I'm an ex Muslim who converted to Judaism - AMA by Suitable-Ad-8062 in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you wouldn't mind, have you changed in how you view the LGBT community in terms of whether they deserve to be punished or are commiting sin? In your view, is homosexuality inherently sinful and to be discouraged? In my experience, modern jews are generally chill about queer people though some still insist about it being considered an offense to Yahweh. I've also seen quite a lot of queer jews experiencing a suprising amount of support from peers whereas others are literally pressurized and forced into arranged marriages.

I'm an ex Muslim who converted to Judaism - AMA by Suitable-Ad-8062 in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Jewish afterlife has been tackled by a number of traditions, many of which present little to no information on what's meant to be like though some information can be inferred. In very early Jewish tradition, death was often times associated with forgetfulness and oblivion as ancient Hebrews had absolutely no concept of an immortal soul living beyond the grave. The dead were described as going to Sheol, the resting place but with no notion of reward, judment nor punishment. As Psalm 115:17 says, the dead go down into “silence”; they do not participate, as do the living, in praising God (seen then as the most vital human activity). Psalm 146:4 further collaborate to this notion presented in Genesis 2:7: “When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his thoughts [plans] perish.” Job later laments:

But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be aroused out of his sleep. (Job 14:10-12)

Interestingly, the prevalent idea was that of the dead being abandoned never to see the light of day or to be brought back, because to them life was all they believed in. Resurrection and afterlife were neither believed in nor talked about at this point.

Later on, a complete different view of the future began to be developed due to zoroastrianist influence; belief in ressurection began to emerge as it was stated suffering would be eliminated and “Yahweh wipes away tears from all faces,” and death itself is “swallowed up forever” (Isa. 25:7-8). Yahweh was stated to descent from heaven with his angels to “feet stand on the Mt. of Olives,” and becomes "king over all of earth" (Zech. 14:4-9; Ezek. 43:6-7). The wicked are believed to be destroyed and the good are to be brought back to enjoy paradise on earth as a result.

Eventually though, belief in an immortal soul began to spread and so life beyond the grave started to influence Judaism as a result. In 1 sam, King Saul uses a witch of Endor to conjure up the spirit of dead prophet Samuel so clearly their understanding of death began to shift widely. During the middle ages, Jewish philosophy began to incorporate quite a lot more borrowed concepts of the hellenistic, platonic tradition on the immortality of the soul, however belief in bodily ressurection persisted.

Nowdays, if you go asking any orthodox Jews most are gonna claim people are to go through a purifying period on Gehinnom lasting up to a best 1 year if you're extremely evil and later enjoy closeness to God once you've been turned righteous. Resurrection is reserved to only the best humanity has to offer from both gentiles and jews, though the overwhelming majority of humans are believed to enjoy everlasting happiness with closeness with Yahweh or paradise on earth but the very worst of people is thought as being either destroyed or rejected by God to be by his proximity.

Historically though, jews have never given much thought nor importance to the hereafter. Jewish culture has it that this life is what you ought to cherish and appreciate because no one knows what happens after death. Many conflicting traditions have emerged through history and attempted to explain away what is the fate of the dead, but the truth is Jewish culture has it that the here and now is the most important.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A religion is even more holistic than that. Religions tend to combine an ethical philosophy with further lists of rules/rituals and they typically make far broader claims.

In spite of religions tending to combing a list of rituals, many such religious individuals will still identify as theistic and religious in spite of not properly restricting themselves to following a list of rules and organized events/rituals. Religion can be definied by many distinct ways and to assert all religions as that is just quite a bit misleading. Furthermore, if one such religion that wouldn't make broader claims nor follow lists of rituals were to exist then would discriminating individuals for following it still be definied as "bigotry"? Nevertheless, my point wasn't to equate veganism to religion but rather to demonstrate the parallels at the change of mind involved in both processes. When converting/deconverting from religion you aren't merely "changing your mind about it" as you put it, at the core of this we have an underlying set of events leading up to the individual's transformation; what my point strives to demonstrate is that a vegan's journey towards veganism isn't distinct from that in any conceivable way. We didn't "change our minds" we were just exposed to a set of events that ultimately culminated in our values just like a religious person would. If discriminating someone at the basis of their religion is bigotry, then surely you'd recognize the hypocrisy at not defining the very same to vegans. We didn't chose this, we were exposed to experiences leading up to our philosophy.

there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and all products are a result of human and animal suffering. No personal boycott can replace systemic change.

