Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sam Harris vs Ben Affleck on Islam

Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 3:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Real time has been on the warpath in response to the catastrophes in the Middle East. And what better way can you find to tackle these issues than to invite none other tha n the following:
Sam Harris - famous neuroscientist and one of the four horsemen of atheism,
Nicholas Kristof - celebrated journalist who took a hardline on the war on Iraq,
Michael Steele - political analyst and sophisticated black gentleman and Ben Affleck, for some reason. We have in other words the archetype of pick and mix on the real time show.

So the clip in question, which I'm certain many of you have seen, contains high amounts of douchebaggery so viewer discretion is adviced:

https://www.youtube.com...

Question time!
1. how do you feel about Ben Affleck hyperventilating over an issue he clearly doesn't understand? Do you think Affleck is right?
2. How do you feel about the fact that Harris remaining calm and polite?
3. How do you feel about the fact that Sam clearly painted up a picture of nuances where he really went out of his way to discriminate between different forms of muslims, to which Affleck responded 'you are painting them all with the same brush!!!!!!' clearly ignoring the arguments and at the same time adding a bunch of boogyman racist accusations?
4. How do you think the other participants held up? Would this have been an interesting discussion if Sam got to talk to Nick and black man instead?
5. Do you notice any parallells between this discussion and the discussions we have on this forum?

You don't have to answer these questions, they are just issues to ponder over if you can't think of a good response. Have a good day.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:31:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dear,
I am not well in english,especially understanding of speaking; I can't anything when speak English. But I understand reading more or less.
I saw on TV in my coutry (in Turkıye), but not completely broadcasted.
I think that the USA's occupation on Iraq was just an unfairly ploy! As if The USA Government (George Bush) did not know that Iraq had not nuclear weapons.
And as a result, hundred of thousands of people has been killed for nothing.

As for the real time show, I think Ben Affleck is right, and I think that muslims are tried to introduce terrorists by misinforming of media.

You can see the same thing in Israel.
Israel occupied Palestine since 1948 and slaugters Palestanians.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:43:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Smh. Could only face palm.
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:16:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 3:40:25 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
Real time has been on the warpath in response to the catastrophes in the Middle East. And what better way can you find to tackle these issues than to invite none other tha n the following:
Sam Harris - famous neuroscientist and one of the four horsemen of atheism,
Nicholas Kristof - celebrated journalist who took a hardline on the war on Iraq,
Michael Steele - political analyst and sophisticated black gentleman and Ben Affleck, for some reason. We have in other words the archetype of pick and mix on the real time show.

So the clip in question, which I'm certain many of you have seen, contains high amounts of douchebaggery so viewer discretion is adviced:

https://www.youtube.com...

Question time!
1. how do you feel about Ben Affleck hyperventilating over an issue he clearly doesn't understand? Do you think Affleck is right?

Ben Affleck behaved like a spoiled child, and conveyed absolutely nothing of value that had any merit. The Islamic faith is just like any other faith, and has zero rationality behind it. However, it is far more inherently violent and bloody. The groundwork and framework for violence and blood thirst are laid out within the very core of their "sacred" manuscripts, and this is something that Ben doesn't seem to understand. He just wanted to champion a cause. Unfortunately, he doesn't fully understand what he is championing, and would be hard pressed to define it, himself. Further, he fails to comprehend that the very faith that whose "rights" he is championing condemns him, if he does not convert. Further, the extremists among that religion would take his life (likely by beheading) just as easily as any other they have taken thus far.

2. How do you feel about the fact that Harris remaining calm and polite?

Sam is always soft-spoken, calm, and polite. He is a true intellectual.

3. How do you feel about the fact that Sam clearly painted up a picture of nuances where he really went out of his way to discriminate between different forms of muslims, to which Affleck responded 'you are painting them all with the same brush!!!!!!' clearly ignoring the arguments and at the same time adding a bunch of boogyman racist accusations?

Again, Affleck's PERCEPTION is something that has been formed in haste, and he seems to refuse to examine what he is accusing Harris of saying. Affleck, again, is a spoiled child.

4. How do you think the other participants held up? Would this have been an interesting discussion if Sam got to talk to Nick and black man instead?

This came down, essentially, to Harris attempting to put forth valid information, Affleck trying to make his point by being loud and impolitely and perpetually interrupting, Bill trying to moderate and get Ben to fully understand something, and the other two contributing as best they could between emotional outbursts from the spoiled child, Affleck.

5. Do you notice any parallells between this discussion and the discussions we have on this forum?

Yes. Many.

You don't have to answer these questions, they are just issues to ponder over if you can't think of a good response. Have a good day.

In short, Harris has been trying to make people understand the inherent evil produced by militant theism, for years. This is not exclusive to the Islamic faith, but their violence is certainly the most prolific, and they are quite willing to kill any dissenter, irrespective of faith. They are an armed and murderous version of the WBC.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:23:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:43:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Smh. Could only face palm.
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

How many rapes happen in Islamic countries? How many go unreported because the woman is afraid of punishment for having been raped? How many rapes occur because Islamic men consider their wives to be "property," and aren't required to respect a woman's wishes? How many statutory rapes happen as 9, 10, 11, 12.... year old girls are SOLD into marriage. Religion is not a magic blanket that erases the criminality of these facts from your precious Islamic believers. Child rape is still child rape, even if you cover it with the guise of "marriage."

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
Islam IS a theocracy, in many Middle and Far Eastern countries. The religion is in control of much of the politics, over there, and much of the political violence is, indeed, rooted in a very pernicious religion.

In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 10:23:53 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:43:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Smh. Could only face palm.
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

How many rapes happen in Islamic countries? How many go unreported because the woman is afraid of punishment for having been raped? How many rapes occur because Islamic men consider their wives to be "property," and aren't required to respect a woman's wishes? How many statutory rapes happen as 9, 10, 11, 12.... year old girls are SOLD into marriage. Religion is not a magic blanket that erases the criminality of these facts from your precious Islamic believers. Child rape is still child rape, even if you cover it with the guise of "marriage."

Islamic law have many components working together, in other words: We don't have alcohol promoted all over the place, and then punish someone for killing or raping while drunk *rolls eyes*. Hence, rape is extremely rare.

People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. (Quran 30:21)
"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.

If a merciless father wants to sell his daughter, then the Islamic solutions are:
1- The mother, uncle, or aunt tries to convince the father that it is wrong.
2- Have an Imam or a relative or a friend try to convince the father that it is wrong.
3- File an official complaint to a judge for the whole ordeal to get cancelled.
4- If the worst happen, then it is a trial for the girl, and a divorce based on harm can be made and the daughter will be compensated.

Narrated Khansa bint Khidam Al-Ansariya:
that her father gave her in marriage when she was a matron and she disliked that marriage. So she went to Allah's Messenger (PBUH) and he declared that marriage invalid.
-Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 69

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) said that Allah's Messenger (PBUH) prohibited Shighar which means that a man gives his daughter in marriage on the condition that the other gives his daughter to him in marriage with- out any dower being paid by either. -Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3295

Islam acknowledges the diversity of cultures:

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. (Quran 49:13)

However, if it is likely to cause harm in a culture, then it is to be prevented:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
"There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm."
-Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 13, Hadith 2341

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
Islam IS a theocracy, in many Middle and Far Eastern countries. The religion is in control of much of the politics, over there, and much of the political violence is, indeed, rooted in a very pernicious religion.

1- It is based on a written and open constitution available for all to see: The Quran and Sunnah.

2- It doesn't force people of other religions to enter it.

3- It provides non-Muslims either the same rights of a secular state or more.

You will object to the final point; "Secular states theoretically equalizes between citizens! They can become presidents while in Islam you need to be a Muslim to be so.". Well, secularism requires the leader to be a secularist. Theoretically, it doesn't matter if he is a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... as long as his religion is compatible with secularism; ie. his religion is only private, however he is required to follow the constitution and secular laws, this naturally mean that their public morality must be based on either consequentialism or nihilism. Since Islam doesn't make that distinguishment, it is natural that the head of the country have to be a Muslim.

So he began [the search] with their bags before the bag of his brother; then he extracted it from the bag of his brother. Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. We raise in degrees whom We will, but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing. (Quran 12:76)

As you can see, religion with it's broad Arabic meaning can be synonym with "Method of life" or "Law".

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
Islamic states requires it's leaders to publicly be Muslims and publicly embrace Muslim morality.

That is all there is to it.A279;

http://www.loonwatch.com...
http://www.loonwatch.com...

In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.

Sam Harris's mind is sacred and an object of awe and worship! Forgive me for questioning it!
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:30:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:23:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:


Islamic law have many components working together, in other words: We don't have alcohol promoted all over the place, and then punish someone for killing or raping while drunk *rolls eyes*. Hence, rape is extremely rare.

Actually, sexual violence is extremely common. Do you hate your own people so much you are willing to ignore the suffering just to stick it to the western man? Are you saying it's wrong to prosecute murderers who happened to be drunk?


