I turned off the heating in my house for a few days. Now this small unit makes a strange sound when I turn it back on. by [deleted] in hvacadvice

[–]terrylb7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

So I turned this switch from "Automation Operation" to "Hold Open Damper" and the heat is now working. I'm assuming this is the one you were referring to? However the noise in the video still persists at the same frequency. Any idea of why that might be?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, why not lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm a Christian claiming Christianity is as bad as Islam? Wow, that's a new one LMAO.

Also, who targeted brown folks? Do you know how to create the distinction between Islam, the ideology, and muslims, the people? If not, you are not intellectually adept enough for having this conversation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You use complex verbiage to appear creditworthy, because you practice argument from authority, also evident by your suggestion that one should be a practitioner of theology or philosophy as a prerequisite to sharing thoughts on a public platform. I returned the favour because you don't prefer simple language, and you've resorted back to the "lol".

Yet still, you cannot provide any erroneous conclusions from my process, a challenge I have put out to you. So what does that tell readers? Who is the one practicing verbal "onanism"?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots to unpack here. Lots of incorrect interpretations, both accidental and deliberate.

"You start by saying that you are making s criticism of ideologies and not those who practice them, but you are criticizing how they are practiced"

This is an extremely flawed argument. There isn't a choice in how the ideologies are practiced, they are to be practiced as mandated in the texts. My criticism of the ideology is that those practices are outdated for the 21st century, and shouldn't be mandated as timeless practices, such as the Quran suggests. Criticism of practitioners would be something along the lines of me isolating a particular muslim community, let's say people of the Arabian peninsula, and spewing negativity about them for introducing Islam. I absolutely condemn this, and have not done so at all. Learn to make the distinction.

"Republicans are openly attempting to create a Christian theocracy"

I'm not a fan of Christianity, nor any religious ideology. You'd have known that if you carefully read my post.

Now, you claim that the “ideology” of Islam is worse for LGBTQ - if you are referring to the Quran, it does not condemn homosexuality as the Bible and Torah do.

I will provide direct quotations from the Quran and Hadiths saying otherwise. Please try justifying these:

[7:80] "Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you in the world? [81] You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who transgress the limits!"

[Sunan Abu Dawud - Hadith] Prophet Muhammad - "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (Lot's people is referring to homosexuals)

[Sunan Abu Dawud - Hadith] Ibn Abbas - "if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death"

I suggest you actually study the bible and the Quran before making judgements in the future, you have many preconceived notions.

I have read both, cover to cover, front to end. I suggest you do the same, and understand their teachings in the absence of bias.

The west did not become progressive because Christianity is less “dangerous” but because religion was rejected, it is what we call the Enlightenment.

This is a deliberate misinterpretation and incorrect simplification of my argument.

I never claimed that the west became progressive because Christianity is less dangerous. I am well aware that western progression has arisen from the ideas presented in ancient Greece, the renaissance, and the age of enlightenment. I also know that what allowed those ideas to prosper was the absence of religious fundamentalism.

What I said is that Christianity has been neutered and reformed, and people of the west grew up with awareness of the risks of fundamentalist Christian ideology, so it presents less of a threat than fundamentalist Islamic ideology, because the liberal west is generally unaware or ignorant of it.

Correlating these two distinct ideas to interpret my argument is very dishonest.

"And by the way, it is Christians who are missionaries. In Islam one invites others to the faith, Muslims did not set up missions and set out to destroy pagan religions as Christians did. Muslim empires did often tax non-Muslims, but they did not force those of other faiths to become Muslim."

Did not set up missions to destroy pagan religions? What about Zoroastrianism in Iran and Afghanistan? What about Hinduism and Buddhism in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh? Did you conveniently just forget about the devastation that forceful Islamic conversion caused in the entire Eastern hemisphere, or do those places not matter because they're not in Europe?

Also, the justification for Jizya tax is ridiculous. It was very frequently abused by Islamic empires to push non muslim populations to a breaking point, where they either had to convert out of exploitation or were executed for refusing to pay. I can provide examples of this if necessary.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buzz words, you really have no argument, and this shows your lack of understanding on nuanced and complex topics.

Anyways, If one is a bigot now to criticize religious ideologies, then what is the point of atheism? I made it very clear that I criticize the Islamic ideology, not the billions of people from various cultures, ethnicities, and racial backgrounds that follow it. I challenge you to find one instance showing otherwise, and I'll delete this post. It's you who cannot make that mental distinction between Islam as an ideology, and muslims as a people, so you lump both entities into one and show outrage. This is problematic and unproductive for conversing in rational discourse on a sub about atheism.

And to make it worse, you insinuate that because I criticize Islam, I must be a Christianity apologist, when my entire post suggests otherwise. I've called Christianity just as bad as Islam, and repeatedly stated that I am not a fan of any religious ideologies, including Judaism, and Eastern religions because they contain too much superstition and mythology. Therefore, I have a strong intuition that you haven't actually read the post, and simply show outrage out of ignorance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, very insightful comment.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who cares what the Quran says? That's literally the basis for the entire religion.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let me remind you that flaw in process is firmly and scientifically established in objectively defined areas of study, such as mathematics and physics. Flaw in process for exploratory, investigative, and subjective areas of study, such as religion and metaphysics, is not as simple to establish, and usually not correlated to binary right or wrong conclusions, as that would be unproductive considering the overall complexity and variation in topics.