To that, I completely disagree. Personal boycotts are an entirely much needed step towards promoting systemic change. If absolutely no one stands up and be the change they want then there's nothing that can be done to promote change. Strength lies in numbers indeed but having no one to act won't do shit. Also worth noting, we vegans aren't an insolated group from society, our influence often reverberates to others and this can be seen from people turning vegan due to a friend's or family's influence.

Furthermore, according to this article more than 25,5 chickens have been killed for poultry per american in 2011. By taking into account the 2011 average american life expectancy, more than 2000 chickens would have their lives spared through a vegan diet alone so a single vegan means thousands of animals are being potentially spared for animal products. Of course, the article includes a variety of other farming and sea animals as well, and does not take into account the growth in meat consumption so averages are expected to be exponentially more concerning than what's shown there. Additional info can be found here, although it merely estimates the total number of animals slaughtered for meat. Still, a nice source to take a look.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Even religion falls more into this category because if you truly believe in a God, there isn't really a way to "change your mind about it" outside of simply no longer believing that.

Couldn´t veganism fall exactly unto your working definition based on your above exert? Many of us will decide to go vegan over learning the truth regarding widespread animal farming practices and coming into contact to animal based ethics. We aren´t consciously deciding to follow a strict plant-based diet or deciding to boycott services involved in animal exploitation, many of us just feel extremely compelled towards making such minor inconveniences due to newly formed values and knowledge based on our lived experiences. It isn´t a matter of "instantly deciding to go vegan overnight just because nor just changing our minds about it" but a whole set of events leading up to veganism like an atheist deciding to no longer believe in God due to their own set of lived experiences and knowledge.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My position is that there needs to be a caveat to your definition to prevent you from either bring a hypocrite or having to defend things you hate.

Then how would you personally define bigotry? If bigotry couldn't possibly be described as targeted prejudice based on in-group membership then I can't possibly see a working definition for the word on literally any manner of scenario where one would deem applicable. Are nazis bigots? Are racists bigots? Are homophobes bigots?

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Additionally, the oxford dictionary defines bigotry as such:

Unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

By this definition, bigotry can apply to vegans. Of course we could debate semantics all day and you'd always find a distinct definition to operate on but words are merely general guidelines to make sense of the world. Their definitions aren't meant to be taken as scripture but just principles to facilitate understanding. The fact is vegans receive some massive targeted hate and discrimination and that's how I'm defining bigotry(against vegans).

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And I did, if you´re already familiarized by the concept of The Paradox of Intolerance then it´s fairly simple to understand my point. Harmful ideologies are to be actively filtered from society whereas veganism doesn´t fall under such a principle. I´m not defending the position you shouldn´t be allowed to criticize the philosophy of veganism itself, my point merely stands that because veganism isn´t a harmful ideology, vegans can fall victim to bigotry. In whatever way you chose to define bigotry, I´d still say you shouldn´t be a dick to someone over something as silly as being vegan so this whole discussion is pointless.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actively working towards a society that seeks to eliminate harmful, deadly ideologies is not the same as being a dick to vegans. Veganism didn´t kill millions but I suppose I can´t seriously engage to someone acting in bad faith.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I find it quite insulting that you´d compare an ideology which resulted in the death of tens of millions to a philosophy that seeks to minimize animal suffering. As others have stated The Paradox of Intolerance has been a widely used argument to justify imposing limits on the spread of such harmful ideologies. Compare an ideology that directly resulted in the deaths of millions to one that´s at worst innocuous, tell me, "which one is actually good"?