People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

Actually they are, very often.

And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. (Quran 30:21)
"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.


Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.

Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:23:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

How many rapes happen in Islamic countries? How many go unreported because the woman is afraid of punishment for having been raped? How many rapes occur because Islamic men consider their wives to be "property," and aren't required to respect a woman's wishes? How many statutory rapes happen as 9, 10, 11, 12.... year old girls are SOLD into marriage. Religion is not a magic blanket that erases the criminality of these facts from your precious Islamic believers. Child rape is still child rape, even if you cover it with the guise of "marriage."

Islamic law have many components working together, in other words: We don't have alcohol promoted all over the place, and then punish someone for killing or raping while drunk *rolls eyes*. Hence, rape is extremely rare.

REPORTED rape is extremely rare. I have female friends that have immigrated here, from islamic countries. Rape is NOT rare. It's just not always considered "rape," in accordance with RELIGIOUS law.

People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

So the reports of the woman who was to be stoned to death for not crying loudly enough were all false, then?

"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Yes, property, and yes, don't respect their wishes. Women actually FEAR their husbands and fathers. You can quote the qur'an all you want, the same way christians quote the bible. It doesn't mean it will be practiced in the same manner that the flowery "holy words are stated. I'm talking implementation vs. theory.
Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.

If a merciless father wants to sell his daughter, then the Islamic solutions are:
1- The mother, uncle, or aunt tries to convince the father that it is wrong.
2- Have an Imam or a relative or a friend try to convince the father that it is wrong.
3- File an official complaint to a judge for the whole ordeal to get cancelled.
4- If the worst happen, then it is a trial for the girl, and a divorce based on harm can be made and the daughter will be compensated.

This is all very cute. At the same time, the father STILL has the legal right to SELL his daughter. The daughter has to endure not only the act of marrying the guy, whatever she suffers at his hands during the marriage, and a court appearance in order to END a "marriage" that should NEVER have been FORCED upon her, in the first place. Until then, she is treated like PROPERTY. Fluff up islamic rule all you want. It's still barbaric, misogynistic, and violent.

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) said that Allah's Messenger (PBUH) prohibited Shighar which means that a man gives his daughter in marriage on the condition that the other gives his daughter to him in marriage with- out any dower being paid by either. -Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3295

GIVES his daughter in marriage. It is the father's choice, in your world. No father should EVER choose a woman's husband. Marriage is between two people that love each other and WANT to be married. This is a barbaric, centuries outdated practice that should not be conducted.

Islam acknowledges the diversity of cultures:

I don't care anything about what you believe that islam acknowledges, or your "holy" scriptures any more than christian "holy" scriptures. What the book says and what people do never match.

However, if it is likely to cause harm in a culture, then it is to be prevented:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
"There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm."
-Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 13, Hadith 2341

The operative word, in that quoted (based on your explanation) is "should." There IS, however, both harming and reciprocating of harm, throughout the islamic world. Also from the islamic cultures to other cultures, as well.

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
Islam IS a theocracy, in many Middle and Far Eastern countries. The religion is in control of much of the politics, over there, and much of the political violence is, indeed, rooted in a very pernicious religion.

1- It is based on a written and open constitution available for all to see: The Quran and Sunnah.

It doesn't matter how "open" the constitution is... It is still based on the qur'an and sunnah. These are RELIGIOUS documents. Your governments are codified political implementations of your religion...

2- It doesn't force people of other religions to enter it.

No, but it does force those born in the religion to stay, upon threat of execution for "apostasy," doesn't it?

3- It provides non-Muslims either the same rights of a secular state or more.

Patently false. While I am fully aware of the fact that groups such as al-qaeda and isis are not representative of the religion of islam (any more than the WBC is representative of christianity), only religion can engender the type of zealotry and the bigotry based upon it that can give rise to this type of sustained hatred and violence. You have never seen calls to mass murder in the name of atheism. Pol Pott, Stalin, etc. were not killing people for not disbelieving in a gawd. They were killing people in order to rule by fear. It is no different from the catholic church's implementation of the inquisitions. The church use "divine authority" and an excuse to rain terror down on people over whom they had power, Pol Pott used military might. Both were HUMAN decisions, enacted by HUMAN beings. There has never been a truly secular government, to which this comparison can be made.

End part 1 of 2
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:22:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You will object to the final point; "Secular states theoretically equalizes between citizens! They can become presidents while in Islam you need to be a Muslim to be so.". Well, secularism requires the leader to be a secularist. Theoretically, it doesn't matter if he is a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... as long as his religion is compatible with secularism; ie. his religion is only private, however he is required to follow the constitution and secular laws, this naturally mean that their public morality must be based on either consequentialism or nihilism. Since Islam doesn't make that distinguishment, it is natural that the head of the country have to be a Muslim.

The fact that a religious alignment is REQUIRED in order to be a political leader proves that it is a theocracy, in charge of a political government of humans. There is no "secularist" requirement of any government of which I am aware. In the US, the government simply states that the church and state are separate. This is still largely ignored, since christians have been in control of the government, for ages. The US is simply less honest and more underhanded about their political submission to christianity than most muslim states. The fact that secular unbelievers do not attach "morality" to certain behaviors to which religions do does not mean that this makes a religious requirement for public office or leadership proper. Requiring leaders to be muslim is simply evidence that islamic countries are actually under theocracies. Period.

So he began [the search] with their bags before the bag of his brother; then he extracted it from the bag of his brother. Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. We raise in degrees whom We will, but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing. (Quran 12:76)

As you can see, religion with it's broad Arabic meaning can be synonym with "Method of life" or "Law".

That "law" can be tied to one single truth: "Law" is the legislation of morality. It is the foundation of a moral code that determines the legitimacy of such morality. Reason is the ONLY valid basis for a moral code. All religious bases are twisted and corrupt, from the start.

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
Islamic states requires it's leaders to publicly be Muslims and publicly embrace Muslim morality.
True.

That is all there is to it.A279;

http://www.loonwatch.com...
http://www.loonwatch.com...

What do these links have to do with anything? Did you think I was fool enough to trust the US government? Did you think I'm a brainless buffoon that gives ANY credence to what the media pumps out? I can say with a fair measure of certainty that the majority of politicians and "leaders" in the US are corrupt, untrustworthy, subversive degenerates worthy of zero respect.

In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.

Sam Harris's mind is sacred and an object of awe and worship! Forgive me for questioning it!

Well, your overdone sarcasm aside, I don't hold Sam Harris as "sacred," in any way. Certainly not to the degree to which you hold sacred the writings of that pedophile prophet of yours... I happen to agree with Sam, on nearly everything on which I have ever heard him speak. The difference, however, is that I arrived at my conclusions independently of Sam, and would openly contradict anything he ever said, with which I disagreed. Can you say the same for the "prophet," in any respect? No.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:30:53 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:23:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:


Islamic law have many components working together, in other words: We don't have alcohol promoted all over the place, and then punish someone for killing or raping while drunk *rolls eyes*. Hence, rape is extremely rare.

Actually, sexual violence is extremely common. Do you hate your own people so much you are willing to ignore the suffering just to stick it to the western man? Are you saying it's wrong to prosecute murderers who happened to be drunk?

Numbers? Statistics? Inform me of what you find.
Your loaded question is cute.
What I am saying that it is contradictory. Prevention is better than cure.

People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

Actually they are, very often.

Actually they are not. Guess sources will judge?
And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. (Quran 30:21)
"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. (Quran 17:70)



Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.


Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.

Abu Umama Al-Bahily (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a young man came to the Prophet and said:
'O Messenger of Allah, give me a permission of Zina.'
The Companions turned to him and started rebuking him. The Prophet said: "Come closer."
When the young man drew nearer to the Prophet and sat down, the Prophet asked him: "Would you like it for your mother?"
The man answered; No, by Allah. May Allah make me a protection for you!
The Prophet commented, "People also do not like it for their mothers." The Prophet added, "Would you like it for your daughter?"
Again, the young man answered negatively. So, the Prophet said, "People too would not love it for their daughters"
Further, the Prophet asked, "Would you like it for your sister?" The Prophet received the same answer and made the same comment. The Prophet went on asking about the man's paternal and maternal aunts. The young man's answer was the same and the Prophet repeated the same comment, "People do not like that for their aunts."
The Prophet then placed his hand on the young man and prayed for him, "O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and protect his chastity."
Abu Umamah, the narrator of the hadith, said that the young man did not pay heed to any temptation thereafter.
-Musnad Ahmed, 21708

Sternness doesn't refute fairness. I just provided hadiths that forcing is not allowed.
And whose house is from glass shouldn't throw rocks.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:46:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:22:07 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:23:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Islamic law have many components working together, in other words: We don't have alcohol promoted all over the place, and then punish someone for killing or raping while drunk *rolls eyes*. Hence, rape is extremely rare.

