₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Annnnnnnnd, we are back again, i need to explain it all again.

I even wonder if some of these replies are addressing my post or some other post.

If u need to explain urself again then didn't do a good job explaining it the first time.
And saying u wonder if my post are addressing ur post is u trying play smart. For the record, ur explanations are clear but are not really making sense for someone who is smart (at least I have always thought u are)
But I am not surprised... This is what happens when anyone tries even slightly to play God's advocate.

I quoted ur posts, outrightly responded to some and rejected some, like when u say morality is based on ancient/theological assumptions... Pls don't insult my intelligence when u say I seem not to be replying to ur post.

Christ - let me simply address the last sentence. You accept morality by;

Learning - Learning implies that it is an already established value that you discover, isn't that bordering towardd objectivity? Lol

How? Learning does not border towards objectivity. Learning in this case is when man redefines what is right for him based on current trend or past experience...pls how has this got to with objectivity?

Experience - Experience do not distinguish between subjects, whatever conclusions you make simply is a logical jump.

In don't know the point u are trying to make here, but experience brings about learning, isnt that so?

Empathy - You are first assuming empathy is good, why?

Empathy is good in the sense that is has help us over the years reduce pain and suffering even slightly.

Feelings - I have already dismified the ascription of moral weight on feelings, you first assume feelings are either right or wrong and if you don't show why each feeling has a moral weight, any moral conclusion based on feelings is as baseless as it gets which entirely is my argument here.

Did u even read where I said feelings and emotions are what makes me hit ur hand when u touch my private part instead of when u touch my hand?... How do i feel about my genitals in relation to my object of sexual attraction?
Feeling is ONE of the factors that will help determine if an act is wrong or right.. Do I feel pity or sad when I see the victims of rape?
Just how are u not seeing my points Mr Johnny?

Secular morality makes moral conclusions without basis.

And this is what make u think saying God is the basis is a superior argument even though is cant be demonstrated, but can be seen as a mere wish? How is wishful thinking a superior argument?
And the basis for secular morality is humans... This makes more sense because it can be demonstrated and shown.

johnydon22:
Again, i am not talking about the actions but the basis.

I know this premise is new to this board that is why most people are unable to grasp it.

I will like to know the implications of this basis. Saying God is the basis of morality means nothing to me, because, no God seem to be basis for morality from what i see, humans are.

I wish arguments such as this were live arguments because it is incredibly difficult to break it down to the basics for people who are entirely new to such philosophical depth.

You are not getting the argument; A morality based on the assumption of an ultimate authority who by definition owns the system is by implication non-arbitrary because such moral laws would be as inherent to the universe as the laws of physics.

And this means that it doesn't matter what you feel about such action as long as the ultimate authority rules it wrong then it is wrong, if it rules it right then it is.

Therefore a theological standpoint on morality using God as basis argues for an objective nature of morality.

A secular basis for morality is arbitrary, it means anyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong which by implication means nothing really is right or wrong.

On such subjective moral ground; You can't really say rape is wrong or Hitler was wrong for killing jews.

Because that is just your opinion.

If you are asked why such thing as rape or murder is wrong and you say "it hurts people"

You are simply doing nothing but also giving an opinion that hurting people is wrong.

To the next person it may not be, therefore in the real sense there is no morality.

I am looking at this from what is actually obtainable in the world we live in and not just saying God is the basis yet what's happening is happening.

Yes in saying morality is subjective one cannot say rape it wrong or right but u fail to realize other conditions also apply. Its not just saying rape is wrong.... There is empathy, there is pain, there is regret, there is how the rapist will react when he himself is being raped.. A whole lot of things comes together to determine that rape is wrong not just the feeling... In all these I fail to see how God being the basis determines that rape is wrong if not just repeating words without making real meaning out of it.

There were valid assumptions or belief for moral basis to be successfully established.

Even our current criminalization of rape is based on this ancient assumption; Sex is something sacred, people's property are sacred to them - therefore stealing any of this is a violation of its sacred values.

if we do not think sex is sacred, then sex organs aren't sacred, therefore aren't any different from our hands or legs - then on what basis do we criminalize grabbing someone's sex organs but not that person's hands?