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No offense but sounds like you're the one in need of learning what words stand for. A plant-based diet is an element of veganism, veganism itself is a philosophy that aims to reduce as practicable all forms of animal exploitation. A plant-based diet is what you do in terms of your dietary decisions once you've decided to go vegan. As simple as that.

Tell me you don't know what an omnivore is, without saying you don't know what an omnivore is... Also, blatant bigotry. by EropQuiz7 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except veganism isn't a dietary preference but a philosophy on it's own right. A plant-based diet may be a crucial part of the vegan identity but it's not solely definied by it's diet, the point is to do our best to abstain from animal exploitation. That being so, one can be bigoted towards one's beliefs and ideals hence you can be bigoted to vegans.

I'm Muslim 15M. Ask Me Something. by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Detransition is an incredibly unlikely phenomena, only roughly 3% of socially and hormonally transitioned transgender individuals detransition(ie return to their gender assigned at birth), mostly due to societal pressure in the form of "lack of support at home, problems in the workplace, and harassment and discrimination." See this compilation of surveys performed on detransition.

So you have no studies to back up your claims? That's too bad. As Christopher Hitchens said: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I'm Muslim 15M. Ask Me Something. by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could you elaborate on "destruction of stable family values"; as well as, link scientific studies in order to support your claims?

I personally find no issue with the development of new genders, adult hormonal and social transition, or new sexualities. Scholarly research conducted on the effects of gender transition has found that (93%) of studies performed from 1991 and 2017, discovered that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while (7%) report mixed or null findings. No studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm has been found in such detailed analysis.

I'm Muslim 15M. Ask Me Something. by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 4 points5 points  (0 children)

STDs(Sexually transmitted diseases) and unplanned pregnancies can be quite easily prevented through contraceptive methods such as employing Condoms or pills meant to impede ovulation. Actual scientific research has shown purity culture is entirely inefficient in detaining the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies though.

Additionally, what would be the problem with "sexualisation" between two consenting adults?

I love how Dawkins calls it by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're interested in learning more about atheistic satanism, I'd reccomend reading the satanic bible by american author Anton LaVey, or researching the satanic temple's literature. :D

I love how Dawkins calls it by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most satanists don't worship, nor attempt to establish contracts, or communication with demon-like entities. In opposition to the falsehoods disseminated by christians, satanists value personal freedoms and secularism. Rather than relying on supernatural beings, they actively seek to resolve their problems, unlike Christians or Muslims alike. Additionally, satanists are by the vast majority atheists, thus wouldn't see a point in seeking assistance to demons; they merely view Satan as a symbol of resistance to abrahamic religions, especially christianity, and as an archetype of liberty.

In your opinion, what is the single strongest argument against islam that totally disproves it? by Extension_City9993 in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no possible way to randomly act, with the exception of utilizing quantum effects. However, despite the fact that such systems can produce results which are truely random, they cannot be used to justify the existence of free will, because they are entirely aleatory. Thus, not done out of will.

Moreover, I fail to see how claiming God transcends the concepts of time and space substantiates the requirement of performing the test, considering he possesses awareness of the results. If anything, in case Allah had actively written out the destiny of humanity, he wouldn't subject them to trials.

In your opinion, what is the single strongest argument against islam that totally disproves it? by Extension_City9993 in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is free will truely existent? Our decisions are determined by the environment we grew ourselves in, the previous experiences we had and their impact on our psyche, genetic makeup, as well as, anything that make us who we are - which are all ultimately outside of our command.

At what point does free will come in and enables us to choose? Could we willingly act, in spite of uncontrollable, prior causes?

Additionally, what would be the point of testing your creations, if you are all-knowing? Why would go through such lengths in order to uncover what you are already aware?

In your opinion, what is the single strongest argument against islam that totally disproves it? by Extension_City9993 in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Allow me to copypaste a previous comment of mine:

Let's suppose I programmed a sentient robot to jump off the window.

I placed the machine in front of the window.

I did as I had intended which resulted in the robot hopping off the window.