REPORTED rape is extremely rare. I have female friends that have immigrated here, from islamic countries. Rape is NOT rare. It's just not always considered "rape," in accordance with RELIGIOUS law.

Hence Islam reduces the chance of rape to ever happen.
Can you be specific on what is not considered rape?

People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

So the reports of the woman who was to be stoned to death for not crying loudly enough were all false, then?

Does this report relate to Islam? If so, then link it please.

"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Yes, property, and yes, don't respect their wishes. Women actually FEAR their husbands and fathers. You can quote the qur'an all you want, the same way christians quote the bible. It doesn't mean it will be practiced in the same manner that the flowery "holy words are stated. I'm talking implementation vs. theory.
"Oh! It is not necessarily practiced" *facepalm*
The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. (Quran 9:71)

Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.

If a merciless father wants to sell dhis aughter, then the Islamic solutions are:
3- File an official complaint to a judge for the whole ordeal to get cancelled.
4- If the worst happen, then it is a trial for the girl, and a divorce based on harm can be made and the daughter will be compensated.

This is all very cute. At the same time, the father STILL has the legal right to SELL his daughter. The daughter has to endure not only the act of marrying the guy, whatever she suffers at his hands during the marriage, and a court appearance in order to END a "marriage" that should NEVER have been FORCED upon her, in the first place. Until then, she is treated like PROPERTY. Fluff up islamic rule all you want. It's still barbaric, misogynistic, and violent.
Did you read anything? If it is legal Islamicly, then how can they complain to the judge so he can get it cancelled?
What you are complaining against are cultural practices that disregard or ignorant of Islamic law, not Islamic law.

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) said that Allah's Messenger (PBUH) prohibited Shighar which means that a man gives his daughter in marriage on the condition that the other gives his daughter to him in marriage with- out any dower being paid by either. -Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3295

GIVES his daughter in marriage. It is the father's choice, in your world. No father should EVER choose a woman's husband. Marriage is between two people that love each other and WANT to be married. This is a barbaric, centuries outdated practice that should not be conducted.

First of all that is prohibited as the hadith says. Second of all, it is more like recommend in some culture's world.
If marriage is about declaring love, then what is the point of marriage? Do you need a written contract to state that you love someone? Do you need a license to state that you love someone?
Islam acknowledges the diversity of cultures:

I don't care anything about what you believe that islam acknowledges, or your "holy" scriptures any more than christian "holy" scriptures. What the book says and what people do never match.
Why? Do people never follow the book? Is it impossible to follow the book?
Explain and provide reasoning.

However, if it is likely to cause harm in a culture, then it is to be prevented:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
"There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm."
-Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 13, Hadith 2341

The operative word, in that quoted (based on your explanation) is "should." There IS, however, both harming and reciprocating of harm, throughout the islamic world. Also from the islamic cultures to other cultures, as well.

http://islam.uga.edu...

It seems that your morality is based on Consequentalism (The currently more popular morality for secularist, the alternative is Nihilism). Specifically, your utilitarianism seems to be negative (based on harm), let me make a mental exercise to this morality:
- Do you believe that it is moral for a person to cheat on his/her spouse with his/her boss as long as the spouse never finds out?
- Do you consider reading a trashy romance novel (Twilight) rather than helping the poor causes harm?
- If you see a jaywalker (listening to music while busy with smartphone) is walking absent-mindedly, and an SUV is advancing to where he is walking, are you going to stop him?
-If you have a WMD that is going to eliminate human life in a split second painlessly, is it moral to use it, since it is going to prevent future harm?
- Can it be argued that the best healthcare system in the world is one that euthanizes ASAP?

1- It is based on a written and open constitution available for all to see: The Quran and Sunnah.

It doesn't matter how "open" the constitution is... It is still based on the qur'an and sunnah. These are RELIGIOUS documents. Your governments are codified political implementations of your religion...

So? Your constitution is based on something.

2- It doesn't force people of other religions to enter it.

No, but it does force those born in the religion to stay, upon threat of execution for "apostasy," doesn't it?

It simply does not acknowledge someone getting out of it. If it does, then there is no right to not acknowledge who get out from some of the religion; ie. believing that drinking and gambling are OK for Muslims. Just like you can't acknowledge someone who believes in some part of the constitution while ignoring others.

3- It provides non-Muslims either the same rights of a secular state or more.

Patently false. While I am fully aware of the fact that groups such as al-qaeda and isis are not representative of the religion of islam (any more than the WBC is representative of christianity), only religion can engender the type of zealotry and the bigotry based upon it that can give rise to this type of sustained hatred and violence. You have never seen calls to mass murder in the name of atheism. Pol Pott, Stalin, etc. were not killing people for not disbelieving in a gawd. They were killing people in order to rule by fear. It is no different from the catholic church's implementation of the inquisitions. The church use "divine authority" and an excuse to rain terror down on people over whom they had power, Pol Pott used military might. Both were HUMAN decisions, enacted by HUMAN beings. There has never been a truly secular government, to which this comparison can be made.

So communism did not prosecute and try to eradicate other religions? Colonists and imper
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 7:44:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:43:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Smh. Could only face palm.
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

The problem with that analogy is that these stated U.S "10,000 murderers and 80,000 rapists" are not acting on religious belief and/or doctrine. To make reference to such an an irrelevant topic is to deviate from the issue of Islamic terrorism.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:46:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:22:07 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
REPORTED rape is extremely rare. I have female friends that have immigrated here, from islamic countries. Rape is NOT rare. It's just not always considered "rape," in accordance with RELIGIOUS law.

Hence Islam reduces the chance of rape to ever happen.
Can you be specific on what is not considered rape?

Changing the definition of rape in one country does not mean it is not rape in others.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:16:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:46:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Numbers? Statistics? Inform me of what you find.
Your loaded question is cute.
What I am saying that it is contradictory. Prevention is better than cure.

Just like TF has been trying to argue, the reliable police report statistics for sex offenders in any country where women enjoy a status between lifestock and slavery, reports of sexcrimes is never going to be reliable. Which is why the western world, where sex offenses are taken extremely serious, have much higher rates of report.

Partially because women who do report these crimes run the risk of being excluded from their families(shame), beaten ( and raped a second time ) by police officers who are unpleased with them f*cking around with their statistics. And also the fact that the concept of marital rape simply do not exist outside of the western world.

You can say that this is just culture or whatever. Well, it happens in every single muslim country from Morocco to Indonesia. It happens in muslim communities in the west. Where it doesn't occure to the same degree, it is not because there is so much more theocracy there, it is the exact oposite, it is because the country is more secular.

Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. (Quran 17:70)


That has nothing to do with human rights either.



Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.


Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.

Abu Umama Al-Bahily (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a young man came to the Prophet and said:
'O Messenger of Allah, give me a permission of Zina.'
The Companions turned to him and started rebuking him. The Prophet said: "Come closer."
When the young man drew nearer to the Prophet and sat down, the Prophet asked him: "Would you like it for your mother?"
The man answered; No, by Allah. May Allah make me a protection for you!
The Prophet commented, "People also do not like it for their mothers." The Prophet added, "Would you like it for your daughter?"
Again, the young man answered negatively. So, the Prophet said, "People too would not love it for their daughters"
Further, the Prophet asked, "Would you like it for your sister?" The Prophet received the same answer and made the same comment. The Prophet went on asking about the man's paternal and maternal aunts. The young man's answer was the same and the Prophet repeated the same comment, "People do not like that for their aunts."
The Prophet then placed his hand on the young man and prayed for him, "O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and protect his chastity."
Abu Umamah, the narrator of the hadith, said that the young man did not pay heed to any temptation thereafter.
-Musnad Ahmed, 21708

Sternness doesn't refute fairness. I just provided hadiths that forcing is not allowed.
And whose house is from glass shouldn't throw rocks.

Who the f*ck cares about what your pedophile prophet said?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 12:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:46:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

REPORTED rape is extremely rare. I have female friends that have immigrated here, from islamic countries. Rape is NOT rare. It's just not always considered "rape," in accordance with RELIGIOUS law.

Hence Islam reduces the chance of rape to ever happen.
Can you be specific on what is not considered rape?

People are not to be punished for something they are coaxed into doing. In other words, women are not to be punished for being raped.

So the reports of the woman who was to be stoned to death for not crying loudly enough were all false, then?

Does this report relate to Islam? If so, then link it please.

"Property", "Don't respect their wishes"? It is especially amusing considering that wives have the right to own, buy, and sell their own property, and the husband is obligated to spend on the household from his earning, while the wife isn't.

Yes, property, and yes, don't respect their wishes. Women actually FEAR their husbands and fathers. You can quote the qur'an all you want, the same way christians quote the bible. It doesn't mean it will be practiced in the same manner that the flowery "holy words are stated. I'm talking implementation vs. theory.
"Oh! It is not necessarily practiced" *facepalm*
The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. (Quran 9:71)

Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.