Our current criminalization of rape is not based on ancient assumptions, it is based on our feelings, empathy and learning. U can repeat that sex is sacred, but I am saying it makes no meaning it being sacred since even those who don't think its scared will react the same way to it as those who think its sacred. Its about what what always thought about sex not because sex is sacred.
And I don't think sex is sacred. That does not mean my private part is not private. My private part is not sacred.

Exactly. demonstrating that even modern moral derivations have basic roots in the fundamental beliefs of ancient theological basis. Savvy?

Give me one reason a secular guy who doesn't believe sex organs as sacred would react different when touched in the sex organ than he would when touched on his hand or head? Why would he regard the former as sexual assault and the other as not?

Because if the emotional attachment we have towards sex. Its not because sex is sacred.
There is a reason why we don't feel sex towards our mother but will have that feeling towards a girl o the next street. There is an emotional feeling involve and it makes our penis stand when we see the person. That feeling has something to do with our sexual organa hence we consider them special in a different way. Besides both have extremely different functions. Their function determines how I will react when u touch then.

You people are not even getting my arguments at all, i fully understand this dilemma. I have not argued that God is the basis for morality, my argument is; that for the theist (theologically) God is the basis therefore an argument on objectivity which derives a superior methodological basis than secular morality that either jumps into a moral conclusion or borrows the necessary theological assumptions.

And I am saying this basis is not a superior argument because it cannot be demonstrated.

As i said - classical moral conclusions without basis.

Sir please what's the basis of ur conclusion that morality was derived from ancient assumptions. Is the acceptance of gays based on ancient assumptions? Why have we done away with some ancient moral assumptions?

let me demonstrate; Killing is wrong?

This is a statement. now here are examples;

Mr A killed a rat
Mr B Killed a woman

Who do we chastise and abhor his action as morally repulsive.

mr B of course.

Why? Aren't both A and B guilty of killing?

Yes. they both are but there is a difference.

There is a fundamental belief in a value system that sets out human life from other life, this is a theological assumption, in theology based on this assumption, it is even wrong to commit suicide.

False, its not based in any theological assumption, except if u, Mr.Johnny needs theological assumption to feel sad or cry when ur loved one dies.u tend to assume that we humans are not capable of feelings. These feelings(among other things) also helps in determining what is morally wrong or right and not theological assumption.

Mr A and B both killed but this action has no moral weight, the moral weight comes with subject which is an implication of the fundamental belief ascribed to this subject.

The weight is not based on our fundamental belief but our feeling towards the subject.

This is exactly the same way rape is wrong. Mr A grabbed a hand Mr B grabbed a dick. Mr B is marked out as an offender.

they are both guilty of grabbing a body part but mr B grabbed a body part with ascribed belief of specialty

See?

We ascribe different feeling towards the body parts as humans.
How can u neglect feelings and emotions in all u are saying.

Why will someone slap my wife and I react differently when someone slaps a lady stranger? FEELING.

Again, this makes morality arbitrary, you on this note therefore cannot conclusively say hitler is wrong or a rapist is wrong because it is simply what you think.

let me categorically make this clear; I am not arguing that morality is objective, this is not my position.

My position simply is that a non-arbitrary moral value makes far more sense because an arbitrary morality is in essence meaningless.

Like I said its not just about saying Hitler was wrong, but its about explaining why I think he was wrong.

And I am telling u that a non arbitrary moral value makes not sense because it just a mere wish which cannot be demonstrated. It comes with its own problem which u seems to over look. Do u realize that theists think God asking Abraham to kill his son was moral? This is one of the problem of God basis.

1. says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling
2. says killing is right and not killing is wrong based on his subjective feelings.

Which one is correct? neither, both are based on feelings which one must first show to logically establish a moral distinction.

You are not getting it frank, because you feel this way doesn't make your feelings more correct than the other guy's feelings.

You feel rape is wrong
the other guy doesn't feel the same way.

So, who can say that rape is really wrong or right since it is simply down to what individuals feel?

It simply implies that there is no such thing as wrong or right.

Whatever you think is what is.

Saying killing is wrong depends on a lot of things... We are humans who have brain to think and make decisions. Its not just about saying killing is wrong, why do we say killing is wrong? A lot of things are considered before we say killing is wrong... How was he person killed? Why was he killed? Who killed him? Who was affected? Will the killer love to be killed? What of the loved ones of the killed?
Oga there is a reason we have brain.

How exactly does saying God says killing is wrong changes anything?

