalam777

*** I've fallen in love with a neighbours goat , I'm taking after Muhammad he loved goats ....,My father married a goat so I guess it's in the genes 

Hey thanks for sharing I guess it's all part of Islam at least you're not flying planes into buildings

ZeusAres42

@kakalam777 @Dee ;

Unfalsifiable ideas are incapable of being proven false or true.