If a merciless father wants to sell dhis aughter, then the Islamic solutions are:
3- File an official complaint to a judge for the whole ordeal to get cancelled.
4- If the worst happen, then it is a trial for the girl, and a divorce based on harm can be made and the daughter will be compensated.

This is all very cute. At the same time, the father STILL has the legal right to SELL his daughter. The daughter has to endure not only the act of marrying the guy, whatever she suffers at his hands during the marriage, and a court appearance in order to END a "marriage" that should NEVER have been FORCED upon her, in the first place. Until then, she is treated like PROPERTY. Fluff up islamic rule all you want. It's still barbaric, misogynistic, and violent.
Did you read anything? If it is legal Islamicly, then how can they complain to the judge so he can get it cancelled?
What you are complaining against are cultural practices that disregard or ignorant of Islamic law, not Islamic law.

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) said that Allah's Messenger (PBUH) prohibited Shighar which means that a man gives his daughter in marriage on the condition that the other gives his daughter to him in marriage with- out any dower being paid by either. -Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3295

GIVES his daughter in marriage. It is the father's choice, in your world. No father should EVER choose a woman's husband. Marriage is between two people that love each other and WANT to be married. This is a barbaric, centuries outdated practice that should not be conducted.

First of all that is prohibited as the hadith says. Second of all, it is more like recommend in some culture's world.
If marriage is about declaring love, then what is the point of marriage? Do you need a written contract to state that you love someone? Do you need a license to state that you love someone?
Islam acknowledges the diversity of cultures:

I don't care anything about what you believe that islam acknowledges, or your "holy" scriptures any more than christian "holy" scriptures. What the book says and what people do never match.
Why? Do people never follow the book? Is it impossible to follow the book?
Explain and provide reasoning.

However, if it is likely to cause harm in a culture, then it is to be prevented:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
"There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm."
-Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 13, Hadith 2341

The operative word, in that quoted (based on your explanation) is "should." There IS, however, both harming and reciprocating of harm, throughout the islamic world. Also from the islamic cultures to other cultures, as well.

http://islam.uga.edu...

It seems that your morality is based on Consequentalism (The currently more popular morality for secularist, the alternative is Nihilism). Specifically, your utilitarianism seems to be negative (based on harm), let me make a mental exercise to this morality:
- Do you believe that it is moral for a person to cheat on his/her spouse with his/her boss as long as the spouse never finds out?
- Do you consider reading a trashy romance novel (Twilight) rather than helping the poor causes harm?
- If you see a jaywalker (listening to music while busy with smartphone) is walking absent-mindedly, and an SUV is advancing to where he is walking, are you going to stop him?
-If you have a WMD that is going to eliminate human life in a split second painlessly, is it moral to use it, since it is going to prevent future harm?
- Can it be argued that the best healthcare system in the world is one that euthanizes ASAP?

1- It is based on a written and open constitution available for all to see: The Quran and Sunnah.

It doesn't matter how "open" the constitution is... It is still based on the qur'an and sunnah. These are RELIGIOUS documents. Your governments are codified political implementations of your religion...

So? Your constitution is based on something.

2- It doesn't force people of other religions to enter it.

No, but it does force those born in the religion to stay, upon threat of execution for "apostasy," doesn't it?

It simply does not acknowledge someone getting out of it. If it does, then there is no right to not acknowledge who get out from some of the religion; ie. believing that drinking and gambling are OK for Muslims. Just like you can't acknowledge someone who believes in some part of the constitution while ignoring others.

3- It provides non-Muslims either the same rights of a secular state or more.

The basic truth of it all is that you can "whitewash" your "theoretical" islam all you want. It remains every bit as violent, misogynistic, false, immoral, sick and twisted as christianity. In many cases, even more so.

Further, you can attempt to reduce my moral code to "consequentialism" if you wish. You fail to show how your morality is any superior. No deity is required to validate morality. More often than not, the "sacred" manuscripts that are cherry picked in order to deliver the "real" message are interspersed inside of the foundation and framework for VERY immoral practices. The fact of the matter remains that the moral code of religions still lead to war and death, when neither side will relinquish the faith that convinces them that theirs is the "true" god, and all others are false.
We have finally reached a point where most of humanity is only one step away from atheism/agnosticism. Each of the monotheistic religions only need to recognize ONE more deity as being false, and you'll be there!
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:22:08 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
You will object to the final point; "Secular states theoretically equalizes between citizens! They can become presidents while in Islam you need to be a Muslim to be so.". Well, secularism requires the leader to be a secularist. Theoretically, it doesn't matter if he is a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... as long as his religion is compatible with secularism; ie. his religion is only private, however he is required to follow the constitution and secular laws, this naturally mean that their public morality must be based on either consequentialism or nihilism. Since Islam doesn't make that distinguishment, it is natural that the head of the country have to be a Muslim.

The fact that a religious alignment is REQUIRED in order to be a political leader proves that it is a theocracy, in charge of a political government of humans. There is no "secularist" requirement of any government of which I am aware. In the US, the government simply states that the church and state are separate. This is still largely ignored, since christians have been in control of the government, for ages. The US is simply less honest and more underhanded about their political submission to christianity than most muslim states. The fact that secular unbelievers do not attach "morality" to certain behaviors to which religions do does not mean that this makes a religious requirement for public office or leadership proper. Requiring leaders to be muslim is simply evidence that islamic countries are actually under theocracies. Period.

Read the definition of a theocracy. Under your criteria, secular states are a theocracy as well since they require secular alignment and embracing secular morality.

So he began [the search] with their bags before the bag of his brother; then he extracted it from the bag of his brother. Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. We raise in degrees whom We will, but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing. (Quran 12:76)

As you can see, religion with it's broad Arabic meaning can be synonym with "Method of life" or "Law".

That "law" can be tied to one single truth: "Law" is the legislation of morality. It is the foundation of a moral code that determines the legitimacy of such morality. Reason is the ONLY valid basis for a moral code. All religious bases are twisted and corrupt, from the start.

Weird. So if reason can conclude morality, then you can find an objective morality that is not arbitrary, changeable on a whim, and not based on opinion or emotions?
Good ahead good sir! You gonna revolutionize philosophy!

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
So you do not follow any laws?! Wow, screw the police!
Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Agreed.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
So they follow the teachings of Christianity?
Islamic states requires it's leaders to publicly be Muslims and publicly embrace Muslim morality.
True.
Agreed.

That is all there is to it.A279;

http://www.loonwatch.com...
http://www.loonwatch.com...

What do these links have to do with anything? Did you think I was fool enough to trust the US government? Did you think I'm a brainless buffoon that gives ANY credence to what the media pumps out? I can say with a fair measure of certainty that the majority of politicians and "leaders" in the US are corrupt, untrustworthy, subversive degenerates worthy of zero respect.

As deconstructed by Robin Williams, politics is reduced to: Poli: A Latin word the means "many". Tics: A noun that means "blood-sucking creatures".
The point is that much of the violence is mainly due to pure political reasons.
In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.

Sam Harris's mind is sacred and an object of awe and worship! Forgive me for questioning it!

Well, your overdone sarcasm aside, I don't hold Sam Harris as "sacred," in any way. Certainly not to the degree to which you hold sacred the writings of that pedophile prophet of yours... I happen to agree with Sam, on nearly everything on which I have ever heard him speak. The difference, however, is that I arrived at my conclusions independently of Sam, and would openly contradict anything he ever said, with which I disagreed. Can you say the same for the "prophet," in any respect? No.

So we learn that you made an arrogant statement, show no grasp or understanding of history, and trust in a pseudophilosopher.
As for your last statement, that's a pro :) .
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 7:44:55 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:43:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Smh. Could only face palm.
So it is logical to say that non-murderers (10,000 murder per year) or non-rapists (80,000 rapes per year) are a few apples in the US?

Face palmed when Islam was called a theocracy. Face palmed when it is implied that the actions of extremists are apolitical and solely rooted on religion.
In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

The problem with that analogy is that these stated U.S "10,000 murderers and 80,000 rapists" are not acting on religious belief and/or doctrine. To make reference to such an an irrelevant topic is to deviate from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

So they do it for no reason?
A fallacy is Ok in some situations, but not okay in others?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:58:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:22:08 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
You will object to the final point; "Secular states theoretically equalizes between citizens! They can become presidents while in Islam you need to be a Muslim to be so.". Well, secularism requires the leader to be a secularist. Theoretically, it doesn't matter if he is a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... as long as his religion is compatible with secularism; ie. his religion is only private, however he is required to follow the constitution and secular laws, this naturally mean that their public morality must be based on either consequentialism or nihilism. Since Islam doesn't make that distinguishment, it is natural that the head of the country have to be a Muslim.