This is why something is a dilemma; changing the fundamental belief but not the conclusion.

Example; The idea that murder is wrong is from the fundamental belief that human life is sacred.

Falae, the idea that murder is wrong is because of how we feel when someone dies, who gets affected and all that. Its not because any human life is sacred.

When we change this belief on the sacredness of human life, there is entirely no basis whatsoever for we to think that killing a human is anymore wrong than killing a rat.

I don't feel for rats the way I feel for my loved ones... I can't believe this is coming from u.

For you to think this is to implicitly ascribe a form of value to human life - hence; sacredness.

So, the moral dilemma of secularity is making logical conclusions without basis without knowing that these conclusions implicitly leads back to the fundamental basis that are by definition theological.

I really don't accept this and I think enough has been said already.

Therefore, nothing is wrong.

Why did u just use wrong... Complete the statement na. U stop at wrong because u know concluding the statement will leave ur argument hanging.

And yes, nothing is right or wrong... We only look for a balance as humans. That's why what is moral changes over time.

the question is; How did we come to accept this?

How = basis.

See?

How did we come to accept this?
Leaning, experience, empathy, feelings... Etc.

vaxx:
i have not said that either. most theist has their only book as their watchword. whether it idt followed or not is another debate. and whether it is given by god or man too is another argument not partaninig to this one.


Theist justify their moral stands by what is obtainable from their holy book.

Yes they do...is this what u want to establish? What's the implication of their justification?

vaxx:
what i simply mean is, many bad people see themselves as being just like everybody else -- they often rationalizing their behavior by real or imagined insults or actions that have been levied against them. Some believe their actions are justified by their need to survive or situations beyond their control or even flr the benefit of others.

Yes there are people like this and there will always be.
That's why we have laws, policemen and that's why people who are affected are there to challenge them too or fight back.

Example , cuilt members, do what they do to maintain respect or to demonstrate loyalty to their gangs; even though they are not "bad" people per se.

What determines if their action is bad is how what they do affects people around them.

Psychopaths believe they are superior to everyone and have little or no empathy for others, human or animal.

So?

note : these are generalizations.

Ok

Theists already put this kind of lifestyle into check, by working base on the instruction giving in their holy books. whether it is written by God or human is not part of this topic.

U just described the real situation using cultists and psychopaths and still went ahead to say theists put this kind of lifestyle in check... So u even know why so much noise is made when the so called people who "put this lifestyle in check" go ahead and do immoral things? Its because it unconsciously amazes how they so called instruction of God has not helped in outing immoral act in check.

The reasons why morality is a big issue is because of difficulty in determining what is actually wrong or right, and diversity in personalities

Saying God is the basis for morality has not resolved it either.

vaxx:
No, they are the protagonist of their story, why would they consider themselves wicked? for example: Hitler definitively thought he was the good guy. Hitler thought he was saving Germany and truly thought that the Jewish population was a detriment along with all non-German races. He just decided to target them first. He was extremely nationalistic, and thought the German people deserved the land.

If Hitler killed a lot of people and thought he was doing good, just what do u want to do about that?
Do u want to use God as basis for morality to undo what he did...

I mean, isn't his kind of ideology the reasons why we have wars and law?

I really don't know what u are getting at. The existence of people like Hitler is the reason why saying God is the basis for morality makes no sense.

johnydon22:
Is this a basis that something wrong?

Determining if something is wrong or right depends on a lot of things. But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong.

You are just making a moral conclusion that 'not rejoicings over an action' makes it wrong.

No that's not my position.
Is this Johnny talking or someone else. Pls check if ur account has been hacked.
Not rejoicing over and action? U mean u think what i am saying is that not rejoicing over rape is the same as not rejoicing over a man eating chicken? I think u are too smart for this kind of conclusion.

Pls come back home... Don't quote me out of context... We are talking about rape (which he puts forth an argument that it's good) and I asked him a simple question to allow him think of how he would feel if his child is raped. I want to know if his empathic self is still in check. He should have answered the question directly na
But let me ask u do u think it makes sense for theists to see rape as wrong because sex is sacred?
I think rape is wrong because of how it affects the people involved (the victim and his loved ones, even the who carried out the act

How did you get to this conclusion?

I didn't get into any conclusion, how did u see that as conclusion?

See? Example 1 of the implications of fundamental basis for moral conclusions.