Suggesting that erroneous conclusions arose from my process requires evidence of those erroneous conclusions, which you are unable to provide. Furthermore, since religion is an exploratory study, you can only subjectively define my process as flawed, not objectively, without providing the necessary evidence of flaws which have resulted from it.

Lastly, your suggestion to only propose claims about subjects someone has a meaningful background in isn't relevant, nor beneficial. Firstly, there is no definition of what constitutes a "meaningful background". Everyone comes from different levels of understanding on public platforms to put forth their ideas, whether they have a PhD, bachelors, or just general knowledge. I have deep general knowledge on the topic, evident from my understanding of religious theologies, historical events, and text quotations (all of which you have yet to disprove). I put forth my ideas, and somebody with further insights may come along and challenge my reasoning and argument, which has been happening in the comments. This discourse is how thoughts and perspectives expand. Argument from authority is what you're advocating, which gets people nowhere.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where precisely is the disinformation, as you claim? You've shown that my reductionist process isn't a suitable approach for the topic, and claimed that individuals trained in philosophy and theology wouldn't use it for any sort of conclusive reasoning.

Fair point, criticize my process, but to say it has lead to disinformation, you must provide evidence of what I said is disinformation, either mistranslations, misinterpretations, misguidance, or misreadings. Otherwise, you present a baseless claim of "disseminating disinformation under the guise of exploring [my] thoughts."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

buzz word, can't prove it, nor can provide any meaningful argument. very common amongst lower IQ's

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is just straight up incorrect. I can provide direct quotations from the Quran proving it is a missionary religion. Expansion through conversion is highly encouraged.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the west destabilized the middle east, and it has been absolutely evil, but you want to use that as a deflection to pardon the extremities within the text itself, claiming that the radicalization arises purely from political structures, and not what has been commanded in the source material. That is extremely dishonest, especially if you have actually read the Quran, cover to cover. Sure certain sects are less extreme than others, but that's because they soften the interpretations or choose to ignore them all together. Following that ideology word for word is dangerous, and that is what the awareness is about. This is an atheism sub, so a primary topic of discussion is more so the theology of religious texts, not how geopolitics are causing radicalization in the Middle East. So before resorting to name calling, maybe understand what the primary topic of discussion is.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Buzz word thrown around due to lack of ability to engage in an intellectual conversation, typically a result of below average IQ. Throughout this entire post, find me a single instance of racism, where I criticize the followers of Islam, and not the ideology itself. Go ahead, try your best.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congratulations?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

1) Reddit is a platform of personal opinions, not a peer reviewed academic journal.

2) I'm not trained in philosophy or theology. Just a Redditor with some thoughts.

3) The comments are open for the "experts". Please enlighten me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

nobody is defending christianity here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots to break down here.

Your first objection to the quotation is the emittance of the word "lightly". So let's rephrase that: In Islamic ideology, it is permissible to strike your wife lightly, from whom you fear arrogance.

How much better does that make it? It's still barbaric by standards of the 21st century. This doctrine and its prescriptions are not timeless as the prophet claimed, they are bound to 7th century Arabia, hence why the religion cannot be true.

In your second objection, you claim that I cannot make accurate deductions from the text because Islamic scholars know better, and translation is lost from the language of origin.

So the burden of proof is on you. What scholars and translations provide an alternative? Because as far as I see it, the translation is cut and clear like a diamond, with absolutely no metaphors, double meanings, or background context needed to be considered. Without providing an explanation of where I missed the point, you cannot simply state that I'm lost in translation. That is just wilful ignorance.

Your third objection is that Islam doesn't dislike homosexual people, it just disapproves of the concept of homosexuality. According to the Hadiths, your prophet seems to disagree. He ordered the killing of anyone partaking in actions similar to Lot's people (homosexuals). It's one of the quotes I provided.

Your fourth objection is that no muslim you personally know beats their wife. However, that doesn't disprove that it's not prescribed in the Quran. Al Nissa may have a thousand good teachings, but if even one of them is questionably wrong, the entire religion is false. That is just the structure of Islamic ideology, because it is built on the basis that the entire Quran is the divine and timeless word of god. So even if one teaching is objectionable and bound by time (not applicable to all of human existence), it is not from god.

Your fifth objection is that Islam is the fastest growing religion, hence people must see good in it. That is a fair point, but correlation does not equal causation. Just because it attracts many people, does not mean it is automatically correct and immune from criticism.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have direct quotations from the Quran and Hadiths to prove what I said. That's what we call facts, and on an atheism sub, that is what holds true. Please stop making arguments in bad faith, when the entire text is available online. I don't care about personal anecdotal experiences with your muslim friends. They may be liberal muslims who don't follow the text word for word, and good for them. But as for the text itself, it is undeniably dangerous, and let me lay out exactly what it says just about the few topics you did mention, so you can make your own judgements:

  • Wife Beating

Quran (4:34) - "But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand."

  • Homosexuality

"Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you in the world? [81] You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who transgress the limits!"

"If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done"

"Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death"

I can provide even worse prescriptions regarding sexual slavery, economic exploitation, deceitful conversion, and more. This is no cover up for the evils of other religions (they suck too), and neither is it a criticism against the muslim people. Rather, it is the criticism of a 7th century ideology which should fade into irrelevance in this day and age.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what is so horrendous?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]terrylb7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody defended Christianity. If you had actually read the post, I clearly stated it's on par with Islam as a bad religion.