The fact that a religious alignment is REQUIRED in order to be a political leader proves that it is a theocracy, in charge of a political government of humans. There is no "secularist" requirement of any government of which I am aware. In the US, the government simply states that the church and state are separate. This is still largely ignored, since christians have been in control of the government, for ages. The US is simply less honest and more underhanded about their political submission to christianity than most muslim states. The fact that secular unbelievers do not attach "morality" to certain behaviors to which religions do does not mean that this makes a religious requirement for public office or leadership proper. Requiring leaders to be muslim is simply evidence that islamic countries are actually under theocracies. Period.

Read the definition of a theocracy. Under your criteria, secular states are a theocracy as well since they require secular alignment and embracing secular morality.

I have read the definition of a theocracy. Muslim states epitomize it. Wrong, concerning secular states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org...

So he began [the search] with their bags before the bag of his brother; then he extracted it from the bag of his brother. Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. We raise in degrees whom We will, but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing. (Quran 12:76)

As you can see, religion with it's broad Arabic meaning can be synonym with "Method of life" or "Law".

That "law" can be tied to one single truth: "Law" is the legislation of morality. It is the foundation of a moral code that determines the legitimacy of such morality. Reason is the ONLY valid basis for a moral code. All religious bases are twisted and corrupt, from the start.

Weird. So if reason can conclude morality, then you can find an objective morality that is not arbitrary, changeable on a whim, and not based on opinion or emotions?
Good ahead good sir! You gonna revolutionize philosophy!

If you read again, never once did I use the word "objective." It is only theists who believe the word "objective" improves the word morality, in any way. "Objective" morality does not exist.

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
So you do not follow any laws?! Wow, screw the police!

Not what I meant... Even secular states have religion entangled in their laws. There is no truly "secular" state.

Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Agreed.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
So they follow the teachings of Christianity?
Leaders in all states of which I know may be "publicly" religious. The laws they uphold are those of the state they lead. You are trying to reduce non-religious leadership to "consequentialism or nihilism." It's a false reduction.

Islamic states requires it's leaders to publicly be Muslims and publicly embrace Muslim morality.
True.
Agreed.

That is all there is to it.A279;

http://www.loonwatch.com...
http://www.loonwatch.com...

What do these links have to do with anything? Did you think I was fool enough to trust the US government? Did you think I'm a brainless buffoon that gives ANY credence to what the media pumps out? I can say with a fair measure of certainty that the majority of politicians and "leaders" in the US are corrupt, untrustworthy, subversive degenerates worthy of zero respect.

As deconstructed by Robin Williams, politics is reduced to: Poli: A Latin word the means "many". Tics: A noun that means "blood-sucking creatures".

And, of course, you would have us believe that this doesn't happen in islamic theocracies...?

The point is that much of the violence is mainly due to pure political reasons.

Wrong. The biggest contribution to violence is economic oppression. This began with the church, and has continued through greedy corporations and their owners.

In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.

Sam Harris's mind is sacred and an object of awe and worship! Forgive me for questioning it!

Well, your overdone sarcasm aside, I don't hold Sam Harris as "sacred," in any way. Certainly not to the degree to which you hold sacred the writings of that pedophile prophet of yours... I happen to agree with Sam, on nearly everything on which I have ever heard him speak. The difference, however, is that I arrived at my conclusions independently of Sam, and would openly contradict anything he ever said, with which I disagreed. Can you say the same for the "prophet," in any respect? No.

So we learn that you made an arrogant statement, show no grasp or understanding of history, and trust in a pseudophilosopher.
On the contrary. It is you who shows no grasp or understanding, and the arrogant statement you perceive is solely and exclusively your perception. Period. There is a big difference between "trust" and "agree with." You see, I'm a few years older than Sam, and I was espousing what he publicly states, long before he started speaking, publicly.

As for your last statement, that's a pro :) .

I don't understand this statement, at all.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:45:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It would probably be more correct to say that Sharia is theocracy, if one is very concerned with definitions.

Certainly, Christianity has had theocratic manifestations in the past. The ultimate goal of Christianity is theocracy: rule by Christ Himself at some point. I bring up Christianity here for the sake of providing context.

So, I cannot see why someone would debate these rather obvious facts-- other than pride and ego protection, of course. Secularism as theocracy? May as well claim government = theocracy. Let's just change what words mean! Someone is really grasping at straws and trying to muddy the waters here.

Sadly, I have come to expect this sort of evasiveness when it comes to someone accepting any sort of accountability.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:58:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:59:49 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

The problem with that analogy is that these stated U.S "10,000 murderers and 80,000 rapists" are not acting on religious belief and/or doctrine. To make reference to such an an irrelevant topic is to deviate from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

So they do it for no reason?
A fallacy is Ok in some situations, but not okay in others?

There is a reason. It's just not ideological.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 7:20:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 8:16:44 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Numbers? Statistics? Inform me of what you find.
Your loaded question is cute.
What I am saying that it is contradictory. Prevention is better than cure.

Just like TF has been trying to argue, the reliable police report statistics for sex offenders in any country where women enjoy a status between lifestock and slavery, reports of sexcrimes is never going to be reliable. Which is why the western world, where sex offenses are taken extremely serious, have much higher rates of report.

Partially because women who do report these crimes run the risk of being excluded from their families(shame), beaten ( and raped a second time ) by police officers who are unpleased with them f*cking around with their statistics. And also the fact that the concept of marital rape simply do not exist outside of the western world.

You can say that this is just culture or whatever. Well, it happens in every single muslim country from Morocco to Indonesia. It happens in muslim communities in the west. Where it doesn't occure to the same degree, it is not because there is so much more theocracy there, it is the exact oposite, it is because the country is more secular.

Lifestock and slavery? What country are you talking about?
Oooh! Conspiracy theory. The evidence?
Western countries are taking sex offenders extremely seriously! That is why there are so many of them!

Mentioning a few cases of people not following Islamic law criticizes Islamic law... how?



Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. (Quran 17:70)


That has nothing to do with human rights either.

Cause human rights are embodied in prostitution, adultery, and abortion?



Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.


Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.

Abu Umama Al-Bahily (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a young man came to the Prophet and said:
'O Messenger of Allah, give me a permission of Zina.'
The Companions turned to him and started rebuking him. The Prophet said: "Come closer."
When the young man drew nearer to the Prophet and sat down, the Prophet asked him: "Would you like it for your mother?"
The man answered; No, by Allah. May Allah make me a protection for you!
The Prophet commented, "People also do not like it for their mothers." The Prophet added, "Would you like it for your daughter?"
Again, the young man answered negatively. So, the Prophet said, "People too would not love it for their daughters"
Further, the Prophet asked, "Would you like it for your sister?" The Prophet received the same answer and made the same comment. The Prophet went on asking about the man's paternal and maternal aunts. The young man's answer was the same and the Prophet repeated the same comment, "People do not like that for their aunts."
The Prophet then placed his hand on the young man and prayed for him, "O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and protect his chastity."
Abu Umamah, the narrator of the hadith, said that the young man did not pay heed to any temptation thereafter.
-Musnad Ahmed, 21708

Sternness doesn't refute fairness. I just provided hadiths that forcing is not allowed.
And whose house is from glass shouldn't throw rocks.

Who the f*ck cares about what your pedophile prophet said?

Not sure who you are talking about?
Who the f*ck cares about what your secular laws said?
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 7:36:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 7:20:06 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/9/2014 8:16:44 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Numbers? Statistics? Inform me of what you find.
Your loaded question is cute.
What I am saying that it is contradictory. Prevention is better than cure.

Just like TF has been trying to argue, the reliable police report statistics for sex offenders in any country where women enjoy a status between lifestock and slavery, reports of sexcrimes is never going to be reliable. Which is why the western world, where sex offenses are taken extremely serious, have much higher rates of report.

Partially because women who do report these crimes run the risk of being excluded from their families(shame), beaten ( and raped a second time ) by police officers who are unpleased with them f*cking around with their statistics. And also the fact that the concept of marital rape simply do not exist outside of the western world.

You can say that this is just culture or whatever. Well, it happens in every single muslim country from Morocco to Indonesia. It happens in muslim communities in the west. Where it doesn't occure to the same degree, it is not because there is so much more theocracy there, it is the exact oposite, it is because the country is more secular.

Lifestock and slavery? What country are you talking about?
Oooh! Conspiracy theory. The evidence?
Western countries are taking sex offenders extremely seriously! That is why there are so many of them!

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Oman, Yemen etc etc etc.

Yes, we do take it seriously. There are many of them because they are exposed, we use serious statistics and try our best to weed them out in the open. Otherwise we get situations were millions of women and children suffer in silence. You seem to misunderstand that statistics are facts. Statistics are an estimation based on police reports and counts of prosecution.


Mentioning a few cases of people not following Islamic law criticizes Islamic law... how?


This Islamic law of yours seem to be something a total of 0 people follow.

Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. (Quran 17:70)


That has nothing to do with human rights either.

Cause human rights are embodied in prostitution, adultery, and abortion?

Even if that was the case, it would be a hundred times better than stoning people to death for said offences.




Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.


Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.