Like I said, I will not deny that the fundamental basis for moral conclusion has many implications

johnydon22:
God.


Let's put it this way; The fundamental assumption fot theological basis for morality is - God exists.

U and I know this makes no sense. We have seen same theists use the word God (as their basis for moral action) to do evil thing that even those who do not believe in God see as immoral. In that situation how has God being the basis for morality helped?

Therefore here are the logical steps.

The owner of any system determines what governs such systems.

Based on the assumption of God existing which is fundamental to theology.

1. God exists
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Therefore God owns the system
4. Any thing God considers sacred is fundamental to the universe like the laws of physics.
5. Therefore any moral basis on this principle is objective.

Ok

So, the only way to attack this argument is to argue that God doesn't exist, but one cannot deny in any way the sound logical link in that argument based on the fundamental assumption of no.1.

Even if God exists, he has not been shown to be basis for morality. Theists say it just like they are used to saying a lot of meaningless things. They use God to fill in the Gaps when they don't want to think deep. Like if God exists and is the basis for morality, why is it dynamic? Why is it still determined by the society and why does it change over time. Dies this not mean that God is actually not the basis for morality but humans with empathy?

Second basis: Fundametal belief in a non-arbitrary value system.
Belief such as; Sex is sacred, Human life is sacred etc.

Have u ever even dug into the history of how some theists came about to think sex is sacred?
All these where laws that came from the natural way humans feel about these things.
Theists saying sex or human is sacred does not stop the secular human from attributing same feeling towards sex and human life. These are just labels, but the human feelings towards these things is what matters and u can easily see that both the theists who sees sex as sacred and the secular guy who does not see it as sacred will react the same way if someone (for instance) touches their private part.
This on its on destroys the assumption that God is the basis for morality. This means the basis for morality is human empathy not God.

Secular morality on the hand operates on two principles.

1. Borrow a primary foundation from a theological basis (which most human law practise)

No, they didnt borrow anything from any theological basis. They learned it and use empathy which they are born with.

2. Or simply make a moral conclusion based on what you feel is ok without deriving a fundamental assumption that injects distinction between subjects. (Most atheistic arguments on morality operates on this one even though one can still ultimately link this to 1)

Judging morality on what we think is OK is the same thing that has led humans, both theists and atheists, this far. Theists just deny this truth because of the need to believe in a higher cause, but everything is staring at us right their in our faces.

The idea that morality is individually subjective is a secular idea which ultimately means morality doesn't really exist

How so?
If an atheists says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling, how then does this show that not killing is not moral?

Which then puts us in a moral dilemma cus on that note, nothing truly can be wrong.

Moral dilemma is real and not just an idea. Isn't this why what is good or bad changes over time and is even different in different location?
Saying God is the basis for Morality hand not eliminated this dilemma.
The fact is the, nothing truely can be wrong or right. It is determined by environment, situation, and time.
Yes, to an extent, humans have come to accept some things to be right and wrong, its all about us and not God.

vaxx:
You forget emphaty is what devilish individual lack. As long as you are evil, everything wicked or satanic become a thing of joy. what if i derive joy in it.

It does not matter. We do not live in an isolation. Actions are judged by us and others. That's why people make mistakes and are corrected. That's why learning exist.
Every human has the capability of judging his action based on how it affects him and others. Enjoying a wicked act does not mean the individual does not know its wrong.

johnydon22:
I am not sure you people know the arguments you engage in. Nobody said anything about any actions being attributed to God that an atheist cannot perform.

The argument is on moral basis not moral action.

Religious moral basis are less arbitrary and logically sound than secular morality.




Again Moral basis is the argument.

I have no idea what the hell you are on about.

Let me demonstrate: Is rape wrong?

Why?

Pls what is the basis of morality for theists, how does this basis makes it better that what the atheists are proposing?

vaxx:
ok let me play the devil adovocate. rape is good. can you argue it out?

How many rape victims have u seen rejoicing after being raped?

Or will u throw a party if anyone rapes ur daugther?

This thread is an embarrassment to Nigeria... This is plain sad.

Op pls help my situation by telling me u are not educated, if not I might cry the whole day

Even Jesus wept for ur case

millionboi2:
don't underrate anybody at anytime.


Life is deep... anything can happen anytime

Of course...isn't that what the op is saying?