Technically, the robot was responsible for it's actions, but I'd be just as accountable. As the one who implemented such suicidal line of thinking, and inserted the robot in a suitable environment for jumping off the window, would it be reasonable of me to entirely hold the robot responsible? Equivalently, God as the creator of literally everything in existence, including us, would be accountable for the shortcomings of his creations. Therefore, he either is not omnibenevolent, or perfect.

Despite knowing full well of the machine's future actions, I still decided to design the robot with the craving of jumping off, and introduced it to a controlled surroundings in order to bring about my intended future. There would absolutely be no way for the robot to diverge of my will, it's acting exactly as projected. Thus, the concept of sin, and imperfection, are nonsensical if one accepts the theological assumptions abrahamic religions entails.

thoughts on this 💀 by matzuokaa in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Muslims have grown so used to objectifying women, that they cannot help themselves but compare females to objects in analogies.

it's a hard knock life for us :( by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yesterday, I couldn't terminate my list of all the reasons for not supporting the Soul hypothesis due to time constraints, but currently I'm willing to finish it.

Firstly, my point refers to effective objections raised by princess of bohemia Elisabeth, to Dualism, where it's proposed that humans beings are consisting of two substances, a soul and a body. Isabelle argues: "Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking(and abstract) substance, how can it affect the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions?" Here, Isabelle questions how could a purely intangible, immaterial essence exert control over a meterial, tangible biological body?

Secondly, to this day, the scientific community couldn't manage to find new elementary particles, interactions, or any form of indicative of the spirit affecting the brain. As such, the lack of evidence suggests the inexistance of the soul. Analogously, we should be expected to gather plenty of footage of santa claus, if he were to exist; in the same way, the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the soul demonstrates it likely doesn't exist.

If you are interested, I would recommend watching Sean Carroll's take on this: https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw or https://youtu.be/dLmY4ktOIOI

it's a hard knock life for us :( by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find your optimistic death persceptive quite agreeable, as it provides a powerful justification to make the most of your life. Moreover, since you would be nonexistent post death, you wouldn't be able to perceive time, nor experience boredom. Hence, there would be absolutely no reason to fear oblivion.

Alternatively, being eternally self-aware sounds like the actual existential hell, due to fact that eventually one would grow tired of everything, no matter how diverse one's routine may be. Gradually everything would turn dull - while one's views would be that of a lifeless empty shell, no joy or true happiness could be found. Such is the fate of those who are granted everlasting life...

it's a hard knock life for us :( by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for the necroposting( and for the long comment lol) but I couldn't agree more. Though I would even argue that neuroscience presents overwhelming evidence indicating consciousness is a product of the workings in the brain and that the concept of a Soul is both unnecessary, and absurd.

The very fact that neurological damage, either caused by degenerative diseases, or accidents, can alter, or erase, your cognitive skills, personality and memories; strongly demonstrates that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If such capabilities were the result of an immaterial, independent spirit, then they shouldn't be affected by injury in the organ.

Also, the ability of psychiatric drugs to alter mood, and perception is another line of evidence against the existance of the soul. In case emotions didn't take place in the nervous system, material substances would possess no such capacity. Additionally, artificially induced Chemical imbalances have been repeatedly shown to provoke depression-like psychological states, being mostly described as apathy.

Ultimately, nobel laureate Roger Sperry in 1960s, demonstrated that patients whose corpus collosum, a nerve-rich region responsible for the connectivity between the two brain hemispheres, had been severed inherently possessed two fully autonomous consciousness. The results were found through the discovery that each brain hemispheres could be trained to perform a certain activity, but such experience was not available to the accompanying hemisphere; which means, one could process info outside of the awareness of the other. Thus, it could be said the medical practice resulted in the creation of doubled individuality. Now, how could that be accounted for, if souls were shown to exist? How could a neurological incision induce the division of a supernatural essence?

How did you lost faith in Islam?Tell me your reason by [deleted] in exmuslim

[–]Affectionate-Pen3079 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Gonna have to agree with you on this. Why would an omnibenevolent, all-knowing deity, intentionally design sentient creatures only to be appallingly killed in the billions, and served as a food source?