Abu Umama Al-Bahily (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a young man came to the Prophet and said:
'O Messenger of Allah, give me a permission of Zina.'
The Companions turned to him and started rebuking him. The Prophet said: "Come closer."
When the young man drew nearer to the Prophet and sat down, the Prophet asked him: "Would you like it for your mother?"
The man answered; No, by Allah. May Allah make me a protection for you!
The Prophet commented, "People also do not like it for their mothers." The Prophet added, "Would you like it for your daughter?"
Again, the young man answered negatively. So, the Prophet said, "People too would not love it for their daughters"
Further, the Prophet asked, "Would you like it for your sister?" The Prophet received the same answer and made the same comment. The Prophet went on asking about the man's paternal and maternal aunts. The young man's answer was the same and the Prophet repeated the same comment, "People do not like that for their aunts."
The Prophet then placed his hand on the young man and prayed for him, "O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and protect his chastity."
Abu Umamah, the narrator of the hadith, said that the young man did not pay heed to any temptation thereafter.
-Musnad Ahmed, 21708

Sternness doesn't refute fairness. I just provided hadiths that forcing is not allowed.
And whose house is from glass shouldn't throw rocks.

Who the f*ck cares about what your pedophile prophet said?

Not sure who you are talking about?
Who the f*ck cares about what your secular laws said?

Apart from the UN, the civilised world and the billions of people who suffer discrimination because of their gender, race, religion, political affiliation and other opinions? Not many probably, but why should I care about a bunch of sub-human bigots? They can rot in their bubbles of superstition.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 10:42:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 12:07:11 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The basic truth of it all is that you can "whitewash" your "theoretical" islam all you want. It remains every bit as violent, misogynistic, false, immoral, sick and twisted as christianity. In many cases, even more so.

Further, you can attempt to reduce my moral code to "consequentialism" if you wish. You fail to show how your morality is any superior. No deity is required to validate morality. More often than not, the "sacred" manuscripts that are cherry picked in order to deliver the "real" message are interspersed inside of the foundation and framework for VERY immoral practices. The fact of the matter remains that the moral code of religions still lead to war and death, when neither side will relinquish the faith that convinces them that theirs is the "true" god, and all others are false.
We have finally reached a point where most of humanity is only one step away from atheism/agnosticism. Each of the monotheistic religions only need to recognize ONE more deity as being false, and you'll be there!

Wow, publicizing immorality and then bickering about having morality. Smh. Not saying no good value exists, but wow. Hedonism's your religion. Your moral principle's incoherent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.nij.gov...
http://thewhiterosemovement.com...
https://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.theguardian.com...

Yeah! For example, a lot of people believe in Mount Everest existing in the Himalayas, but not in any mount Everest existing outside the Himalayas! Clearly that's dumb. It would make more sense and rational to disbelieve in all Mount Everest, including the one existing in the Himalayas. Therefore, everyone is an "a-mount-everest-ist", some just go one more mount Everest further.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 10:46:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 10:42:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/9/2014 12:07:11 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The basic truth of it all is that you can "whitewash" your "theoretical" islam all you want. It remains every bit as violent, misogynistic, false, immoral, sick and twisted as christianity. In many cases, even more so.

Further, you can attempt to reduce my moral code to "consequentialism" if you wish. You fail to show how your morality is any superior. No deity is required to validate morality. More often than not, the "sacred" manuscripts that are cherry picked in order to deliver the "real" message are interspersed inside of the foundation and framework for VERY immoral practices. The fact of the matter remains that the moral code of religions still lead to war and death, when neither side will relinquish the faith that convinces them that theirs is the "true" god, and all others are false.
We have finally reached a point where most of humanity is only one step away from atheism/agnosticism. Each of the monotheistic religions only need to recognize ONE more deity as being false, and you'll be there!

Wow, publicizing immorality and then bickering about having morality. Smh. Not saying no good value exists, but wow. Hedonism's your religion. Your moral principle's incoherent.

This statement is both without foundation, and just plain stupid. I have NO religion, including hedonism. My moral principle is very coherent. It is your perception that is clouded, and inaccurate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.nij.gov...
http://thewhiterosemovement.com...
https://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.theguardian.com...

Yeah! For example, a lot of people believe in Mount Everest existing in the Himalayas, but not in any mount Everest existing outside the Himalayas! Clearly that's dumb. It would make more sense and rational to disbelieve in all Mount Everest, including the one existing in the Himalayas. Therefore, everyone is an "a-mount-everest-ist", some just go one more mount Everest further.

Except that there is evidence for the existence of Mt. Everest...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 3:31:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 3:18:20 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:58:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:22:08 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The fact that a religious alignment is REQUIRED in order to be a political leader proves that it is a theocracy, in charge of a political government of humans. There is no "secularist" requirement of any government of which I am aware. In the US, the government simply states that the church and state are separate. This is still largely ignored, since christians have been in control of the government, for ages. The US is simply less honest and more underhanded about their political submission to christianity than most muslim states. The fact that secular unbelievers do not attach "morality" to certain behaviors to which religions do does not mean that this makes a religious requirement for public office or leadership proper. Requiring leaders to be muslim is simply evidence that islamic countries are actually under theocracies. Period.

Read the definition of a theocracy. Under your criteria, secular states are a theocracy as well since they require secular alignment and embracing secular morality.

I have read the definition of a theocracy. Muslim states epitomize it. Wrong, concerning secular states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess I had the sterotypical theocracy definition in my mind. The point is that we too can have legislative committee chosen by the people, in which that committee cannot violate the constitution, which is the Quran & Sunnah in our case.

That "law" can be tied to one single truth: "Law" is the legislation of morality. It is the foundation of a moral code that determines the legitimacy of such morality. Reason is the ONLY valid basis for a moral code. All religious bases are twisted and corrupt, from the start.

Weird. So if reason can conclude morality, then you can find an objective morality that is not arbitrary, changeable on a whim, and not based on opinion or emotions?
Good ahead good sir! You gonna revolutionize philosophy!

If you read again, never once did I use the word "objective." It is only theists who believe the word "objective" improves the word morality, in any way. "Objective" morality does not exist.

So either morality doesn't exist or it is subjective and based on opinion (in other words: It cannot be concluded with reason).
Here, you fall into a liar's paradox. If morality is subjective, then are Muslim morality as valid as yours since morality is subjective? If it is not, then you believe in objective morality and that your morality is objectively better. If it is , then Muslim morality is valid everywhere.
The alternatives is to find a source for your objective morality (Good luck finding a source other than who is commonly known as "God"), or conclude that morality does not exist; the logical moral conclusion for Atheism.

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
So you do not follow any laws?! Wow, screw the police!

Not what I meant... Even secular states have religion entangled in their laws. There is no truly "secular" state.

So there is a rotation between judging based on unchanged laws, and judging based on what a few people decides?

Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Agreed.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
So they follow the teachings of Christianity?
Leaders in all states of which I know may be "publicly" religious. The laws they uphold are those of the state they lead. You are trying to reduce non-religious leadership to "consequentialism or nihilism." It's a false reduction.

So they are free to favor their personal religious text over a secular constitution? If not, then their loyalty must be to the country's secular constitution first and foremost over any other constitution in order to engage in politics.

True.
Agreed.

That is all there is to it.A279;

http://www.loonwatch.com...
http://www.loonwatch.com...

What do these links have to do with anything? Did you think I was fool enough to trust the US government? Did you think I'm a brainless buffoon that gives ANY credence to what the media pumps out? I can say with a fair measure of certainty that the majority of politicians and "leaders" in the US are corrupt, untrustworthy, subversive degenerates worthy of zero respect.

As deconstructed by Robin Williams, politics is reduced to: Poli: A Latin word the means "many". Tics: A noun that means "blood-sucking creatures".

And, of course, you would have us believe that this doesn't happen in islamic theocracies...?

That end doesn't justify the means in Islam. Hence, hedonism and imperialism are not accepted.

The point is that much of the violence is mainly due to pure political reasons.

Wrong. The biggest contribution to violence is economic oppression. This began with the church, and has continued through greedy corporations and their owners.

Depending on the side committing the violence.

In Sam Harris's pseudo-philosophy, a bad idea is defined as an idea that is not the same as his. However, the war on Iraq being fought for a "humanitarian purpose" is not a stupid idea.

That definition is almost universal, among humans that hold ideas as sacred. You do the same thing, so criticizing it is more than just a little hypocritical. Islam, as well as all other religions, are VERY bad ideas. I will not be so stupid as to claim that there was anything "humanitarian" about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is purely political and economic. That, however, was not motivated by religion. ISIS is.

Sam Harris's mind is sacred and an object of awe and worship! Forgive me for questioning it!

Well, your overdone sarcasm aside, I don't hold Sam Harris as "sacred," in any way. Certainly not to the degree to which you hold sacred the writings of that pedophile prophet of yours... I happen to agree with Sam, on nearly everything on which I have ever heard him speak. The difference, however, is that I arrived at my conclusions independently of Sam, and would openly contradict anything he ever said, with which I disagreed. Can you say the same for the "prophet," in any respect? No.