U needn't repeat it though.

OladimejiRufai:
God bless you

Woh! Ur balls will not go missing

See, they will not use your pant this year

Look, ur penis will not multiply by 3 before d year runs out

U are fvcking amazing! Well said!

Nd I was even seeing people blaming one guy who rejected someone's card because he was supposedly an important figure

As if the guy's life depends on that man.. as if he cannot make it without him

Nonsense! Some people and exaggerating undue matters or things.. poor mentality

Again I pray for u... You will always last longer than 15 mins in bed... Ur wife will be yours forever and wont see the need to look elsewhere

Lol, our desire is to meet people that are capable of adding value in our lives...that's why the op said never underrate someone u meet for the first time.

Even if he was a poor guy, don't underrate him because u never can tell. I think u misunderstand his point.

It's also nice to recognise ams respect people who are doing better then u when u see them... I mean, isn't that what we all want? To be recognised and respected?

millionboi2:
datz wat d whole story entails oga

No, I didn't see it like that... He said "why u should never underrate someone u meet for the first time"

He didn't say"why we should be loyal to wealthy people "

I think u misunderstood his point. Kindly read the op again, this time carefully, and observe how he almost underrated a guy he just met even without knowing his true status

Gats share mine na

Few years ago, I was just living life, earning 150k a month and feeling cool. Someone added me to my secondary school WhatsApp group (we had left school a long time ago, above ten years ago) and I noticed a name I used to be familiar with in boarding school. This guy left when we where on ss1.

Someone challenged him for being in the group because he didn't recognize him (the challenger was a day student) so I came in a defended the guy whose name I recognized.

Because of this, the guy picked up my number and called me, he recognized me too. We casually talked and he said he was in Ghana and would hala me whenever he comes to naija.

The day he called me, and told me he was in a not so expensive hotel, I put 10k in my pocket, saying to myself, "at least we will hangout and I can buy us nothing less than 4 bottles each with enough suya."

I got there and this guy was waiting for me at the hotel gate. He wanted to go check his site where he was building a massive rental apartment after sandfilling it with almost 5million.

We got back to the hotel and his loyalist begin to troop into the hotel. I was just looking. It was a nice get together and I realized this my former boarding house mate was now a massive importer, he was doing fuuxxking well. I put my 10k aside and packaged myself.

Today we are good friends, he made my wedding a memorable one with his friends because he introduced me to most of his rich friends who are now my friends. knowing him changed my life and my dreams. Today, he is one of the best things that happened to me.

toboy:
Nice! But this poster's ideology is entirely flawed. You don't need to meet a wealthy person before you realise you need not underrate people when you meet them the first time. Your loyalty changed because you realized this person was a dignitary. You shouldn't underrate people nomatter who they are. Judging from the your attitude in your story, if it was someone not so well-off, you would have totally snubbed the person. An ordinary person today can become a doctor, a governor, lawyer, or even stand-by person that can impact your life positively tomorrow. I don't know why some people think only wealthy people if worth their attention. Very stupid and short-sighted!

U said the poster's ideology is flawed and ended up repeating what he meant in his post topic.

Just where did he imply that u should only be loyal to wealthy people. Hope u are not reading from the back of ur head sha

HappyPagan:
If only this knowledge could power a bulb, the vacuum in your head would be a bit brighter.

Originakalokalo:
Are you wicked?

Do you fall under the categories of the wicked ones I listed?

If you are,

Then die first. Then, you will know that there is really no peace for the wicked.

pls answer my question, i have no time for meaningless rantings

SEGLIZ:
have you died before to know they're resting in peace?

no... i have not died before.

so answer, have u died before to know they are not resting in peace?

you wish...

have u died before to know they are not resting in peace?

Wow, wasnt it this same guy that was my sug president that year? Remember he was expelled that year, for leading a demonstration.

Congrats

Omooba77:
If you were to die today, will you make heaven?

Yes...

jesusjnr:
Correction!

Yahweh has already finished the work in the respect of "two atheist down", for it's been confirmed that it's indeed two atheist down.

So I have been right all along and a i said even in the midst of the confusion, nothing spoil, but now been established as thus.

The end of atheism is indeed nigh!

My advise, don't even be so sure of the other 1, the lady, she does not sound convincing. I know u Christians are gullible, but remove the bible from ur head and put the brain in, and u will see her thread of dumping atheism was put up to please u and she has not story to tell.

hahn:
Accept my challenge and I will accept Jesus after the miracle. Deal?

Twill not work like that na... U must accept Jesus by blind faith. Just believe with no prove. Believe in ur mind that Jesus died for ur sins and created hell in case u don't accept him and this is perfect love.

budaatum:
Yahweh has absolutely nothing to do with anything, Frank! It was Jesus who got buda, and not Yahweh, and that, after careful consideration of what he taught. The pity is that some seem to be treating it like an election between candidates symbolised by this rather stupid thread! The idea that Jesus would like the division of us and them that some Christians seem to think is acceptable just makes me want to run from them since it's one of those sins buda would burn in the hottest part of hell for if committed! Or did Jesus the Lord of blessed peacemakers promote division somewhere and I've missed it?!

In my opinion, any atheist or theist who does not see anything worthwhile in Jesus might as well claim stupidity since they would see no merit in the less important tales of the tortoise and the hare, or the equally important Socrates and Mohammed, neither.

But according to Christians... Jesus is God or better put, Jesus is Yahweh.

In my own opinion, u are very far from where jesusjnr thought u were.

budaatum:
Would love to say, buda, but finding I'd have to say 1½ at best instead of two as I'm finding some things impossible to convert to.

Jesusjnr your God has not completed his work on Buda... Yahweh needs to work harder

CAPSLOCKED:
PRAISING AND THANKING GOD AFTER A TRAGEDY IS LIKE CALLING TO THANK ARMED ROBBERS FOR ROBBING AND KILLING ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT SPARED YOU.

was in public transport a few weeks ago and the driver was praising a man who lost his wife and kid in an accident and gave a testimony on how God spared his life... u need to hear on lady's response saying the man was bold becasue God giveth and God taketh and God asked that we should give thanks in everythin... i just held my self from slapping sense into her

MathsEconomics:
So, one or two persons on Nairaland(possibly fake accounts) made a post renouncing Atheism and you came to this conclusion?

Hope you're aware that in most advanced countries 40-90% of its citizens are Atheists?( Sweden is a good example here).

Even the renouncements are fake, baseless and unmotivated.

This is how they give foolish testimonies in their churches and u will begin to ask 'what the heck '

"Praise the Lord my brothers and sisters. I was coming from jos to abuja and our car had an accident, three passengers died and I only broke my arms and legs, praise God for saving me. And the gullible sheeples will shout Amen.

They make their so called Almighty God look petty and childish.

Don't be surprised Jesusjr would have given testimony in his church about how he cured two people of atheism on a public forum.

And we have more then 20 people who have denounced Christianity for atheism's, yet its normal, u don't see atheists shouting all over the place.

This exactly gives u a description of how their brain looks like.

LordReed:
This is how stupid you turned out to be, instead of proving proof to counter my response you go on a stupid rant. You are both foolish and stupid.

Lol... I think the guy does not have a brain, na only foam full there.

OpenYourEyes1:
God has planned this all along to teach humans the importance of obedience and loyalty.
In the end he will reward & choose millions of humans who will be totally loyal to him.



Adam and Eve failed a very simple test

Why will God test them when he had already planned that they should fail

paxonel:
if you are truly serious with all these your claims about christianity, you would have disproved the evidence presented by the op on this thread.

Since you didnt mention anything about the evidence presented by the op, go and rest till you made up your mind to do so

Sorry, maybe I missed it, I have read ur op over and over again and I see no single evidence u presented.

paxonel:
good for them

Good for them? Shouldn't u be repenting for being in the wrong religion?
Well, good for u too for being a Christian, which I think is wrong a deceitful.

But we all know what is good by their fruits and positive contribution to humanity.

I have seen good and bad fruits in a religion and even in non religious people. How u claim monopoly of good deed is surprising. Ur God drowned people... What's good about that?

To be a christian is as simple as just believing in christ in your heart thats all.
But there are series of complications and rituals you must perform to show that you are truly adherents of the other religions, some of which may involve killing and pesecution of what they call infidels.
Trust me, only fake gods commands people to be ritualistic this modern day

Christianity has its rituals too... Fast, vigil, anointing oil, repeat prayer over and over again. Not a Muslims believe in killing or anyone, they will tell u its a misunderstanding of their holy book