So we learn that you made an arrogant statement, show no grasp or understanding of history, and trust in a pseudophilosopher.
On the contrary. It is you who shows no grasp or understanding, and the arrogant statement you perceive is solely and exclusively your perception. Period. There is a big difference between "trust" and "agree with." You see, I'm a few years older than Sam, and I was espousing what he publicly states, long before he started speaking, publicly.

"Choice, reasoning, discipline, etc., play important roles in our lives despite the fact that they are determined by prior causes."
Ugh...

And I assume you agree with this statement? If so, do you really see no internal contradictions?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 7:33:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 3:31:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I have read the definition of a theocracy. Muslim states epitomize it. Wrong, concerning secular states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess I had the sterotypical theocracy definition in my mind. The point is that we too can have legislative committee chosen by the people, in which that committee cannot violate the constitution, which is the Quran & Sunnah in our case.

Nice way to sidestep having to admit that you had it WRONG. There is no "stereotypical" definition of theocracy. Islamic states are a theocracy, and they are malevolent. Period.
You
Were
Wrong

If you read again, never once did I use the word "objective." It is only theists who believe the word "objective" improves the word morality, in any way. "Objective" morality does not exist.

So either morality doesn't exist or it is subjective and based on opinion (in other words: It cannot be concluded with reason).
Wrong, yet again. Morality is subjective, or different cultures would have one universal understanding of it. It CAN be concluded by reason, but it does not guarantee that a cultural consensus will always get it right.

Here, you fall into a liar's paradox. If morality is subjective, then are Muslim morality as valid as yours since morality is subjective? If it is not, then you believe in objective morality and that your morality is objectively better. If it is , then Muslim morality is valid everywhere.

There is no paradox. Morality is subjective. Muslim morality is valid... TO MUSLIMS. The christian morality is valid... TO CHRISTIANS. Rational morality, based on reason and ethics are valid... TO REASONABLE PEOPLE. You may not validate your morality, to me, using irrational conclusions. You may not equate two mutually exclusive conclusions, and tie them together.

The alternatives is to find a source for your objective morality (Good luck finding a source other than who is commonly known as "God"), or conclude that morality does not exist; the logical moral conclusion for Atheism.

I don't believe in an objective morality. Thus, I don't need any "source." Reason is the only validation for any ethical question. The fact that you cannot see the irrationality of your religion does not place it on equal footing with reasoned morality.

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
So you do not follow any laws?! Wow, screw the police!

Not what I meant... Even secular states have religion entangled in their laws. There is no truly "secular" state.

So there is a rotation between judging based on unchanged laws, and judging based on what a few people decides?

No. As people learn and grow, their understanding improves. Thus, their ethics, morals, and laws improve. That's how we got from rule by catholic edict to the Constitution of the United States of America... Improvement.

Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Agreed.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
So they follow the teachings of Christianity?
Leaders in all states of which I know may be "publicly" religious. The laws they uphold are those of the state they lead. You are trying to reduce non-religious leadership to "consequentialism or nihilism." It's a false reduction.

So they are free to favor their personal religious text over a secular constitution? If not, then their loyalty must be to the country's secular constitution first and foremost over any other constitution in order to engage in politics.

Their POLITICAL loyalty must be the the constitution. If they choose to give some "spiritual" loyalty to a religion, that is their choice. Anywhere the two conflict, the individual must decide which of the two to "enforce." If they choose their public responsibility, they adhere to their laws. If they choose their religious allegiance, they are no longer worthy of their public office.

And, of course, you would have us believe that this doesn't happen in islamic theocracies...?

That end doesn't justify the means in Islam. Hence, hedonism and imperialism are not accepted.

You're so full of sh!t, your brown eyes stink.

The point is that much of the violence is mainly due to pure political reasons.

Wrong. The biggest contribution to violence is economic oppression. This began with the church, and has continued through greedy corporations and their owners.

Depending on the side committing the violence.

Do you ever think, before opening your mouth? What does this even mean?

On the contrary. It is you who shows no grasp or understanding, and the arrogant statement you perceive is solely and exclusively your perception. Period. There is a big difference between "trust" and "agree with." You see, I'm a few years older than Sam, and I was espousing what he publicly states, long before he started speaking, publicly.

"Choice, reasoning, discipline, etc., play important roles in our lives despite the fact that they are determined by prior causes."
Ugh...

I'm not sure from where this was quoted, but I would like to see the publication from which it was pulled...

And I assume you agree with this statement? If so, do you really see no internal contradictions?

I might, but from just his, I would have to say, "No." Choices can be INFLUENCED by prior causes, but not determined by them...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:02:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is a reason. It's just not ideological.

So it is ok to claim that most Americans have those reasons and are waiting to commit rape and/or murder. And those who don't are not real Americans, and don't follow American society?

At 10/10/2014 7:36:02 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/10/2014 7:20:06 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/9/2014 8:16:44 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Numbers? Statistics? Inform me of what you find.
Your loaded question is cute.
What I am saying that it is contradictory. Prevention is better than cure.

Just like TF has been trying to argue, the reliable police report statistics for sex offenders in any country where women enjoy a status between lifestock and slavery, reports of sexcrimes is never going to be reliable. Which is why the western world, where sex offenses are taken extremely serious, have much higher rates of report.

Partially because women who do report these crimes run the risk of being excluded from their families(shame), beaten ( and raped a second time ) by police officers who are unpleased with them f*cking around with their statistics. And also the fact that the concept of marital rape simply do not exist outside of the western world.

You can say that this is just culture or whatever. Well, it happens in every single muslim country from Morocco to Indonesia. It happens in muslim communities in the west. Where it doesn't occure to the same degree, it is not because there is so much more theocracy there, it is the exact oposite, it is because the country is more secular.

Lifestock and slavery? What country are you talking about?
Oooh! Conspiracy theory. The evidence?
Western countries are taking sex offenders extremely seriously! That is why there are so many of them!

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Oman, Yemen etc etc etc.

Yes, we do take it seriously. There are many of them because they are exposed, we use serious statistics and try our best to weed them out in the open. Otherwise we get situations were millions of women and children suffer in silence. You seem to misunderstand that statistics are facts. Statistics are an estimation based on police reports and counts of prosecution.

Please explain the practices of slavery in these countries.

So what do you think is the solution to these problems?

Mentioning a few cases of people not following Islamic law criticizes Islamic law... how?


This Islamic law of yours seem to be something a total of 0 people follow.

I am interested in reading the results of your survey or research.


Oh, that's almost as extensive human rights as it gets.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. (Quran 17:70)


That has nothing to do with human rights either.

Cause human rights are embodied in prostitution, adultery, and abortion?

Even if that was the case, it would be a hundred times better than stoning people to death for said offences.

How so?




Let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with a 14 years old committing adultery, and the only complain you have is that she didn't use enough protection.
Being ready for marriage requires being physically, sexually, and socially mature, which depends on the culture and the environment.


Uh... Actually I don't mind a 14 year old having sex as long as it's not my daughter. I don't think that merits to beatings or stonings. I do however mind parents forcing their children into marriage with old pedophiles. You are a morally bankrupt thug and an evil, repulsive slimeball.

Abu Umama Al-Bahily (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a young man came to the Prophet and said:
'O Messenger of Allah, give me a permission of Zina.'
The Companions turned to him and started rebuking him. The Prophet said: "Come closer."
When the young man drew nearer to the Prophet and sat down, the Prophet asked him: "Would you like it for your mother?"
The man answered; No, by Allah. May Allah make me a protection for you!
The Prophet commented, "People also do not like it for their mothers." The Prophet added, "Would you like it for your daughter?"
Again, the young man answered negatively. So, the Prophet said, "People too would not love it for their daughters"
Further, the Prophet asked, "Would you like it for your sister?" The Prophet received the same answer and made the same comment. The Prophet went on asking about the man's paternal and maternal aunts. The young man's answer was the same and the Prophet repeated the same comment, "People do not like that for their aunts."
The Prophet then placed his hand on the young man and prayed for him, "O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and protect his chastity."
Abu Umamah, the narrator of the hadith, said that the young man did not pay heed to any temptation thereafter.
-Musnad Ahmed, 21708

Sternness doesn't refute fairness. I just provided hadiths that forcing is not allowed.
And whose house is from glass shouldn't throw rocks.

Who the f*ck cares about what your pedophile prophet said?

Not sure who you are talking about?
Who the f*ck cares about what your secular laws said?

Apart from the UN, the civilised world and the billions of people who suffer discrimination because of their gender, race, religion, political affiliation and other opinions? Not many probably, but why should I care about a bunch of sub-human bigots? They can rot in their bubbles of superstition.

It is amusing how you state that you oppose discrimination while you ironically display a significant amount of discrimination.
Not sure what is the point of mentioning the UN, unless you don't acknowledge sovereignty.
You have positive social, cultural, and moral development? Where?
Are you saying that it is possible to not discriminate on gender, religion, political affiliation, and other opinions? So a communist is equivalent to a capitalist for example?

You already call fetuses subhuman, so I don't really trust your judgement. Can you add an intellectual value by making a case for your dogma? For example, evidence or argument that there was no non-material casual agent for the creation of the universe? What is it, nothing created you or did you create yourself?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:12:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 10:46:40 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/10/2014 10:42:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/9/2014 12:07:11 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The basic truth of it all is that you can "whitewash" your "theoretical" islam all you want. It remains every bit as violent, misogynistic, false, immoral, sick and twisted as christianity. In many cases, even more so.

Further, you can attempt to reduce my moral code to "consequentialism" if you wish. You fail to show how your morality is any superior. No deity is required to validate morality. More often than not, the "sacred" manuscripts that are cherry picked in order to deliver the "real" message are interspersed inside of the foundation and framework for VERY immoral practices. The fact of the matter remains that the moral code of religions still lead to war and death, when neither side will relinquish the faith that convinces them that theirs is the "true" god, and all others are false.
We have finally reached a point where most of humanity is only one step away from atheism/agnosticism. Each of the monotheistic religions only need to recognize ONE more deity as being false, and you'll be there!

Wow, publicizing immorality and then bickering about having morality. Smh. Not saying no good value exists, but wow. Hedonism's your religion. Your moral principle's incoherent.

This statement is both without foundation, and just plain stupid. I have NO religion, including hedonism. My moral principle is very coherent. It is your perception that is clouded, and inaccurate.

I want X, so I ought to do Y. I consider self-worship a religion, although it is void of absolutes, obligations, and the person is free to make up any code he/she desires.
If your morality is coherent, then logically prove to me, with a sound argument, that murdering innocents for pleasure is absolutely and universally wrong.


http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.nij.gov...
http://thewhiterosemovement.com...
https://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.theguardian.com...

Yeah! For example, a lot of people believe in Mount Everest existing in the Himalayas, but not in any mount Everest existing outside the Himalayas! Clearly that's dumb. It would make more sense and rational to disbelieve in all Mount Everest, including the one existing in the Himalayas. Therefore, everyone is an "a-mount-everest-ist", some just go one more mount Everest further.

Except that there is evidence for the existence of Mt. Everest...

And there is evidence for the existence of God.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:32:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 7:33:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/10/2014 3:31:09 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I have read the definition of a theocracy. Muslim states epitomize it. Wrong, concerning secular states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess I had the sterotypical theocracy definition in my mind. The point is that we too can have legislative committee chosen by the people, in which that committee cannot violate the constitution, which is the Quran & Sunnah in our case.

Nice way to sidestep having to admit that you had it WRONG. There is no "stereotypical" definition of theocracy. Islamic states are a theocracy, and they are malevolent. Period.
You
Were
Wrong

You are begging the question: What do you mean by "malevolent"? Were Hiroshima & Nagasaki's a-bombs malevolent?

If you read again, never once did I use the word "objective." It is only theists who believe the word "objective" improves the word morality, in any way. "Objective" morality does not exist.

So either morality doesn't exist or it is subjective and based on opinion (in other words: It cannot be concluded with reason).
Wrong, yet again. Morality is subjective, or different cultures would have one universal understanding of it. It CAN be concluded by reason, but it does not guarantee that a cultural consensus will always get it right.

So you believe morality is objective. Why is it objective (applies to everyone, everywhere, and at all times) and what is the source of it's objectivity? Last I've heard, evolution doesn't have objective morality.

Here, you fall into a liar's paradox. If morality is subjective, then are Muslim morality as valid as yours since morality is subjective? If it is not, then you believe in objective morality and that your morality is objectively better. If it is , then Muslim morality is valid everywhere.

There is no paradox. Morality is subjective. Muslim morality is valid... TO MUSLIMS. The christian morality is valid... TO CHRISTIANS. Rational morality, based on reason and ethics are valid... TO REASONABLE PEOPLE. You may not validate your morality, to me, using irrational conclusions. You may not equate two mutually exclusive conclusions, and tie them together.

So they are not valid to you, therefore you believe your morality is more valid than Muslim morality, just like Muslims believe their objective morality to be more valid than yours.
So the personal morality that your guts tells you to is the objective morality all humanity are morally obligated to follow?

The alternatives is to find a source for your objective morality (Good luck finding a source other than who is commonly known as "God"), or conclude that morality does not exist; the logical moral conclusion for Atheism.

I don't believe in an objective morality. Thus, I don't need any "source." Reason is the only validation for any ethical question. The fact that you cannot see the irrationality of your religion does not place it on equal footing with reasoned morality.

Then nobody is obligated to follow your morality, unless: 1- the law says so, 2- they are likely to get caught. In other words, soldiers overseas who rape and pillage are justified. Militias that don't believe in following none of Geneva's rules are justified.

Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.
False.
So you do not follow any laws?! Wow, screw the police!

Not what I meant... Even secular states have religion entangled in their laws. There is no truly "secular" state.

So there is a rotation between judging based on unchanged laws, and judging based on what a few people decides?

No. As people learn and grow, their understanding improves. Thus, their ethics, morals, and laws improve. That's how we got from rule by catholic edict to the Constitution of the United States of America... Improvement.

So it is judging based on what a few people believe. Thus, we are back to my original point: Secularists states requires people to follow secular laws.

Muslim states requires people to follow Islamic laws.
True.
Agreed.
Secular states requires it's leaders to publicly be secularists and publicly embrace secular morality (Consequentialism or Nihilism).
False.
So they follow the teachings of Christianity?
Leaders in all states of which I know may be "publicly" religious. The laws they uphold are those of the state they lead. You are trying to reduce non-religious leadership to "consequentialism or nihilism." It's a false reduction.

So they are free to favor their personal religious text over a secular constitution? If not, then their loyalty must be to the country's secular constitution first and foremost over any other constitution in order to engage in politics.

Their POLITICAL loyalty must be the the constitution. If they choose to give some "spiritual" loyalty to a religion, that is their choice. Anywhere the two conflict, the individual must decide which of the two to "enforce." If they choose their public responsibility, they adhere to their laws. If they choose their religious allegiance, they are no longer worthy of their public office.

Likewise, in Islamic law, the political loyalty must be to the constitution.

And, of course, you would have us believe that this doesn't happen in islamic theocracies...?

That end doesn't justify the means in Islam. Hence, hedonism and imperialism are not accepted.

You're so full of sh!t, your brown eyes stink.

I rest my case.

The point is that much of the violence is mainly due to pure political reasons.

Wrong. The biggest contribution to violence is economic oppression. This began with the church, and has continued through greedy corporations and their owners.

Depending on the side committing the violence.

Do you ever think, before opening your mouth? What does this even mean?

Invasions usually happen for economical purpose. Inhabitant's violence is usually due to need for revenge and desperation mixed with the political goal of removing invaders.

On the contrary. It is you who shows no grasp or understanding, and the arrogant statement you perceive is solely and exclusively your perception. Period. There is a big difference between "trust" and "agree with." You see, I'm a few years older than Sam, and I was espousing what he publicly states, long before he started speaking, publicly.

"Choice, reasoning, discipline, etc., play important roles in our lives despite the fact that they are determined by prior causes."
Ugh...

I'm not sure from where this was quoted, but I would like to see the publication from which it was pulled...

http://www.samharris.org...

And I assume you agree with this statement? If so, do you really see no internal contradictions?

I might, but from just his, I would have to say, "No." Choices can be INFLUENCED by prior causes, but not determined by them...

That's my problem with Sam Harris. If everything is material, then how can we say that what a brain make someone do is better than what another brain make someone do. In that sense, consciousness is nothing but an illusion.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:26:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 6:12:11 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I want X, so I ought to do Y. I consider self-worship a religion, although it is void of absolutes, obligations, and the person is free to make up any code he/she desires.

First, Y is not an "ought," unless X is a moral desire. Otherwise, Y is nothing more than a means to the end, "X." Whether you consider this a religion or not, you have it a poor definition, and have not yet established any foundation for your assessment.

If your morality is coherent, then logically prove to me, with a sound argument, that murdering innocents for pleasure is absolutely and universally wrong.

I don't need to prove to you that it is absolutely and universally wrong. That would only be required if I was claiming it was OBJECTIVE, which is where our DISAGREEMENT lies. You're demanding that I prove to you that my assessment is right, by fulfilling the criteria for yours. You don't get to do that. You're not that important, brilliant, or an authority. I consider it wrong. The vast majority of people I am aware of on this planet consider it wrong. Those who do not are generally regarded as deviants. This still does not make anything "objective."

Except that there is evidence for the existence of Mt. Everest...

And there is evidence for the existence of God.

Please show it to me, because I have seen NONE. Please show me objective evidence for the existence of an ENTITY you claim exists.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein