Atheists and vegetarianism

[Alpha Dude]

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

[جوري]

l, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D I want to stay out of this thread but that was just pure hilarity

thanks

[gladTidings]

Good Q, I've never thought of it that way. Curious about the responses too...

[Ramadhan]

never thought of it before, but this is brilliant.
can't wait to read the responses from the atheists on board.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[KAding]

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

Good question!

I absolutely feel guilty. Producing meat (especially when produced in industrial farming) almost invariably causes suffering to animals. I try to live by the harm principle, so for me it is always a struggle. I absolutely want to minimize the suffering I cause. But meat is so dominant in the diet of my country and it tastes so incredibly good imsad. I feel bad whenever I have eaten meat. My current ethical 'compromise' is to only ever eat meat when I go out to a restaurant and there isn't any good vegetarian dish. I never eat meat at home. But afterwards I always feel I have 'sinned'. I already eat very little meat, but I hope to eventually become a full-fledged vegetarian.

On a side note, while we cannot ever be sure that animals are truly capable of feeling pain (think of Descartes view of animals as 'automatons'), I personally think it is reasonable to assume so, considering their behavior and similar physiology to a human being. So yes, I indeed do consider humans highly developed animals. Though the question of sentience always bugs me in the back of my mind. Are animals sentient? If they are not, can they feel pain? How can we ever answer this question!?!?

Personally I really see no reason to consider pain suffered by animals of less relevance than that suffered by humans. Sure, they are 'inferior' in the sense that they are less developed, incapable of reason, and generally just plain dumb. But pain is pain, I do not believe we can simply assume that the pain they feel is less intense or real than our pain. Intelligence is simply not really relevant when discussing pain and suffering, just like it isn't less evil to cause pain to babies or severely mentally handicapped just because their are intellectually underdeveloped.

Mind you, this sounds nice in principle of course, but like with many ethical questions, it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. Isn't there a cut-off point at which intelligence and physiology becomes so primitive that we can reasonably assume there isn't really anything 'there' to feel the pain, there is no one at home so to speak. I mean, is a whale suffering 'worse' than that of a fly? I would think so, but it is hard to rationally and philosophically defend that position. Just because something 'feels' like an acceptable thing to do, doesn't mean it is. We always need to reevaluate our moral compass to absolutely minimize injustice and suffering. We should never become complacent in this, let alone let tradition determine what is 'right'.

That is my ethical position. So to answer your question, yes I do believe many atheists are indeed inconsistent on this matter. Many atheists try to live by the principle of 'do no harm', yet most nonchalantly ignore animal suffering, as if animals are incapable of truly being 'harmed'. They are simply forgotten in the whole harm 'equation'. I think this has a lot to do with the dominant powers of customs and tradition. Eating meat is so 'normal' in our culture, it is quickly taken for granted and branded uncontroversial.

Just to be clear, btw, for me the most urgent moral question deals with how animals are bred, kept and slaughtered. Were the life of livestock generally pleasant and death instant and painless, the harm caused would be considerably less obvious. For me, it is not the killing as such that is most problematic, it is the way we treat animals while they are alive.

While I agree this question is mostly relevant to atheists, animal suffering is a moral issue for all of course. I mean, as far as I am aware, Islam requires you to treat animals with respect, so there appears to be an implicit acceptance that animals are more than just tools, but also sentient beings capable of feelings? So I will ask a question of my own. Although your God allows you to kill an animal for meat or even sacrifice, does he require it of you? Do you really think this world becomes a better place when you all, say, collectively ritually slaughter an animal on Eid? Especially considering the circumstances in which animals are bred and transported now-a-days, namely in an industrialized manner? Surely these are difficult moral questions to all of us, atheist or not.

[Insaanah]

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

Hmmm...Good question!

Perhaps because they believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest and all that. So if they had to eat their brethren (though in survival of the fittest there's no concept of brethren - it is a cut throat world affter all!) to give them more iron etc, they really wouldn't bat an eyelid, as that would be considered normal. As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

[KAding]

Hmmm...Good question!

Perhaps because they believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest and all that. So if they had to eat their brethren (though in survival of the fittest there's no concept of brethren - it is a cut throat world affter all!) to give them more iron etc, they really wouldn't bat an eyelid, as that would be considered normal.

To an extend yes. It is impractical to completely respect all animal life. You need to do pest control for example. We also need to do animal testing for potential life-changing medicines. I'll let atheists who have less or no qualms eating meat explain themselves further though, as I am generally unconvinced by any other arguments.

As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

Well, for me it comes from something like utilitarianism in combination with a 'do no harm' principle. In essence, the purpose is to maximize happiness all around. In my interpretation this concerns the 'happiness' of all sentient beings, so that includes animals.

We also almost all feel empathy of course, which should always play a role in guiding our actions in personal life. However, empathy is not a very useful tool when we need to think big and organize society. Firstly, we appear largely incapable of 'scaling' empathy, seeing one baby cry generally 'hurts' us more than the knowledge that bad labor conditions in China are causing suffering. In other words, we have trouble empathizing with things we can not directly see. Secondly, we also have trouble empathizing with beings we cannot directly relate with, beings that do not express feelings in ways we can identify. I mean, we can generally tell when, say, a dog is happy, stressed, excited, in pain, or comfortable, but we have a hard time doing the same for a bat or even cow, let alone a fish.

[Pygoscelis]

I do feel a kinship with many animals and nature itself, yes. And I do feel guilty killing and eating animals, especially mammals. You don't? Can you walk out with a butcher knife, slaughter a cow for beef and feel nothing at all?

I will bet you many many religious folks couldn't answer yes to that question and I will further bet you that this has nothing to do with religious belief (or lack thereof) and everything to do with empathy, which is right in our genes.

As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

Empathy and social contract/programming. You religious folks have this too. Its just that your programming includes religious indoctrination. Sometimes that indoctrination may say things like animals were created to serve man or this existence is just a waiting room or testing ground for the next one, but I don't think its too often that such beliefs lead people to care less for animals or care less to preserve the earth.

Now, all that said, yes I eat meat sometimes. Is that hypocritical? Yes, yes it is. Its easier to eat a hamburger when you haven't met the cow. But then thats just like you get less distraught being told that 100 people died in a plane crash than being told one person you know did. Its just how the human mind works, and it has nothing to do with religious belief or lack of it.

[KAding]

All this makes me wonder how Islam views animals exactly. What rights do animals have in Islam? Animals are more than 'automatons', right? They are regarded as having feelings and emotions? I assume they are thought of having no 'soul' though? If so, what are the repercussions of this?

[KAding]

I will bet you many many religious folks couldn't answer yes to that question and I will further bet you that this has nothing to do with religious belief (or lack thereof) and everything to do with empathy, which is right in our genes.

Absolutely. It only goes so far though. People who grow up where it is normal to personally slaughter an animal are more used to the procedure. Empathy can, thus, quite easily be 'disabled' with enough conditioning and exposure to said act.

[Pygoscelis]

total side note - why is an islamic forum advertising for pantheism? One of the imbedded links took me to a pantheist site. A pantheist btw, in case anybody doen't know what it means, is basically a wonderstruck and nature bonded atheist (of which I'd count myself one).

[- Qatada -]

All this makes me wonder how Islam views animals exactly. What rights do animals have in Islam? Animals are more than 'automatons', right? They are regarded as having feelings and emotions? I assume they are thought of having no 'soul' though? If so, what are the repercussions of this?

Islam teaches us to respect all living things. It enjoins kindness to animals. Animals, just like people, are entitled to receive charity. Once a man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): Is there a reward for the charity that we give to animals? He answered: "For every being possessing a moist liver, there is a reward." [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) told us of a prostitute who earned Allah’s forgiveness for showing mercy to a dog. She had found it panting and swallowing up dirt out of severe thirst, so she went down to a well and filled her sock with water and gave it to the dog to drink. Allah was grateful to this woman and rewarded her with Paradise. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]

Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him) informs us of how a woman earned Allah’s wrath for her mistreatment of a cat. She entered the Hellfire on account of a cat that she imprisoned, neither feeding it nor letting it hunt for food. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]

When we slaughter an animal for food, we must do so in the best, most humane manner possible. The Prophet (peace be upon him)) said, “When you kill, you should kill well, and when you slaughter, you should slaughter well. Sharpen your knife and give relief to your slaughtered animal. [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) even forbade the cursing of animals: Once, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was on a journey, he heard a woman invoke Allah’s curse upon a camel that she was riding. He said: “Offload the camel and let it go, since it has been cursed.” [Sahîh Muslim]


Islamtoday.com

[Predator]

There are many non-Muslims who have studied Islam. Most of them have only read books on Islam written by biased critics of Islam. These non-Muslims have a different set of twenty common misconceptions about Islam. For instance, they claim to have found contradictions in the Qur'an, they contend that the Qur'an is unscientific etc.


Question: Killing an animal is a ruthless act. Why then do Muslims consume non-vegetarian food?

Answer: ‘Vegetarianism’ is now a movement the world over. Many even associate it with animal rights. Indeed, a large number of people consider the consumption of meat and other non-vegetarian products as a violation of animal rights.

Islam enjoins mercy and compassion for all living creatures. At the same time Islam maintains that Allah has created the earth and its wondrous flora and fauna for the benefit of mankind. It is upto mankind to use every resource in this world judiciously, as a ‘niyamat’ ( Divine blessing ) and ‘amanat’ ( trust ) from Allah.

Let us look at various other aspects of this argument.

1. A Muslim can be a pure vegetarian
A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.

2. Qur’an permits Muslims to have non-veg
The Qur’an, however permits a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food. The following Qur’anic verses are proof of this fact:

a. “O ye who believe! Fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named.” [Al-Qur’an 5:1]

b. “And cattle He has created for you (men): from them Ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, And of their (meat) ye eat.” [Al-Qur’an 16:5]

c. “And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: From within their bodies We produce (milk) for you To drink; there are, in them, (Besides), numerous (other) Benefits for you; and of their (meat) ye eat” [Al-Qur’an 23:21]

3. Meat is nutritious

Meat is rich in protein, iron, vitamin B1 and niacin. Non-vegetarian food is a good source of excellent protein.

4. Humans have Omnivorous set of teeth

If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a flat set of teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion or tiger, they all have a pointed set of teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty Allah wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods

The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty Allah wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian foods?

6. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-veg

a. There are many Hindus Brahmins who are strictly vegetarian. They think that it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. In fact the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. The scriptures mention Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian foods.



b. It is mentioned in Ayodhya Khandam, verses 20,26 and 94 that when Rama was sent for Banavas he told his mother that he would have to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes. If Rama had to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes it meant that Rama had likeness for meat. If Rama can have meat, why can’t the Hindus have meat?

7 Hinduism was influenced by other religions
Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-veg foods, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.

8 Even plants have life
Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a well established universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

9 Even plants can feel pain
They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime when compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz.

Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the master’s whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human being. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water.

10 Killing a living creature with 2 senses less is not a lesser crime. Once a vegetarian argues his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal.

Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the law to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a ‘masoom’, an innocent person and you should give the murderer a greater punishment. Islam is not based on such logic.

In fact the Qur’an says: “O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good” [Al-Qur’an 2:168]

11 Over population of cattle
If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.

12 Cost of meat is reasonable since all aren’t non-vegetarian

I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarian. However they should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all people become non-vegetarians then personally I would be a loser since the prices of meat would rise.

[Predator]

Brother Sheikh Yusuf Estes and Bilal Philips tells about: About being Vegetarian and not seeing it as a part of your religion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WqHzTJMCjA

[Gator]

As has been said before, good question!

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

Yes and sometimes it makes me sad, but mostly I'm ok with it. I even feel bad when I step on ants and try to avoid stepping on earthworms on my driveway after it rains.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? ?

In my opinion yes.

Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I don't know if its totally moral to kill animals (especially the slaughter industry), but I'm more of a circle of life kind of guy I guess.

Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma?

I do think about it from time to time.

Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

Yeah, pretty much.

Thanks.

[Lynx]

Humans > Animals I am afraid.

[Trumble]

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

You have almost answered your own question in your second paragraph, but I think the 'nothing more' is what throws you off the scent. I would suggest that far from 'nothing more', it is in fact intelligence and cognitive capacity in a wider sense that is the most significant issue to atheists considering this issue. A great many people, if not most, who would happily eat a beefburger or a lamb chop would not choose to eat a dolphin steak and would be repulsed by the idea of same. Hence to me there is no 'double standard', at least for the reason you suggest. What there may be, though, is a huge doubt at exactly what point that threshold is reached and I certainly wouldn't disagree many meat-eaters find that a question they would prefer to ignore. But there is still a huge range of eating habits across those who do (or once did!); veganism, vegetarianism, eating fish but not meat, poultry but not 'red' meat, and so on.

Personally I find the idea of making such distinctions based on intelligence makes rather more sense than the belief that the most destructive, and self-destructive, species in the history of life on Earth is somehow 'special' in any other regard than possessing the unique capacity to realize that unpleasant fact about itself. There are also far more relevant arguments for vegetarianism than those of the 'pink and fluffy' type IMHO, principally those related to the economics of food production and hence distribution of adequate amounts to all who need it in a world with an ever-increasing population.

[Gator]

mmmmmmm...dolphin steak...





(JK. re: homer simpson)

[marwen]

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

In my opinion, there is no difference between animals and plants. Can anyone explain me what makes animals not proper to eat and not plants.
Whether we eat plants+animal, or we do not eat anything (and we die ;D)

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being.

I don't have to be vegetarian to say that eating humans is so atrocious. It's logically inapropriate in any type of species : you don't see a type of animal eating each other, that make no sense and is contradictory with the reproduction of the species.

In my opinion, if there is not a danger for our health, eating meat or plants is just the same thing.

I respect all the atheists here, but I don't see any reason to not eat animals (dead animals of course ;D).

[KAding]

In my opinion, there is no difference between animals and plants. Can anyone explain me what makes animals not proper to eat and not plants.
Whether we eat plants+animal, or we do not eat anything (and we die ;D)

Interesting that you would say that, as the difference to me is kinda obvious. So my question would be: do you think animals are sentient? Can they feel emotions and pain? Do you think the same is true for plants?

Surely you agree that the physiology of the animals we eat is radically different from that of plants? I mean, plants do not have a central nervous system and even if they did they do not have a brain to process pain sensations. Surely that makes these two kinds of life radically different?

[KAding]

Humans > Animals I am afraid.

Intellectually you mean? And you think that gives us the right to eat them? Why?

This is a bit charged question perhaps, but normally developed adults are also considerably more intellectually capable than, say, babies or mentally challenged people. Does that mean we can eat them to? :exhausted :p If not, why not?

[marwen]

Interesting that you would say that, as the difference to me is kinda obvious. So my question would be: do you think animals are sentient? Can they feel emotions and pain? Do you think the same is true for plants?

Surely you agree that the physiology of the animals we eat is radically different from that of plants? I mean, plants do not have a central nervous system and even if they did they do not have a brain to process pain sensations. Surely that makes these two kinds of live radically different?

Yes, from the perspective of the animal's feelings :) you may be right (though I'm not really sure plants don't have feelings), but is that immoral ? I don't think so, I can say that animals will be dead anyway, or I can say that in order to preserve the life of humans, we can allow ourselves to use animals if plants are not sufficient for our surviving.

Although I feel sorry for animals to be killed, I think emotions or feelings are not a good argument to make a decision. I may be wrong btw.

[Hamza Asadullah]

To an extend yes. It is impractical to completely respect all animal life. You need to do pest control for example. We also need to do animal testing for potential life-changing medicines. I'll let atheists who have less or no qualms eating meat explain themselves further though, as I am generally unconvinced by any other arguments.

Do you not feel guilty when eating plants because they also have feelings and can also feel pain but it is just that we cannot hear them scream or in distress but that does'nt mean they don't feel pain.

Our ears cannot hear the screams or distress of a plant but that does not mean they do not get distressed or feel pain or happiness.

Just because they have one or two less senses that does not mean that they should be regarded any less than animals. If you had a disabled brother or sister then would you regard it any less of a being than yourself just because they had one or two senses less than you? Similarly plants are living, breathing and feel pain and also scream and feel joy so do you not feel any guilt for killing killing and eating them?

[KAding]

Do you not feel guilty when eating plants because they also have feelings and can also feel pain but it is just that we cannot hear them scream or in distress but that does'nt mean they don't feel pain.

Our ears cannot hear the screams or distress of a plant but that does not mean they do not get distressed or feel pain or happiness.

That would be news to me. I was always under the impression that the scientific consensus is that plants do not feel pain, let alone experience emotions like happiness. I know that plants as organisms in one way or another respond to stimuli, but they simply do not have the higher brain functions (or brain at all) that would be required to interpret that pain, be sentient and, thus, to be capable of 'sensing' that pain.

Just because they have one or two less senses that does not mean that they should be regarded any less than animals. If you had a disabled brother or sister then would you regard it any less of a being than yourself just because they had one or two senses less than you? Similarly plants are living, breathing and feel pain and also scream and feel joy so do you not feel any guilt for killing killing and eating them?

I should if I were convinced it were true. Alas I'm not.

You, however, appear to believe it is true, then why aren't you feeling guilty?

[KAding]

Yes, from the perspective of the animal's feelings :) you may be right (though I'm not really sure plants don't have feelings), but is that immoral ? I don't think so, I can say that animals will be dead anyway

How do you mean? Everyone will eventually die anyway, not just animals ;).

... or I can say that in order to preserve the life of humans, we can allow ourselves to use animals if plants are not sufficient for our surviving.

I would agree, but plants are sufficient for our survival. Surely the many vegetarians on this planet are proof of that? Overall vegetarians even live longer, more healthy lives.

The real question is whether it is moral to cause pain (not to speak of the wasted resources) just for pleasure, namely the pleasant sensation of a nice tasting steak?

Although I feel sorry for animals to be killed, I think emotions or feelings are not a good argument to make a decision. I may be wrong btw.

I would tend to agree. But the arguments of vegetarians are not based on emotions or feelings, but on a rational conviction that causing one being pain for your own pleasure is morally wrong. Personally I think it is pretty hard to argue with that.

[Hamza Asadullah]

That would be news to me. I was always under the impression that the scientific consensus is that plants do not feel pain, let alone experience emotions like happiness. I know that plants as organisms in one way or another respond to stimuli, but they simply do not have the higher brain functions (or brain at all) that would be required to interpret that pain, be sentient and, thus, to be capable of 'sensing' that pain.


I should if I were convinced it were true. Alas I'm not.

You, however, appear to believe it is true, then why aren't you feeling guilty?

It looks like Science disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_p...on_(paranormal)

[Amadeus85]

I think that vegetarianism is some way of making the atheist's life better,more spiritual, something deeper than materialism. The way how they treated animals is on the other side renessaince of paganism, which began in second half of XIX centuries.
The atheists who care about animals usually in same time are ok with abortion of children, which kills 200 000 children each year in Germany only and murdered in USA since the end of WWII till now more human lifes than Hitler killed in death camps during WWII.

[Pygoscelis]

Here's some more coal for your fire. I feel far more empathy for a mouse than I do for a freshly fertilized human egg. Not sure why you want to turn this into an abortion thing though. Thats 2 threads down the hall.

[Predator]

The vegetarians practiced by these Atheist and Hindu Brahmins have double standards in their feelings for different living things and talk tosh like "all living things have a right to live" . LOL . The same atheist/brahmin would cry at an animal but then show cruelty to vegetables like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KtmbonxBv8


There are plenty of disadvantages with a vegetarian diet as well

http://holistic-nutrition.suite101.c...s_of_going_veg

A balanced diet is what is required with both veg and meat is what is required

[Amadeus85]

Here's some more coal for your fire. I feel far more empathy for a mouse than I do for a freshly fertilized human egg. Not sure why you want to turn this into an abortion thing though. Thats 2 threads down the hall.

That's not suprising, 60 years ago some people thought that jews are less important than a life of a mouse.

As I said, vegetarianism is some way of making atheist life to have deeper meaning, than just eating, sleeping and working. Of course it is a failed attempt, as they will never achieve peace in their life since they trusted in false doctrines of enlightment and lost belief in the Creator.

[KAding]

The vegetarians practiced by these Atheist and Hindu Brahmins have double standards in their feelings for different living things and talk tosh like "all living things have a right to live" . LOL . The same atheist/brahmin would cry at an animal but then show cruelty to vegetables like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KtmbonxBv8

Right. So lets assume you are right and vegetables have emotions and can feel pain, which I don't believe. Buts lets just assume it. Why would this only be relevant to vegetarians? Don't meat-eaters also eat vegetables? And did you know that to produce one pound of beef you need 16 pounds of grain? After all, the cow needs to be fed as well!

So assuming vegetables feel pain, how can it possible morally be just to waste all those vegetables to produce one pound of meat?

If you are convinced that plants have feelings just like animals do, why don't you act on that information and try to limit the suffering you are causing? Don't we have a moral obligation to organize our life in such a way that we don't cause suffering?

There are plenty of disadvantages with a vegetarian diet as well

http://holistic-nutrition.suite101.c...s_of_going_veg

A balanced diet is what is required with both veg and meat is what is required

It is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet as a vegetarian. The link you posted tells as much! Of course there are risks if you are not aware of what you eat, but that is true with meat as well!

None of these responses actually address the moral dilemma associated with causing suffering in the whole production of meat. Even if we assume plants can feel pain that doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant. Even if we assume a vegetarian diet is unhealthy, it doesn't mean the problem is any less real.

[KAding]

I think that vegetarianism is some way of making the atheist's life better,more spiritual, something deeper than materialism.

For me it has nothing to do with spiritualism. Why would I seek to become more 'spiritual' when I don't believe in God. That doesn't make sense.

This doesn't address the issue, it is just an attack on atheists. I don't think people should be so quick to dismiss these difficult moral questions.

The way how they treated animals is on the other side renessaince of paganism, which began in second half of XIX centuries.
The atheists who care about animals usually in same time are ok with abortion of children, which kills 200 000 children each year in Germany only and murdered in USA since the end of WWII till now more human lifes than Hitler killed in death camps during WWII.

Right. Hitler killed lots of people and pro-abortion people kill babies, so the moral dilemma regarding eating meat is resolved? These are unrelated subjects. You can call some vegetarians hypocrites, fine. But that doesn't help us resolve the issue in the least.

[KAding]

It looks like Science disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_p...on_(paranormal)

Ehm. That links to a wikipedia article about "the study of a paranormal phenomenon".

It also says:

In the scientific community as a whole, paranormal biocommunication has been subjected to much criticism, and is largely regarded as a pseudoscience. Overall, there is little concrete, universally verified evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory, and it is therefore apt to receive a great deal of contempt among scientific circles

...

Many skeptics of the theory also state that, since plants lack nervous or sensory systems, they are not capable of having feelings, or perceiving human emotions or intentions, which would require a complex nervous system. The primary emotional center in the animal brain is believed to be the limbic system which is absent in plants, just like the rest of the nervous system.

How can this article on a paranormal phenomenon possibly be construed as somehow representing a scientific opinion on plant perception?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Ehm. That links to a wikipedia article about "the study of a paranormal phenomenon".

So what reasons do you have not to believe that plants feel emotion or pain? Have you looked deeply into the subject or do you just not want to believe its true?

What do you think of carnivores who kill other animals for food?

[KAding]

So what reasons do you have not to believe that plants feel emotion or pain? Have you looked deeply into the subject or do you just not want to believe its true?

Yes, I have looked into it. And the scientific consensus clearly is that plants are not sentient. Heck, the very article you linked to says that any such claims are nothing more than "pseudoscience". Can we be 100% sure that there isn't some kind of consciousness on the level of cells? No. But we have no reason to assume there is as there is no evidence for it. We cannot change our behavior on the basis of what we do not know.

Besides, you are the one asserting plants can feel pain. That is your assertion, not mine. My primary assertion in this thread is that animals can feel pain. These are independent problems. We can conclude one way or another that plants have feelings or not, but that doesn't in the least affect the question whether animals have feelings. Kick a dog and you can easily observe that it expresses emotions. Whether or not plants have similar feelings is not really relevant, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.

But let me ask you this. How do you think plants experience emotion without a central nervous system and a brain to interpret these signals? Clearly you think there is some alternative way in which this happens, a way completely different from how it works in animals and humans. What makes you think there is such a system?

It also appears to me you are trying to make a point which is, from what I understand, contrary to what Islam teaches. From what has been posted in this thread, it is clear that animal cruelty is not allowed in Islam. There isn't a similar rule that disallows 'vegetable cruelty'. Why do you think that is?

What do you think of carnivores who kill other animals for food?

I do not have 'respect' for nature as such. I think nature and animals are by definition uncivilized and barbaric. There are no morals in nature. It is (ethically speaking) quite a vile place. As such I do not hold carnivores in very high regard, as they are merciless killers. Nevertheless, nature is a delicate balance and carnivores clearly serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

But we always need to keep in mind that unlike us humans, who are capable of reason, animals have no such abilities. They are therefore not truly capable of discerning right from wrong. I think it makes little sense to judge them, since they simply are what they are. I set higher standards for myself and fellow human beings.

[Predator]

Right. So lets assume you are right and vegetables have emotions and can feel pain, which I don't believe.

They do have senses. Havent you seen the Touch Me Not Plant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvzUg...eature=related

Their Body receptors respond to touch. They respond whenever their shape is altered or distorted and trigger extremely sensitive fast firing neutrons.

When the plant is touched, electrical signals are flashed by the cells and these responses of the plant prove that plants also feel pain.


And some plants themselves are carnivorous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymnLp...eature=related

If you are convinced that plants have feelings just like animals do, why don't you act on that information and try to limit the suffering you are causing? Don't we have a moral obligation to organize our life in such a way that we don't cause suffering?

You mean i should eat mud and water and die .Thats laughable .

We do not want to forbid ourselves what God made lawful for us and our moral obligation is not to exceed the law

Quran 5:87
O you who believe: Make not unlawful the good things which God has made lawful for you but commit no excess for God love not those given to excess.

It is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet as a vegetarian. The link you posted tells as much! Of course there are risks if you are not aware of what you eat, but that is true with meat as well!

It is perfectly possible to live a healthy life with a balanced diet which consist of both meat and vegetables.

[KAding]

They do have senses. Havent you seen the Touch Me Not Plant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvzUg...eature=related

Their Body receptors respond to touch. They respond whenever their shape is altered or distorted and trigger extremely sensitive fast firing neutrons.

When the plant is touched, electrical signals are flashed by the cells and these responses of the plant prove that plants also feel pain.

A computer also responds to input. That does not mean it "feels pain".

Of course some plants respond to touch. But to feel pain you need to be sentient, you need to have higher brain functions to interpret these signals.

But anyway, as far as 'suffering' is concerned I then take it that to you say, bludgeoning a cat, picking a flower, and stepping on an ant are all essentially morally equivalent?

And some plants themselves are carnivorous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymnLp...eature=related

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

You mean i should eat mud and water and die .Thats laughable .

Of course not. But it would give you an obligation to cause as little 'plant' suffering as possible. Producing 16 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of meat is hardly a morally acceptable approach then is it? Especially if it is only because you like the taste of meat.

It is perfectly possible to live a healthy life with a balanced diet which consist of both meat and vegetables.

Of course. No one ever disputed that. You on the other hand were disputing that it was impossible to have a healthy vegetarian diet.

[Hamza Asadullah]

Yes, I have looked into it. And the scientific consensus clearly is that plants are not sentient. Heck, the very article you linked to says that any such claims are nothing more than "pseudoscience". Can we be 100% sure that there isn't some kind of consciousness on the level of cells? No. But we have no reason to assume there is as there is no evidence for it. We cannot change our behavior on the basis of what we do not know.

Besides, you are the one asserting plants can feel pain. That is your assertion, not mine. My primary assertion in this thread is that animals can feel pain. These are independent problems. We can conclude one way or another that plants have feelings or not, but that doesn't in the least affect the question whether animals have feelings. Kick a dog and you can easily observe that it expresses emotions. Whether or not plants have similar feelings is not really relevant, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.

But let me ask you this. How do you think plants experience emotion without a central nervous system and a brain to interpret these signals? Clearly you think there is some alternative way in which this happens, a way completely different from how it works in animals and humans. What makes you think there is such a system?

It also appears to me you are trying to make a point which is, from what I understand, contrary to what Islam teaches. From what has been posted in this thread, it is clear that animal cruelty is not allowed in Islam. There isn't a similar rule that disallows 'vegetable cruelty'. Why do you think that is?



I do not have 'respect' for nature as such. I think nature and animals are by definition uncivilized and barbaric. There are no morals in nature. It is (ethically speaking) quite a vile place. As such I do not hold carnivores in very high regard, as they are merciless killers. Nevertheless, nature is a delicate balance and carnivores clearly serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

But we always need to keep in mind that unlike us humans, who are capable of reason, animals have no such abilities. They are therefore not truly capable of discerning right from wrong. I think it makes little sense to judge them, since they simply are what they are. I set higher standards for myself and fellow human beings.

Carnivores have canine teeth in order for them to be able to rip meat and swallow it. Their digestive system also compliments their diet. Therefore they are built to eat meat so your arguments go against nature and Science.

Herbivores have molar like teeth therefore they are built to eat plants and there digestive systems also compliment their diet. Humans on the other hand have both canine and molar teeth meaning we are omnivores therefore we are designed to eat both meat and plants and our digestive systems compliment our diet.

If meat was not suppose to be in our diet then why do we have canine teeth and why do our digestive systems perfectly compliment the fact that as humans we can eat meat? Science has also proven the fact that meat and fish is very beneficial for us as part of a balanced diet more so than just eating vegetarian food.

Throughout this discussion it is evident that you are merely using your own emotions to give your own opinions on certain matters but you have not got science or nature on your side when it comes youy arguments.

Therefore according to nature and science, humans are built and designed to eat both meat and plants and this fact cannot be refuted by your emotionally fueled flawed arguments which are only your own assumptions and opinions and certainly far from being facts.

Everything in nature is balanced and if there were no meat eaters or no animals in the top of the chain then there would be very serious problems in the balance of nature. The balance is perfect and your argument against this balance is quite absurd and against the very balance of nature as well as being very unscientific.

[Lynx]

Any atheist who says rationality is the basis for whether or not we should eat or not eat an organism is not thinking this through unless they are willing to concede that it is okay to eat a human that is mentally retarded to the point where their cognitive functions are no better than an animal or a vegetable. Rationality has *something* to do with it but not everything. No non-sentient life form can feel any significant threshold of pain or suffering so it doesn't matter if they are killed for food or not and that appears to be our general rule of thumb in eating or not eating things (besides taste ;)) but not the only rule.

We don't eat humans because a) our society has instilled the desire not to eat humans whereas some societies are cannibalistic b) our social contract teaches us to respect the dead so out of the duty towards our dead we do not eat them. There isn't anything wrong with eating humans in itself (unless you kill them but that's a different issue) but we have created a moral system based on our desire NOT to have our relatives eaten and that is reflected on our social contract. So yeh, humans > animals.

emotion + social contract + deductive reasoning = Ethics

[جوري]

is it 'respectful for the dead' to pose them and sometimes in an obscene manner at the 'Body world'?

ah the selective 'empathy' of atheists!

[tetsujin]

Any atheist who says rationality is the basis for whether or not we should eat or not eat an organism is not thinking this through unless they are willing to concede that it is okay to eat a human that is mentally retarded to the point where their cognitive functions are no better than an animal or a vegetable. Rationality has *something* to do with it but not everything. No non-sentient life form can feel any significant threshold of pain or suffering so it doesn't matter if they are killed for food or not and that appears to be our general rule of thumb in eating or not eating things (besides taste ;)) but not the only rule.

We don't eat humans because a) our society has instilled the desire not to eat humans whereas some societies are cannibalistic b) our social contract teaches us to respect the dead so out of the duty towards our dead we do not eat them. There isn't anything wrong with eating humans in itself (unless you kill them but that's a different issue) but we have created a moral system based on our desire NOT to have our relatives eaten and that is reflected on our social contract. So yeh, humans > animals.

emotion + social contract + deductive reasoning = Ethics

Ethics aside, cannibalism is not an economical means of ensuring food supply or our survival as a species. I am not aware of any evolutionary advantage for humans to kill and eating their own kind. We are omnivores by nature and can survive on many different types of food, and have changed our dietary habits over time and environments.

Am I trying to cut back on meat? Yes. Do I see myself as an aspiring vegetarian? No.


All the best,


Faysal

[Lynx]

is it 'respectful for the dead' to pose them and sometimes in an obscene manner at the 'Body world'?

ah the selective 'empathy' of atheists!

Umm my entire point was that most people would not find anything wrong putting bodies on display in a science center (they consented after all) but most people would have problems with eating our dead relatives. Proof= the existence and success of the Body Worlds exhibit and the lack of success of cannibalism ;\. My previous post clearly argued that cannibalism is bad because it goes against our social contract and that is why it's unaccepted...along with the other things I said.

THAT ASIDE: What's wrong with Body world? It's an educational experience and if I had the spare time and spare cash I'd definitely check it out since it is on exhibition over here.. I guess there are some people who think these things are obscene I just don't think dead people should have any rights besides contractual rights (i.e., a will)...and I am totally for 'learn as much as you can about anything you can without any restrictions or interference'. You don't have to reply since it will derail the thread.

Ethics aside, cannibalism is not an economical means of ensuring food supply or our survival as a species. I am not aware of any evolutionary advantage for humans to kill and eating their own kind. We are omnivores by nature and can survive on many different types of food, and have changed our dietary habits over time and environments.

Sure, I got no problem with that. I would say though that a situation where cannibalism would be justified is if there was absolutely nothing else to eat and we were forced to eat dead humans or something. This is obviously not a problem Islamically since the clause of necessity negates a lot of rules.

[جوري]

Umm my entire point was that most people would not find anything wrong putting bodies on display in a science center (they consented after all) but most people would have problems with eating our dead relatives. Proof= the existence and success of the Body Worlds exhibit and the lack of success of cannibalism ;\. My previous post clearly argued that cannibalism is bad because it goes against our social contract and that is why it's unaccepted...along with the other things I said.


THAT ASIDE: What's wrong with Body world? It's an educational experience and if I had the spare time and spare cash I'd definitely check it out since it is on exhibition over here.. I guess there are some people who think these things are obscene I just don't think dead people should have any rights besides contractual rights (i.e., a will)...and I am totally for 'learn as much as you can about anything you can without any restrictions or interference'. You don't have to reply since it will derail the thread.

'ummm' The body world isn't a 'science center' it is a museum of dead people. People who enter are lay folks and the displays aren't for the purposes of science. I certainly don't know many folks who walk out of there knowing where their innominate artery is or even of its significance. consenting to it and making money of it doesn't make it anymore ethical than eating dead folks.. and I don't believe that it is a derailment of the thread it is a mere point out of hypocrisy when your ethics are personally tailored!

Sure, I got no problem with that. I would say though that a situation where cannibalism would be justified is if there was absolutely nothing else to eat and we were forced to eat dead humans or something. This is obviously not a problem Islamically since the clause of necessity negates a lot of rules.

Eating human flesh is akin to the worse crimes.. I really think it would be easier to resort to pica for nutrient needs than feasting on the dead!

bizarre people we have on this board!

[Lynx]

'ummm' The body world isn't a 'science center' it is a museum of dead people. People who enter are lay folks and the displays aren't for the purposes of science. I certainly don't know many folks who walk out of there knowing where their innominate artery is or even of its significance. consenting to it and making money of it doesn't make it anymore ethical than eating dead folks.. and I don't believe that it is a derailment of the thread it is a mere point out of hypocrisy when your ethics are personally tailored!

Of course you learn something. You learn about how the insides of a human look like ;\. But this wasn't my point. My poitn is that ethics is determined (largely) by our social contract. So that's why you don't get people eating people. And that's why there isn't anything to feel guilty about when eating meet (For an atheist) nor are there any double standards. there are atheists out there who do feel guilty about eating meat but that's their personal feeling. I guess this the viewpoint of some utilitarians like Peter Singer.

Eating human flesh is akin to the worse crimes.. I really think it would be easier to resort to pica for nutrient needs than feasting on the dead!

bizarre people we have on this board!

Well if you say so?

I'd totally punish a rapist more than a cannibal though ~.~ . I don't know about you.

[جوري]

Of course you learn something. You learn about how the insides of a human look like ;\. But this wasn't my point. My poitn is that ethics is determined (largely) by our social contract. So that's why you don't get people eating people. And that's why there isn't anything to feel guilty about when eating meet (For an atheist) nor are there any double standards. there are atheists out there who do feel guilty about eating meet but that's their personal feeling. I guess this the viewpoint of some utilitarians like Peter Singer.

You can learn and more so by looking at a plastic model in fact if you aren't actively involved in the sciences specifically in a clinical setting then it wouldn't make a difference in your life whatsoever.. it is what it is a macabre display of the dead and at times in a disgusting and obscene fashion as was done in his 'circle of life' display. Thus this alleged 'social contract' is nothing but a fictive sham of folks who feign civility when in fact they are far removed from it, and that is usually what is left when folks are left to determine 'ethics' from their own devices and not a religious moral code!
I really don't see a difference from where I am standing on whether you want eat the dead or just watch them encased for display!

Well if you say so?

I'd totally punish a rapist more than a cannibal though ~.~ . I don't know about you.

A crime is a crime though indeed in varying degrees!

all the best

[Lynx]

You can learn and more so by looking at a plastic model in fact if you aren't actively involved in the sciences specifically in a clinical setting then it wouldn't make a difference in your life whatsoever..

Okay. The difference is that I have seen the real insides of the human body. I would now know what the insides of the human body 'really' look like. Might not make a difference to you but it does to the nerdy types like me haha.

Thus this alleged 'social contract' is nothing but a fictive sham of folks who feign civility when in fact they are far removed from it, and that is usually what is left when folks are left to determine 'ethics' from their own devices and not a religious moral code!

The basis of any society is the social contract. That is a simple social fact. We don't kill each other because we have an implicit agreement to get along since getting along, trading, etc are ALL better for ALL our happiness. The reason why Body Worlds is allowed IS BECAUSE most people don't have a problem with it. If there was no demand for such an exhibition the Market would eliminate the exhibition but it's still here isn't it? Social Contract in action!.

Oh and how is a religious code any different from a society coming up with rules and regulations? I think giving permission to a husband to marry 4 wives without the permission of any of his previous wives is abhorrent. < this is really derailing the thread so we should stop any discussion on this; if you want to talk about it you can start a new thread.

I really don't see a difference from where I am standing on whether you want eat the dead or just watch them encased for display!

The verb 'to eat' versus the verb 'to watch'

A crime is a crime though indeed in varying degrees!

all the best

So then you take back what you said about it being as worse as the worst crimes. Good I would think there is something seriously wrong with you if you thought a girl getting raped was "akin" to some guy eating a dead corpse.

[جوري]

Okay. The difference is that I have seen the real insides of the human body. I would now know what the insides of the human body 'really' look like. Might not make a difference to you but it does to the nerdy types like me haha.

No plastinated specimen looks realistic enough, in fact for that matter an anatomy dissection differs greatly from an autopsy. You can get very realistic specimen synthesized rather than displaying someone's mother or uncle or pregnant wife!

The basis of any society is the social contract. That is a simple social fact. We don't kill each other because we have an implicit agreement to get along since getting along, trading, etc are ALL better for ALL our happiness. The reason why Body Worlds is allowed IS BECAUSE most people don't have a problem with it. If there was no demand for such an exhibition the Market would eliminate the exhibition but it's still here isn't it? Social Contract in action!.

I have no idea what this drivel means.. and I find it funny that china is being chastised in the public eye of for trafficking body parts of criminals to laboratories yet folks have no problems having body parts on display. Further you have not surveyed the folks who frequent or don't frequent said museum of their feelings on the matter. Sometimes folks don't enter for the reasons you think legitimate in your mind and the other half find it plain macabre!

Oh and how is a religious code any different from a society coming up with rules and regulations? I think giving permission to a husband to marry 4 wives without the permission of any of his previous wives is abhorrent. < this is really derailing the thread so we should stop any discussion on this; if you want to talk about it you can start a new thread.

Who said a husband can marry without the consent of the others? further isn't better than having a mistress on the side? at least it gives identity to the ******* children as well proper inheritance?
http://harrypottering.com/gossip/Dum...68-528693.html

The verb 'to eat' versus the verb 'to watch'

substituting the senses makes it less abhorrent?

So then you take back what you said about it being as worse as the worst crimes. Good I would think there is something seriously wrong with you if you thought a girl getting raped was "akin" to some guy eating a dead corpse.

I find them both equally disgusting!

all the best

[Lynx]

No plastinated specimen looks realistic enough, in fact for that matter an anatomy dissection differs greatly from an autopsy. You can get very realistic specimen synthesized rather than displaying someone's mother or uncle or pregnant wife!

Okay I don't know about you but I can't like just walk into an autopsy just to check out dead bodies. I gotta settle for what I can get.

I have no idea what this drivel means.. and I find it funny that china is being chastised in the public eye of for trafficking body parts of criminals to laboratories yet folks have no problems having body parts on display. Further you have not surveyed the folks who frequent or don't frequent said museum of their feelings on the matter. Sometimes folks don't enter for the reasons you think legitimate in your mind and the other half find it plain macabre!

I apologize for an unclear post I almost did not want to get into social contract theory because it would turn into a debate far beyond what the OP had intended. Read some Locke and maybe some John Stuart Mill. This bit of the discussion is a bit of a tangent anyway. Also, why do you find it funny? Taking someone's body parts without their permission is a little different from donating one's body for display.

Who said a husband can marry without the consent of the others? further isn't better than having a mistress on the side? at least it gives identity to the ******* children as well proper inheritance?
http://harrypottering.com/gossip/Dum...68-528693.html

First and foremost, since I am a stickler for logical fallacies, mentioning the mistress bit there is a red herring. So avoid that please. Anyway, SURE I absolutely agree that having some institution of marriage even if its polygamous is much much better than having a mistress on the side. You get no disagreement from me. But I am creating a thread on the 4 wives thing to avoid derailing this one so if you want you can reply to me there.

I find them both equally disgusting!

all the best

Jeez, I am a guy and I don't agree. but whatever, everyone has their own moral compass i suppose.

[جوري]

Okay I don't know about you but I can't like just walk into an autopsy just to check out dead bodies. I gotta settle for what I can get.

Great in that case a plastic model is better than a human being!

I apologize for an unclear post I almost did not want to get into social contract theory because it would turn into a debate far beyond what the OP had intended. Read some Locke and maybe some John Stuart Mill. This bit of the discussion is a bit of a tangent anyway. Also, why do you find it funny? Taking someone's body parts without their permission is a little different from donating one's body for display.

They are the body parts of criminals, criminals have no rights even here in the U.S they lose their right to vote.. so frankly it is funny to point your accusing finger when you are just disgusting and deviant!

First and foremost, since I am a stickler for logical fallacies, mentioning the mistress bit there is a red herring. So avoid that please. Anyway, SURE I absolutely agree that having some institution of marriage even if its polygamous is much much better than having a mistress on the side. You get no disagreement from me. But I am creating a thread on the 4 wives thing to avoid derailing this one so if you want you can reply to me there.

How is it a red-herring? do you enjoy throwing terms around when you can't defend your stance?

Jeez, I am a guy and I don't agree. but whatever, everyone has their own moral compass i suppose.

Guys enjoy eating dead flesh more than bench pressing someone with wails of protests? that is peculiar the new breed of man!

[Lynx]

Great in that case a plastic model is better than a human being!


They are the body parts of criminals, criminals have no rights even here in the U.S they lose their right to vote.. so frankly it is funny to point your accusing finger when you are just disgusting and deviant!




How is it a red-herring? do you enjoy throwing terms around when you can't defend your stance?



Guys enjoy eating dead flesh more than bench pressing someone with wails of protests? that is peculiar the new breed of man!

It's a red-herring because whether or not having a mistress is better than having a polygamous marriage is irrelevant to whether or not polygamous marriages are in themselves morally rephrensible or not. But I started a new thread waiting for approval and hopefully we can discuss things there.

Prisoners DO have rights in the U.S. They can't vote but they have the right NOT TO have their organs ripped out. I cannot believe you inferred from 'they don't have the right to vote' that 'they must not have the right to keep their organs'. No way. In fact I think even you see the problem in that. So I'll assume you regretfully posted what you just said.

I didn't say guys like to eat flesh more than raping women. I said raping women is much worse. I don't know how you can disagree. Desecrating a dead body versus potentially ruining a living person's entire life. Hmm. Like I said, we all have our own moral compasses.


And this discussion has gone seriously off topic so for the benefit of the OP I will just re-iterate my original stance.

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

[جوري]

It's a red-herring because whether or not having a mistress is better than having a polygamous marriage is irrelevant to whether or not polygamous marriages are in themselves morally rephrensible or not. But I started a new thread waiting for approval and hopefully we can discuss things there.

Ah, in this case the 'red-herring' was introduced by your person as such if you like castigating yourself publicly then pls. don't let me hold you back!

Prisoners DO have rights in the U.S. They can't vote but they have the right NOT TO have their organs ripped out. I cannot believe you inferred from 'they don't have the right to vote' that 'they must not have the right to keep their organs'. No way. In fact I think even you see the problem in that. So I'll assume you regretfully posted what you just said.

I am merely playing along with your logic or lack thereof. I find both acts morally reprehensible but I think it worse to be a Tartuffe on top of being base!

I didn't say guys like to eat flesh more than raping women. I said raping women is much worse. I don't know how you can disagree. Desecrating a dead body versus potentially ruining a living person's entire life. Hmm. Like I said, we all have our own moral compasses.

How do you judge that it ruins someone's life more so to rape them than to eat their dead flesh? can we see the numbers on your sin-O-Meter?

And this discussion has gone seriously off topic so for the benefit of the OP I will just re-iterate my original stance.

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

Ok.. so the take home message is that atheists though evolved (maybe for some not fully so) are ok with eating their brethren animals because cannibalism is a lesser offense than raping?

got it..

all the best

[tetsujin]

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

I think it violates a social obligation. Producing livestock for human consumption is very inefficient. Our bodies are not equipped to handle the high amounts of fat, salt, and sugar that the world is able to produce, at the prices we demand, at our convenience at every corner store. We need to understand what is good for us, collectively and individually and act towards those goals. Eating a pound of flesh every day is not helping us.

All the best,


Faysal

[KAding]

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

[Justufy]

We feel this kind of sympathy towards animals because of the present relation towards food in our societies and not because of atheism or whatever... Indeed this relation to food especially meat has changed considerably throughout very recent years.
With mass production and cetera we have lost the relation we had back then with our food, back in the days, killing a cow or any other animal was not wrong, because humans had to eat.

The lion does not ask himself if it’s wrong to eat a gazelle?

But nowadays the relation to animals we had in the past has been severed, we only see their meat in grocery stores, we all eat if of course, but we don’t kill the beast anymore, this is what I believe has created this élan of sympathy towards animal: we don’t need to kill the beast ourselves to east its meat.

No one wants to see suffering but they sure want to eat that juicy good meat!

[Lynx]

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

I might have used the wrong term. I meant to say self-aware. Certainly animals feel pain and pleasure and I guess they are sentient by virtue of that (well some animals are). But my point was that their capacity for pain and pleasure is not as significant as ours. My comment about eating animals as something that does not violate any social obligations was meant to address the possible objection of "well some humans are so mentally handicapped that they cannot feel pleasure or pain so we should be allowed to eat them by this logic". We have a social responsibility to other members of society who have chosen not to have our dead bodies eaten up.

[Lynx]

How do you judge that it ruins someone's life more so to rape them than to eat their dead flesh? can we see the numbers on your sin-O-Meter?

Lol?..Well clearly a dead person is dead so they have no life to be ruined. Dontcha think?


edit: added quote brackets

[Alpha Dude]

Click 'Download MP3' here to listen to a short half hour podcast on this topic by Peter Singer:

One of the most controversial and influential philosophers alive today, Peter Singer is DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne. He writes a regular column for Free Inquiry magazine, and is the author of dozens of books, including Practical Ethics, Rethinking Life and Death, Animal Liberation, and Writings on an Ethical Life.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Peter Singer defends vegetarianism, arguing that we should give equal consideration to all "beings who have interests." He draws ethical distinctions between human fetuses and animals, such as dogs and cats. He argues against "dominionism," which is the idea that humanity is special, and that other animals were made by God for humanity's benefit. He attacks "speciesism," and explains why he did not sign the Humanist Manifesto 2000. He describes factory farming, and the commercial imperatives that he says cause animals to be treated as mere property. He talks about the decision to become a vegetarian, and what keeps secularists and scientists from making the decision, in terms of the question he posed to Richard Dawkins at a recent Center for Inquiry conference. And he considers how working with the religious may advance vegetarianism in society.

Somebody pointed me in his direction and he pretty much says at minute 7ish essentially what I am arguing - that an implication of evolutionary based atheism (once we get rid of the notion that we humans are assigned a special purpose by God and given license to use what's in the Earth for ourselves) is that we don't have any basis for elevating ourselves above animals in terms of thinking our pain and suffering is worth more than theirs are. I really have to agree with his conclusion.

[tetsujin]

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

It doesn't matter, it's the wrong line of reasoning. Whether or not a being is sentient is dependent on that being's "ability" to perceive and respond to external stimuli. As humans we have 5 of the many possible senses, but are most familiar with seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting.

The average human can only see within the 'visible' portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The average human only hears frequencies up to about 17-18 kHz. Our sense of smell, taste, touch, all vastly inferior to hundreds of other species.

What we feel or perceive as pleasurable or painful is a result of capacity to interact with our environment.

On the scale, are we more or less sentient than honey bees who can see "ultraviolet" light.

On the scale, are we more or less sentient than dogs that can smell thousands of times more scents to a greater degree.

Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in contact with some extra-terrestrial form of life which has twice as many "senses" and to a greater degree than our own. Will they be more sentient? Would they be justified in killing and eating us because they believe we cannot feel the kind of pain they can feel? What if their religion gives a green light to devouring everything they find outside of their own planet?

All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

Click 'Download MP3' here to listen to a short half hour podcast on this topic by Peter Singer:
Somebody pointed me in his direction and he pretty much says at minute 7ish essentially what I am arguing - that an implication of evolutionary based atheism (once we get rid of the notion that we humans are assigned a special purpose by God and given license to use what's in the Earth for ourselves) is that we don't have any basis for elevating ourselves above animals in terms of thinking our pain and suffering is worth more than theirs are. I really have to agree with his conclusion.

Evolution has nothing to say regarding the existence of a "god".

All the best,


Faysal

[جوري]

Lol?..Well clearly a dead person is dead so they have no life to be ruined. Dontcha think?


edit: added quote brackets

Other things can be ruined like the sanctity of their body and a regard and respect for the life they had--but since you have no feelings on the matter, perhaps you can donate the body of your mother so we can rip into her with knives and forks!

all the best

[tetsujin]

Other things can be ruined like the sanctity of their body and a regard and respect for the life they had

The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

[جوري]

The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

As a cynical heathen it would be better for you to to follow your animalistic considerations in lieu of principles and ethics, given your minority state your views and customs are as negligible as those of the Zoroastrians wanting to be taken apart at the death towers (as it seems even they are unable to practice their customs modern day) but we on the other hand are certainly free to bring up the lewdness and absurdities of your ways and paint you as the typical prototypes poster children for immoral heathens!

all the best

[Justufy]

The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

I think that most of the concerns about the appropriate treatment of a deceased person emanate from the fact that the body has and is considered by many religions as sacred.
This is why expositions such as bodies can be very upsetting to some people, because the sacred nature of the body has been violated when we see actual human bodies organised in an artistic fashion.

I visited the exposition with some friends it was in our area this summer and curiosity got the best of us, the exposition has a certain educational value because it allows the general public to actually see the insides of human bodies, there nervous system and cetera (the bodies there have been plastinated).

In all honesty I have found some of the exposition to be wrong, for example, there was a room with numerous unborn babies starting from the foetus. But most of it holds a great educational value,( I remember there were some students in Medicine in their last year that were explaining stuff to the visitors)

so all in all a curious experience.

[The Adogmatist]

But my point was that their capacity for pain and pleasure is not as significant as ours.

I would argue that we have no reason to suspect that the other animals feel any less pain or pleasure than we do, but that many animals lack the complex cognitive abilities to translate these sensations into suffering (IMO the real thing to be avoided). An ant most definitely experiences pain if it looses a leg, but it will not wake up in the middle of the night after terrible nightmares of the episode that led to this loss as many mammals would do.

Still, I'm not quite sure as to how this relates to whether or not it is right to kill and eat other animals, only that some animals require a more careful procedure to make sure they do not suffer, or suffer as little as possible, in the process.

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed, it is the family and loved ones and their traditions that matter at this point. The person themself is dead and gone, but their memory is cherished by their loved ones and going along with traditions to honour that memory makes sense, so long as they are legal and don't infringe on society as a whole. I think the only real conflict situation is when there are multiple loved ones with competing traditions.

As for myself, when I'm dead and gone I don't really care what they do with my body. It will just be meat. I think it'd be cool if they fed me to something, like a lion or a shark, so at least my body is used as a meal and not wasted away to no benefit. I've also signed my organ donor card and would be happy to be used as a cadaver for medical training or research. Whatever benefit can come of my corpse, I'm for it.

[KAding]

I would argue that we have no reason to suspect that the other animals feel any less pain or pleasure than we do, but that many animals lack the complex cognitive abilities to translate these sensations into suffering (IMO the real thing to be avoided). An ant most definitely experiences pain if it looses a leg, but it will not wake up in the middle of the night after terrible nightmares of the episode that led to this loss as many mammals would do.

Still, I'm not quite sure as to how this relates to whether or not it is right to kill and eat other animals, only that some animals require a more careful procedure to make sure they do not suffer, or suffer as little as possible, in the process.

Good point about the difference between pain and suffering. The real problem is that we have no reliable way of determining how capable a living organism is of suffering. What you say makes sense, but how can be quantify this ability for each life form? Almost by definition we are incapable of imaging what it is like to be cow, dog, ant or pig. Though science has certainly made progress in understanding how the brain interprets and processes pain and traumatic experiences, we will always have trouble applying this to animals.

On a side note. We shouldn't forget that in the production of meat the sentient being is only a side-product. We don't really need it, it only happens to be attached to the meat we'd like to eat. For me the best and most promising solution to this moral quandary of eating fellow sentient beings is a scientific breakthrough in breeding the metaphorical 'headless chicken'. We need a way to 'grow' the meat without the actual animal.

There is actually progress being made on this front:

Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals
19 November 2009

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

Advantages touted

Increasingly, bioengineers are growing nerve, heart and other tissues in labs. Recently, scientists even reported developing artificial penis tissue in rabbits. Although such research is meant to help treat patients, biomedical engineer Mark Post at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues suggest it could also help feed the rising demand for meat worldwide.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs — the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat — could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

Need to scale up

Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

So far past scientists have grown only small nuggets of skeletal muscle, about half the size of a thumbnail. Such tidbits could be used in sauces or pizzas, Post and colleagues explained recently in the online edition of the journal Trends in Food Science & Technology, but creating a steak would demand larger-scale production.

Dark thoughts

The expectation is that if such meat is ever made, scientists will opt for beef, pork, chicken or fish. However, science fiction has long toyed with the darker possibilities that cloned meat presents.

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not."

Of course, there are many potential objections that people could have to growing beef, chicken or pork in the lab, much less more disturbing meats. Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such hurdles.

"If every package of naturally grown meat by law should have the text, 'Beware, animals have been killed for this product,' I can imagine a gradual cultural shift," Post said. "Of course, we still have a long way to go to make a product that is even remotely competitive with current products."

http://www.livescience.com/health/091119-lab-meat.html

This is a fantastic development as far as I am concerned. I just wonder how many people would refuse to eat such meat? Would such meat be halal? Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.

[جوري]

This is a fantastic development as far as I am concerned. I just wonder how many people would refuse to eat such meat? Would such meat be halal? Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.

Maybe studies such as this:

Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage'



By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:43 AM on 21st January 2010

• Comments (82)
• Add to My Stories

An environmental campaigner protesting against GM crops. A study said it can cause organ damage.

Fresh fears were raised over GM crops yesterday after a study showed they can cause liver and kidney damage.
According to the research, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the U.S. biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.
The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners.

They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment.
The figures released by Monsanto were examined by French researcher Dr Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen.
Yesterday he called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage.
'What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,' he told New Scientist magazine. 'I'm sure there's no acute toxicity but who's to say there are no chronic effects?'
The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize. Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein which protects the plant against the corn borer pest, while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All three strains are widely grown in America, while one is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mostly in Spain.
Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and French anti- GM campaigners.
Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ' statistically significant' signs of liver and kidney damage. Each strain was linked to unusual concentrations of hormones in the blood and urine of rats fed the maize for three months, compared to rats given a non-GM diet.
The higher hormone levels suggest that animals' livers and kidneys are not working properly.
Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Dr Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology.
The analysis concluded: 'These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.'
Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was 'based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0jhwiPRlu


are the reason people aren't jumping for the modified band wagon as you are!

all the best

[KAding]

I don't think there is genetic modification going on here though

[جوري]

I don't think there is genetic modification going on here though

well what exactly is going on? do you know before asking people to dump crap down their bodies?

[KAding]

well what exactly is going on? do you know before asking people to dump crap down their bodies?

No, I haven't really looked into it yet. I will when it becomes available. As always it will have to go through considerable testing before it is approved for human consumption.

The article I posted has a bit about it though:

Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

We'll see. It is not as if the current meat production process is that kosher though, with all the hormones and antibiotics used in industrial livestock farming, let alone diseases and whatnot.

[جوري]

No, I haven't really looked into it yet. I will when it becomes available. As always it will have to go through considerable testing before it is approved for human consumption.

The article I posted has a bit about it though:

Just because something is approved for 'human consumption' doesn't mean it is good for you or that it won't have ramifications down the line. Messing with nature usually has some horrifying consequences.. so go for it at your own peril but don't advise others to jump off the bridge along with you with silly statements such as this:

Originally Posted by KAding

Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.

Not that your displeasure is high on the list anyway but for the meek and impressionable I hope they do some minor research before jumping on the idiot band wagon!

We'll see. It is not as if the current meat production process is that kosher though, with all the hormones and antibiotics used in industrial livestock farming, let alone diseases and whatnot.

Well the lesson to be learned here is to look for a trustworthy butcher and a decent farm that one trusts to have a 'kosher type' meat. If no such methods are secured then there are alternatives to meat from which one can get their basic nutrients it isn't a life or death situation if a person only has one onion smothered steak every two yrs.

all the best

[tetsujin]

As a cynical heathen it would be better for you to to follow your animalistic considerations in lieu of principles and ethics, given your minority state your views and customs are as negligible as those of the Zoroastrians wanting to be taken apart at the death towers (as it seems even they are unable to practice their customs modern day) but we on the other hand are certainly free to bring up the lewdness and absurdities of your ways and paint you as the typical prototypes poster children for immoral heathens!

all the best

Egyptians no longer build Pyramids, and the Aztec no longer make human sacrifices. What you've stated has no relevance to my post.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

[جوري]

Egyptians no longer build Pyramids, and the Aztec no longer make human sacrifices. What you've stated has no relevance to my post.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

Your comments about the Egyptians and the Aztec are in fact the matter of no relevance to this issue-- we are not talking about 'human sacrifices' we are speaking of respect for the dead! I have no idea why the majority of you enjoy the route of deflection when at a loss for germane and reasoned responses. Try to focus pls. I can't be made to whittle myself away because you think you have something intelligent to say about some unrelated topic! Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it, if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.

all the best

[KAding]

Not that your displeasure is high on the list anyway but for the meek and impressionable I hope they do some minor research before jumping on the idiot band wagon!

Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Anyway, I'm willing to give this research a fair chance. We can judge the safety when they finalize the process. Just because something comes from a lab doesn't mean it is dangerous or bad for you.

[جوري]

Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Anyway, I'm willing to give this research a fair chance. We can judge the safety when they finalize the process. Just because something comes from a lab doesn't mean it is dangerous or bad for you.

I do when you have no idea what you are talking about and prompting something not to the well-fare of others because it bears the title of 'science' on it!
If it comes out a lab and you feel you can chow on it be my guests. Other folks who care for their well-fare and that of their family, shouldn't be made into a phase IV trial!

all the best

[tetsujin]

Your comments about the Egyptians and the Aztec are in fact the matter of no relevance to this issue-- we are not talking about 'human sacrifices' we are speaking of respect for the dead! I have no idea why the majority of you enjoy the route of deflection when at a loss for germane and reasoned responses. Try to focus pls. I can't be made to whittle myself away because you think you have something intelligent to say about some unrelated topic!

As you wish. :statisfie

Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it, if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.

A "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. I'll accept that as "yes".

all the best

likewise

Faysal

[Skavau]

Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it,

Why should we conform to it?

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?

if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.

I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.

[Justufy]

Why should we conform to it?

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?


I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.

Sometimes advancing from Kholberg's first level of morals (pre-conventionnal morals) stade 1: fear of punishment (hell/heaven) and passing to a more evolved level of moral is a good thing.

[جوري]

Why should we conform to it?

Some individuals indeed through their own volition choose not to live amongst civilized individuals and you are welcome to that life-style if you are capable of handling the consequences!

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?

Which religions have I labeled as hedonistic?

I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.

You sound like a oaf what is your point?

[Skavau]

Sometimes advancing from Kholberg's first level of morals (pre-conventionnal morals) stade 1: fear of punishment (hell/heaven) and passing to a more evolved level of moral is a good thing.

Indeed.

Doing good because of fear of a punishment and/or a desire for reward is not a motivation that can be considered sincere. It is motivated entirely by self-interest.

[جوري]

Indeed.

Doing good because of fear of a punishment and/or a desire for reward is not a motivation that can be considered sincere. It is motivated entirely by self-interest.

I thought we discussed and concluded in the other thread until you stretched it beyond recognition that it is only the atheist endeavor to do out of reward and punishment given the loss for meta objectives and the need to focus on materialism in the here and now and you beautifully demonstrated that through and through.. changed your mind now because you are at a loss for substance?

all the best

[Skavau]

Some individuals indeed through their own volition choose not to live amongst civilized individuals and you are welcome to that life-style if you are capable of handling the consequences!

I meant specifically, why should someone not of a religious persuasion have to conform to religious principles? And which ones?

And what consequences are you speaking of here?

Which religions have I labeled as hedonistic?

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

You sound like a oaf what is your point?

None whatsoever. It was just a side comment.

[Skavau]

I thought we discussed and concluded in the other thread until you stretched it beyond recognition that it is only the atheist endeavor to do out of reward and punishment given the loss for meta objectives and the need to focus on materialism in the here and now and you beautifully demonstrated that through and through.. changed your mind now because you are at a loss for substance?

What on earth do you mean by "loss for meta objectives"?

In any case, given your track record of misunderstanding just about everything I say - the answer is no. I never concluded such a thing. You just as usual thought I did. And as usual, you are wrong about it. There is no 'atheist endeavour' to do anything. Morality 'objectively' has the purpose of improving the lives and advancing the interests of humanity. It can have no other coherent meaning. All compassion, all altruism, all empathy rests upon a desire and an interest to enhance and assist another being.

[Justufy]

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

Because thats what double standarts are for! ;D

[جوري]

I meant specifically, why should someone not of a religious persuasion have to conform to religious principles? And which ones?

The basic ones are the laws of the lands.. surely you've heard of the 'ten commandments' keeping with those is generally accepted. I know not eating your dead neighbor is a bit of a stretch on those ten but here is where your common sense might come into play, we hope!

And what consequences are you speaking of here?

It depends on the offense!

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

I wasn't repulsed by Zoroastrianism, I merely stated that their death towers are obsolete and negligible as atheist morality is negligible and that certainly doesn't equate with hedonism.. do you understand what the term means?

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

Morality generally speaking is universal.. customs and practices are a separate issue, I certainly understand that the lot of you like to reach in for things far and between when at a loss for common sense if you are not sure you may ask!

None whatsoever. It was just a side comment.

You are free to those, as am I

What on earth do you mean by "loss for meta objectives"?

Working for things beyond the material grasp!

In any case, given your track record of misunderstanding just about everything I say - the answer is no. I never concluded such a thing. You just as usual thought I did. And as usual, you are wrong about it.

You can assert otherwise but your words said different :shade:

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

[جوري]

Dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

It is best to feed on genetically engineered bunk.. bunk is atheist brain food!

all the best

[Justufy]

dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

dont bait it!

[Justufy]

It is best to feed on genetically engineered bunk.. bunk is atheist brain food!

all the best

To late:omg:

[Skavau]

The basic ones are the laws of the lands.. surely you've heard of the 'ten commandments' keeping with those is generally accepted. I know not eating your dead neighbor is a bit of a stretch on those ten but here is where your common sense might come into play, we hope!

The Ten Commandments?

The first three commandments are all to do with how to most effectively not upset God. These are not moral assertions, they are simply commands on respecting the 'dear leader'. The fourth commandment is an insistence I respect a specific day that I have no reason to respect from my perspective.

The requests to honour your parents, to not murder, to not lie or to not steal are fairly reasonable requests - but we can all reason and declare them from a completely secular perspective. They do not require an observance of the ten commandments in order to conform to them.

In addition, the commandments miss out very, rather important things. They do not condemn slavery. They do not condemn rape. They do not condemn torture. They do not condemn genocide and many other rather disastrous things.

I wasn't repulsed by Zoroastrianism, I merely stated that their death towers are obsolete and negligible as atheist morality is negligible and that certainly doesn't equate with hedonism.. do you understand what the term means?

This.... doesn't matter. You obviously disagree with the majority of religions, extinct or otherwise on what ought and ought not be done. That was my point. By your own reckoning, you aren't being consistent with the claim that morality comes from religion.

Morality generally speaking is universal.. customs and practices are a separate issue, I certainly understand that the lot of you like to reach in for things far and between when at a loss for common sense if you are not sure you may ask!

What moral edicts are universal specifically?

You can assert otherwise but your words said different

Of course, only you seem to think this. Funny that.

[جوري]

To late:omg:

you don't really need to quote me to make another one of your non-points.
If you don't like it here, you can take your atheist pal and start your own forum. what say you? pointing out 'trolling' by being a troll is rather self defeating in both your cases!

all the best

[جوري]

The Ten Commandments?

The first three commandments are all to do with how to most effectively not upset God. These are not moral assertions, they are simply commands on respecting the 'dear leader'. The fourth commandment is an insistence I respect a specific day that I have no reason to respect from my perspective.

We have already discussed that you have no moral compass on the other thread, you have already defined that for us in various forms up to and including incestuous relations between brothers and sisters. I don't really need to have another tirade for you to prove to me something that I already know about you.

The requests to honour your parents, to not murder, to not lie or to not steal are fairly reasonable requests - but we can all reason and declare them from a completely secular perspective. They do not require an observance of the ten commandments in order to conform to them.

Does taking religious basis for your socially acceptable mores and secularizing it render it any less steeped in religious origins?

In addition, the commandments miss out very, rather important things. They do not condemn slavery. They do not condemn rape. They do not condemn torture. They do not condemn genocide and many other rather disastrous things.

That is what happens when you minify your standards but generally speaking I think it is good starting baseline for most atheists!

This.... doesn't matter. You obviously disagree with the majority of religions, extinct or otherwise on what ought and ought not be done. That was my point. By your own reckoning, you aren't being consistent with the claim that morality comes from religion.

If it doesn't come from religion then where does it come from? you are yet to prove that morality has atheist roots along with 'God doesn't exist' until you do so adequately morality didn't have its inception in an atheist society.. I was being quite consistent for your purposes there is no reason to discuss finite details with someone who doesn't have the basics down. and yes the matter quite matters.. given the terms render a completely different definition. If you wish to make a valid point then don't undo a perceived error with a more grave error.

Of course, only you seem to think this. Funny that.

Comedy never goes out of style..

all the best

[Skavau]

We have already discussed that you have no moral compass on the other thread, you have already defined it in various forms up to and including incestuous relations between brothers and sisters. I don't really need to have another tirade for you to prove to me something that I already know about you.

Of course, the irony is that I support people's right to engage in consensual incest because of moral reasons I consider important.

So, you've just pointed out something that shows I do consider specific things moral.

Does taking religious basis for your socially acceptable mores and secularizing it render it any less steeped in religious origins?

Are you seriously making the claim that humanity would have been incapable of understanding that they would get further if they perhaps prohibited murder without religion or divine intervention?

In any case, I don't and have never claimed things such as murder, theft, dishonesty are wrong because of religious reasons.

That is what happens when you minify your standards but generally speaking I think it is good starting baseline for most atheists!

A baseline where about half of the commandments are completely irrelevant to me?

If it doesn't come from religion then where does it come from?

Us.

As soon as humanity became an intelligent and social species, a requirement feel for behavioural constraint amongst groups of people. Religious influence corrupted it and misrepresented it in the interest of the few.

you are yet to prove that morality has atheist roots along with 'God doesn't exist' until you do so adequately morality didn't have its inception in an atheist society..

I am yet to prove such a thing because I don't actually claim that morality has atheist roots (?). I claim that morality has its roots in humanism, not atheism.

I also don't actually explicitly claim that God does not exist.

I was being quite consistent for your purposes there is no reason to discuss finite details with someone who doesn't have the basics down. and yes the matter quite matters.. given the terms render a completely different definition. If you wish to make a valid point then don't undo a perceived error with a more grave error.

I'll take that as a concession.

Your only defence for your claim that religion dictates morality has been to rather petulantly complain that it doesn't come from atheism (a claim that I have never ever made, and have in fact never ever seen anyone make ever).

[جوري]

Of course, the irony is that I support people's right to engage in consensual incest because of moral reasons I consider important.

I don't see any irony about creating your own moral compass and having it be completely degenerate!

So, you've just pointed out something that shows I do consider specific things moral.

I have pointed out that what you consider moral is in fact not!

Are you seriously making the claim that humanity would have been incapable of understanding that they would get further if they perhaps prohibited murder without religion or divine intervention?

I am asking you to prove that morality started in an atheistic society, that differs completely from what you have written above. I rather despise answering my questions with another no related one I consider it a waste of everyone's time and I think that is a crime!

In any case, I don't and have never claimed things such as murder, theft, dishonesty are wrong because of religious reasons.

You have claimed them secular and I am stating that they are not, until such a time you can prove that such principles were birthed from atheism and not religion!

A baseline where about half of the commandments are completely irrelevant to me?

Where you break commandments that also happen to be a part of the now 'secular state law' then don't be surprised if you face some sort of fine or imprisonment, just because it is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the people around you-- You don't live in an insular world!

As soon as humanity became an intelligent and social species, a requirement feel for behavioural constraint amongst groups of people. Religious influence corrupted it and misrepresented it in the interest of the few.

I think you mean atheist influence corrupted it and rendered it nothing above mere animals in the jungle as evidenced by the massive death and corruption dispensed by atheists than all the religions combined. Although I don't condone the ignorance and frank lunacy of some religious regimes!

I am yet to prove such a thing because I don't actually claim that morality has atheist roots (?). I claim that morality has its roots in humanism, not atheism.

humanism started sometime around 1806 (buzzer sound) sorry.. can't makeup crap as you go along and expect it to take effect because you said so!

I also don't actually explicitly claim that God does not exist.

Ok

I'll take that as a concession.

Your only defence for your claim that religion dictates morality has been to rather petulantly complain that it doesn't come from atheism (a claim that I have never ever made, and have in fact never ever seen anyone make ever).

I have no idea what this means.. I was hoping you'd end on a high note so I can go to bed on a better note (I so love my punch lines especially when half asleep) but I guess no such luck..

all the best

[Skavau]

I don't see any irony about creating your own moral compass and having it be completely degenerate!

I have pointed out that what you consider moral is in fact not!

These are both just claims. You have bought no supporting evidence or convincing reason to your side.

I am asking you to prove that morality started in an atheistic society, that differs completely from what you have written above. I rather despise answering my questions with another no related one I consider it a waste of everyone's time and I think that is a crime!

I have never made the claim that morality did 'begin' (?) in an 'atheistic society'.

You have claimed them secular and I am stating that they are not, until such a time you can prove that such principles were birthed from atheism and not religion!

I have never made the claim that they are atheistic. I have claimed they are secular. That is to say that you can contend that murder is wrong based entirely on secular reasoning. I do and so do millions of people.

Where you break commandments that also happen to be a part of the now 'secular state law' then don't be surprised if you face some sort of fine or imprisonment

This is basically stating the obvious. You do understand now, that secular democratic states contend things such as murder and theft to be wrong not because they are in the ten commandments, but because of how they impact the population within the state, right?

, just because it is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the people around you-- You don't live in an insular world!

This again is stating the obvious. I am aware the observing the commands of God are very important to millions of people. What does this have to do with anything?

I think you mean atheist influence corrupted it and rendered it nothing above mere animals in the jungle as evidenced by the massive death and corruption dispensed by atheists than all the religions combined. Although I don't condone the ignorance and frank lunacy of some religious regimes!

Of course you don't. That is why when you talk about religion, you reference it convieniently to suit your own objectives. You will cite the ten commandments to me as an example of virtue, and then I'll see you on another thread arguing with and insulting a Christian over just about everything in their belief system.

humanism started sometime around 1806 (buzzer sound) sorry.. can't makeup crap as you go along and expect it to take effect because you said so!

I am of course, talking about humanism in the broad sense. The idea that morality is by, and for humans.

I have no idea what this means.. I was hoping you'd end on a high note so I can go to bed on a better note (I so love my punch lines especially when half asleep) but I guess no such luck..

I couldn't have guessed. Your needless verbal bombasity is evidence to my observation that you try and make others laugh (often to the deliberate expense of others).

[جوري]

These are both just claims. You have bought no supporting evidence or convincing reason to your side.

what is satisfactory evidence in your book?

I have never made the claim that morality did 'begin' (?) in an 'atheistic society'.

Then why are you arguing here?

I have never made the claim that they are atheistic. I have claimed they are secular. That is to say that you can contend that murder is wrong based entirely on secular reasoning. I do and so do millions of people.

So it isn't 'humanism' anymore. You are yet to prove that murder is wrong based on 'secular' reasoning. In fact I can't think of a single good reason from your secular perspective why murder would be a bad thing?

This is basically stating the obvious. You do understand now, that secular democratic states contend things such as murder and theft to be wrong not because they are in the ten commandments, but because of how they impact the population within the state, right?

No, I don't.. they are borrowed and fixed to hush folks such as yourself.. but I have no doubt that atheists left to their own devices will give us another mao xedong, or saloth sar or enver hoxha etc.

This again is stating the obvious. I am aware the observing the commands of God are very important to millions of people. What does this have to do with anything?

It wasn't so obvious to you a post ago when you contended that they are irrelevant to you personally.

Of course you don't. That is why when you talk about religion, you reference it convieniently to suit your own objectives. You will cite the ten commandments to me as an example of virtue, and then I'll see you on another thread arguing with and insulting a Christian over just about everything in their belief system.

What does code of conduct to do with esoteric beliefs whether they are Zoroastrianism or in Christianity. The problem with arguing with an atheist aside from the obvious circuitous arguments and complete waste of time is
1- there is no common ground, when you baseline starts at a completely different point even bringing the closest thing to common sense as primitive as conduct chiseled on a tablet is still elusive.. how can I possibly hope to bridge more finite details and their relevance when the very basics escape you?

I am of course, talking about humanism in the broad sense. The idea that morality is by, and for humans.

I am sure you were!

I couldn't have guessed. Your needless verbal bombasity is evidence to my observation that you try and make others laugh (often to the deliberate expense of others).

One should seize the opportunities as they present themselves!

all the best

[Skavau]

what is satisfactory evidence in your book?

Concerning morality, 'evidence' is a bit of a misnomer. Give me supporting reasons rather than just explicit declarations of disagreement as to why a couple engaging in consensual incest is unacceptable, or wrong.

Then why are you arguing here?

I took issue with your position that everyone ought to conform to religious demands.

So it isn't 'humanism' anymore. You are yet to prove that murder is wrong based on 'secular' reasoning. In fact I can't think of a single good reason from your secular perspective why murder would be a bad thing?

That's because you're not trying. I've given you many. A society which legalises or allows murder is a society declaring its own destruction. A community that has no problem with murder generally does not last as long and is generally nowhere near as successful as another community that does not allow murder. We learn quickly that we will all benefit if we stop killing each other.

That's just one reason.

No, I don't.. they are borrowed and fixed to hush folks such as yourself.. but I have no doubt that atheists left to their own devices will give us another mao xedong, or saloth sar or enver hoxha etc.

This is just a conspiracy theory. And indeed, a website I referenced to you before (that you claimed your firefox addon detected as dangerous) here shows that highly secular irreligious nations are amongst the best in the world to live in.

Also, have you read the religious makeup of the US. Prison Population and contrasted it to the religious makeup of the USA? Just out of interest.

It wasn't so obvious to you a post ago when you contended that they are irrelevant to you personally.

Huh...?

I never said that other people didn't find God's commands important. I just said I don't find specific rules on how to best appease God relevant (as I'm an atheist) and therefore stated they were irrelevant to me. Why are you making a storm out of a teacup?

What does code of conduct to do with esoteric beliefs whether they are Zoroastrianism or in Christianity. The problem with arguing with an atheist aside from the obvious circuitous arguments and complete waste of time is 1- there is no common ground, when you baseline starts at a completely different point even bringing the closest thing to common sense as primitive as conduct chiseled on a tablet is still elusive.. how can I possibly hope to bridge more finite details and their relevance when the very basics escape you?

I have no idea what this means. It looks like yet another poorly veiled insult.

I am sure you were!

Yes, I was.

[جوري]

Concerning morality, 'evidence' is a bit of a misnomer. Give me supporting reasons rather than just explicit declarations of disagreement as to why a couple engaging in consensual incest is unacceptable, or wrong.

Morality is the discrimination between right and wrong.. sorry there are no scientific methods employed to bring about desired 'evidence' and you'll find that true for everything that falls under that category including the minute things you happen to agree with as falling under that umbrella!

I took issue with your position that everyone ought to conform to religious demands.

And that is indeed what I think should be done specifically with the religion of Islam!

That's because you're not trying. I've given you many. A society which legalises or allows murder is a society declaring its own destruction. A community that has no problem with murder generally does not last as long and is generally nowhere near as successful as another community that does not allow murder. We learn quickly that we will all benefit if we stop killing each other.

Not necessarily true at all. it will curb on over-crowding, the weaker individuals in said societies, decrease in pestilence and plagues that happen in areas of over-crowding, decrease in starvation and famine, better standard of living for those surviving.. it will be just like the animal kingdom.. in fact many positives that whatever negatives you perceive will pale significantly by comparison!

This is just a conspiracy theory. And indeed, a website I referenced to you before (that you claimed your firefox addon detected as dangerous) here shows that highly secular irreligious nations are amongst the best in the world to live in.

that is a subjective observation even if I were to open the link!

Also, have you read the religious makeup of the US. Prison Population and contrasted it to the religious makeup of the USA? Just out of interest.

No, I know many people find religion upon entering prison... religion should preclude from commission of sin by its very nature.. anyone that commits a crime has in fact divorced themselves from religion!

I never said that other people didn't find God's commands important. I just said I don't find specific rules on how to best appease God relevant (as I'm an atheist) and therefore stated they were irrelevant to me. Why are you making a storm out of a teacup?

I am not I am merely working with what you have written.

I have no idea what this means. It looks like yet another poorly veiled insult.

take it whichever way you like!

Yes, I was.

and on this intellectually charged note I bid you a good night!

[Skavau]

Morality is the discrimination between right and wrong.. sorry there are no scientific methods employed to bring about desired 'evidence' and you'll find that true for everything that falls under that category including the minute things you happen to agree with as falling under that umbrella!

Of course, for that to mean anything 'right' and 'wrong' (what one ought to do and what one ought not do) have to be defined. I know your definition already and it is simply a matter of obedience to you. You already know my extensive analysis of this and all you had to say to it was that I was 'revolting' in saying it.

And that is indeed what I think should be done specifically with the religion of Islam!

There we go then. Thank you for finally admitting it. You think everyone ought to accomadate themselves for Islam, not 'religion' in general. You think my choices are meaningless and discardable compared to the interests and objectives of Islam.

This strikes you as moral. It strikes me as implicity totalitarian.

Not necessarily true at all. it will curb on over-crowding, the weaker individuals in said societies, decrease in pestilence and plagues that happen in areas of over-crowding, decrease in starvation and famine, better standard of living for those surviving.. it will be just like the animal kingdom.. in fact many positives that whatever negatives you perceive will pale significantly by comparison!

You are keeping in tune with what murder means, aren't you? We're not talking about a government that takes preventative measures to 'safeguard' against overpopulation, or famine (measures directly parallel to burning the village down to save it).

We are talking about a state allowing its citizens to randomly murder other people. We are talking about a society where there is no personal safety. We are talking about a society where there can be no safeguard against your destruction. Where the state decrees your interests as meaningless in comparison to a would-be murderers.

Pertaining to your own example of government sponsored death squads: I would ask you precisely, who you imagine tha prospect of murder is a preferable scenario for? Is it preferable for the next victim? Is it a good situation for those who live their lives in fear? This by the way, leads me to another point: that the continuation of a society, or the outward orderly nature of a society does not demonstrate its morality. Nations such as Saudi Arabia may give an impression of an orderly society, but mark themselves with oppression and control of its citizens or in practice, subjects for their own objectives.

that is a subjective observation even if I were to open the link!

Of course, not even opening the link you wouldn't know that. Considering it weighs up statistics such as Quality Of Life, Gender Equality, Life Expectancy, Literacy, Environment etc - I would contend it involves very real statistics.

No, I know many people find religion upon entering prison... religion should preclude from commission of sin by its very nature.. anyone that commits a crime has in fact divorced themselves from religion!

How convenient. Again.

Just to let you know however, less than about 0.3% of the prison population are made up of atheists, whereas atheists make up arguably at least 3% of the USA.

[جوري]

Of course, for that to mean anything 'right' and 'wrong' (what one ought to do and what one ought not do) have to be defined. I know your definition already and it is simply a matter of obedience to you. You already know my extensive analysis of this and all you had to say to it was that I was 'revolting' in saying it.

Obedience is a matter only understood and peddled by atheists, for I can't imagine outside of their material world and personal gain in the here and now why they'd have to conform themselves to standards of things unseen!

There we go then. Thank you for finally admitting it. You think everyone ought to accomadate themselves for Islam, not 'religion' in general. You think my choices are meaningless and discardable compared to the interests and objectives of Islam.

accommodate? I rather think you should be so lucky!

This strikes you as moral. It strikes me as implicity totalitarian.

You are not the measuring stick by which folks evaluate their lives!

You are keeping in tune with what murder means, aren't you? We're not talking about a government that takes preventative measures to 'safeguard' against overpopulation, or famine (measures directly parallel to burning the village down to save it).

We are talking about a state allowing its citizens to randomly murder other people. We are talking about a society where there is no personal safety. We are talking about a society where there can be no safeguard against your destruction. Where the state decrees your interests as meaningless in comparison to a would-be murderers. Pertaining to your own example of government sponsored death squads: I would ask you precisely, who you imagine tha prospect of murder is a preferable scenario for? Is it preferable for the next victim? Is it a good situation for those who live their lives in fear? This by the way, leads me to another point: that the continuation of a society, or the outward orderly nature of a society does not demonstrate its morality. Nations such as Saudi Arabia may give an impression of an orderly society, but mark themselves with oppression and control of its citizens or in practice, subjects for their own objectives.

No we are talking murder as would occur in the animal kingdom. You know in keeping with our aped ancestors. Do animals kill without a reason? In fact I think they show more compassion than some humans. Killing for the basic instincts and for the aofre mentioned. Do animals live in fear? I guess you gain something at the price of another.. indeed those weaklings would perish and there would be a strong orderly society.. you have given a winded sermon but failed and as usual to make a point.. and that is unfortunately the case when 'morality' is left to personal devices

Of course, not even opening the link you wouldn't know that. Considering it weighs up statistics such as Quality Of Life, Gender Equality, Life Expectancy, Literacy, Environment etc - I would contend it involves very real statistics.

I don't think you took a course in statistics in your entire life.. it is sad when the ignorant are left to google and think they have a legitimate point!

Odds Are, It's Wrong

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests are often contradictory and confusing

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...are,_its_wrong

Now you know :D

How convenient. Again.

Generally you shouldn't be the one left to judge convenience!

Just to let you know however, less than about 0.3% of the prison population are made up of atheists, whereas atheists make up arguably at least 3% of the USA.

See the science article above about stats.
it does pay to stay in school and get a higher education though.. I'll give you that much!

all the best

[Skavau]

Obedience is a matter only understood and peddled by atheists, for I can't imagine outside of their material world and personal gain in the here and now why they'd have to conform themselves to standards of things unseen!

Uh, the english confuses me again.

accommodate? I rather think you should be so lucky!

Thank you for the spelling correction. In any case, was anything I said there wrong?

You are not the measuring stick by which folks evaluate their lives!

No, and neither ought other people be bound by your measuring stick (as you would have them be).

No we are talking murder as would occur in the animal kingdom. You know in keeping with our aped ancestors.

Why would we deliberately take effort to keep in with the actions of our ancestors?

Do animals kill without a reason? In fact I think they show more compassion than some humans. Killing for the basic instincts and for the aofre mentioned. Do animals live in fear? I guess you gain something at the price of another.. indeed those weaklings would perish and there would be a strong orderly society..

Of course, if you're contrasting this with the animal kingdom as I think you are - we don't see this, and we now have the capacity and technology to allow the weaker members of society to live in comfort and we have the capacity and technology now to allow everyone personal liberty. We have no reason to cull the population on such extreme measures like over-population or issues of famine.

I don't think you took a course in statistics in your entire life.. it is sad when the ignorant are left to google and think they have a legitimate point!

Odds Are, It's Wrong

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests are often contradictory and confusing

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...are,_its_wrong

Of course, you still outright refuse to read the link I referenced - so I'll take this with a pinch of salt as you do mine.

In any case, all you're doing is claiming you're suspicious of all statistics. So it is more selective skepticism on your behalf. Also you're contrasting statistics in science with statistics collected from information pools such as censuses and investigations by independent sources.

[جوري]

Uh, the english confuses me again.

Stay in school kid!

Thank you for the spelling correction. In any case, was anything I said there wrong?

Always!

No, and neither ought other people be bound by your measuring stick (as you would have them be).

Tough since societies run on majority consensus and the majority aren't atheists!

Why would we deliberately take effort to keep in with the actions of our ancestors?

Why not?

Of course, if you're contrasting this with the animal kingdom as I think you are - we don't see this, and we now have the capacity and technology to allow the weaker members of society to live in comfort and we have the capacity and technology now to allow everyone personal liberty. We have no reason to cull the population on such extreme measures like over-population or issues of famine.

Yes I have seen by manufacturing genetically engineered foods that cause end organ damage! good point ..
Anyhow the entire point is the question of ethics from your desired perspective will have no calculable risk, will be left to the devices of folks slightly better evolved than animals and with the basic instincts!

Of course, you still outright refuse to read the link I referenced - so I'll take this with a pinch of salt as you do mine.

Ummmm firstly the link is WOT warned against and secondly have you not learned anything at all from the new science magazine?

In any case, all you're doing is claiming you're suspicious of all statistics. So it is more selective skepticism on your behalf. Also you're contrasting statistics in science with statistics collected from information pools such as censuses and investigations by independent sources.

Not selective at all, having a higher education precludes one from jumping into the oaf band wagon. If you have taken at least a couple of college courses on stats. You'll know how to sort through the crap. And I can sort through the crap rather well!

all the best

[Skavau]

Tough since societies run on majority consensus and the majority aren't atheists!

You do not speak for the majority. In fact, this is a completely self-destructive point. Within secular society, most people don't believe what you believe. You are a distinct minority within secular societies on morality so if my opinion is disregaradable, as is yours.

In any case, even if the majority were atheists - no-one would actually be telling you what to do. In an ideal state - I have no problems with you living as much as a pure Islamic lifestyle as you can. I have no problem with anyone having a full religious observance.

However, you do not share the same ideals. In your ideal state, I and others of non-Islamic persuasions would indeed not have the liberty we would grant you. You have already admitted this. So do you really take democracy seriously?

Why not?

You know, just being the devil's advocate for the hell of it is pointless. I thought you were going to show me how it is preferable to murder than not? Just be suggesting we act in random ways (like our ancestors) and then shrug your shoulders when asked why is a sign of just disagreeing for the sake of it.

Do you have a point, exactly? There is no reason to act like our ancestors. Especially no moral reason.

Anyhow the entire point is the question of ethics from your desired perspective will have no calculable risk, will be left to the devices of folks slightly better evolved than animals and with the basic instincts!

Again, you just have a problem with the human condition. You don't think we're equipped to formulate our own perspectives without divine guidance.

Ummmm firstly the link is WOT warned against and secondly have you not learned anything at all from the new science magazine?

Reinstall your Firefox Addon. The Vexen website is not a virus risk. AVG is not informing me of any risks and it contains basically nothing but text.

Not selective at all, having a higher education precludes one from jumping into the oaf band wagon. If you have taken at least a couple of college courses on stats. You'll know how to sort through the crap. And I can sort through the crap rather well!

No, you can't.

In fact your bias is your undoing.

[جوري]

You do not speak for the majority. In fact, this is a completely self-destructive point. Within secular society, most people don't believe what you believe. You are a distinct minority within secular societies on morality so if my opinion is disregaradable, as is yours.

Until such a time you survey the majority door to door you don't get to dictate what the majority wants, society is composed of families as its basic units, and most families value structure and ethics as suitable environment to raise their children and live decent productive lives!

In any case, even if the majority were atheists - no-one would actually be telling you what to do. In an ideal state - I have no problems with you living as much as a pure Islamic lifestyle as you can. I have no problem with anyone having a full religious observance.

No one in an Islamic state would be telling you an atheist what to do either, so long as your personal freedoms don't impinge on the general good of the public. It is a sad state when the ignorant such as yourself speak of societies that are neither in existence nor do they have the slightest sliver of knowledge about!
Reading two paragraphs on a forum from third party sources is no substitute for a proper education!

However, you do not share the same ideals. In your ideal state, I and others of non-Islamic persuasions would indeed not have the liberty we would grant you. You have already admitted this. So do you really take democracy seriously?

See above reply!

You know, just being the devil's advocate for the hell of it is pointless. I thought you were going to show me how it is preferable to murder than not? Just be suggesting we act in random ways (like our ancestors) and then shrug your shoulders when asked why is a sign of just disagreeing for the sake of it.

I have shown quite the extensive list two posts ago, you have chosen to ignore it. and it remains if you don't have a clearly delineated system of right or wrong you are left to your devices, you add and subtract as you see fit and come up with nonsensical conclusions at the end of the day which you plaster for the purpose of having the last word not because you have some semblance of knowledge of what it is you are talking about!

Do you have a point, exactly? There is no reason to act like our ancestors. Especially no moral reason.

You haven't defined morality for us from your perspective to speak of points or non-points!

Again, you just have a problem with the human condition. You don't think we're equipped to formulate our own perspectives without divine guidance.

Where did your 'own perspective' come from? you created in yourself ex nihilo?

Reinstall your Firefox Addon. The Vexen website is not a virus risk. AVG is not informing me of any risks and it contains basically nothing but text.

What is the point when I have already shown you that stats are often wrong and misinterpreted and are a tool of the ignorant, which frankly you are!

No, you can't.

lol.. coming from you, it is a compliment. I don't look for validation from nameless computer atheists!

In fact your bias is your undoing.

good to have an objective than to forge forth on weakness to no end!

all the best

[The Adogmatist]

If moral rules directing behavior not to hurt each other comes solely from religion,
what keeps wolves from tearing each other apart even if they do not kneel before the cross of Christ?
what makes bees gather nectar all day for their queen's children even if they do not heed the word of the Prophet?
why would a mother bear defend her cubs to her death when she has never read the commands of Krishna?

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

Oh, and I've met many atheists who are spiritualists and not restricted to the materialistic point of view. One example is Deists who usually believe in some form of cosmic energy, guiding principle, prime mover etc.

[جوري]

If moral rules directing behavior not to hurt each other comes solely from religion,
what keeps wolves from tearing each other apart even if they do not kneel before the cross of Christ?
what makes bees gather nectar all day for their queen's children even if they do not heed the word of the Prophet?
why would a mother bear defend her cubs to her death when she has never read the commands of Krishna?

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

Oh, and I've met many atheists who are spiritualists and not restricted to the materialistic point of view. One example is Deists who usually believe in some form of cosmic energy, guiding principle, prime mover etc.

All creatures in the universe and all that is in creation are Muslim, only humankind has free will!

all the best

[The Adogmatist]

All creatures in the universe and all that is in creation are Muslim, only humankind has free will!

Interesting, what do you mean by "free will" and how do you know that humans, and only humans have that?

A cat can decide whether it should lie down in front of the door or in front of a chair, just like I can decide whether I should lie down on a bed or a sofa. Why would my choice be more "free" than that of the cat?

[جوري]

Anyhow, in keeping with the thread I think this article clarifies the Islamic objective for the treatment of animals:

Jump to article tools

Humane Treatment of Animals

Description: The compassion and mercy of Islam not only encompasses humanity, but also extends to all creatures in the world.
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Feb 2006 - Last modified on 04 Oct 2009
Viewed: 11398 (daily average: 8) - Rating: 4.7 out of 5 - Rated by: 23
Printed: 475 - Emailed: 16 - Commented on: 5
Category: Articles > Worship and Practice > Islamic Morals and Practices

God, the Creator of human beings and animals, has made animals subservient to us. We depend on animals for the food we eat and the milk we drink. We bring animals into our homes for love and companionship. We survive critical illness and live longer because of biomedical research on animals. We visit to zoos and aquariums to gain an appreciation for the spectacular diversity of life on earth. We benefit from specially trained dogs that detect drugs, guide the blind, and assist the disabled. God says in the Quran:
“And the cattle, He has created them for you. You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat. And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture). And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves. Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament. And He creates what you know not.” (Quran 16:5-8)
The mercy of Islam extends beyond human beings to all living creations of God. Islam prohibits cruelty to animals. Fourteen hundred years ago, long before the modern animal rights movement began with the publication of Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation,” in 1975, Islam required kindness to animals and cruelty to them a sufficient reason for a person to be thrown into the Fire!
Once, the Prophet of Mercy spoke of God’s forgiveness due to the humane treatment of animals. He told his companions the story of a man who got thirsty on his way. He found a well, climbed down inside it to the water, and quenched his thirst. When he came out he saw a panting dog licking on mud out of extreme thirst. The man thought to himself, ‘The dog has become as thirsty as I was!’ The man went down the well again and got some water for the dog. God appreciated his good work and forgave him. The companions asked, ‘O Prophet of God, do we get rewarded on humane treatment of animals?’ He said, ‘There is a reward in (doing good to) every living being.’[1]
On another occasion, Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, described God’s punishment of a woman who was sent to Hell because of a cat. She kept her locked up, neither feeding her nor setting her free to feed herself.[2]
Islam laid down humane slaughtering regulations. Islam insists that the manner of slaughter should be that which is least painful to the animal. Islam requires that the slaughtering instrument not be sharpened in front of the animal. Islam also prohibits the slaughtering of one animal in front of another. Never, prior to Islam, had the world witnessed such concern for animals.
Humane Islamic treatment of animals can be summarized by the following points:
First, Islam requires that pets or farm animals be provided with proper food, water, and a place to live. Once the Prophet passed by an emaciated camel due to hunger, he said:
“Fear God in regards to these animals who can not speak their will. If you ride them, treat them accordingly (by making them strong and fit for that), and if you [plan to] eat them, treat them accordingly (by making them fat and healthy).” (Abu Dawud)
Second, an animal should not be beaten or tortured. Once the Prophet of Mercy passed by an animal branded on his face. He said, ‘Has it not reached you that I have cursed the one who brands an animal’s face or hits it on its face?’[3] The Prophet of Mercy advised his wife to treat an unruly camel that she was riding kindly.[4] Making animals fight one another for entertainment was also forbidden by the Prophet.[5]
Third, Islam forbids using animals or birds for targets when practicing shooting. When Ibn Umar, one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad saw some people practicing archery using a hen as a target, he said:
“The Prophet cursed anyone who made a living thing into a target (for practice).”
The Prophet Muhammad also said:
“‘Whoever kills a bird or anything else without its due right, God would ask him about it.’ It was said: ‘O Messenger of God! What is its due right?’ He said: ‘To kill it for food…and do not sever its head, and throw it!’” (Targheeb)
Shooting at live pigeons was once an Olympic event and today dove shooting is allowed in many places.
Fourth, separating nestling birds from their mothers is not allowed in Islam.
Fifth, it is forbidden to mutilate an animal by cutting off its ears, tails or other body parts without just reason.
Sixth, a sick animal under one’s care should be treated properly.
Through these rules and regulations legislated in regards to animals, the Muslims gains the respect and understanding that other creatures are not to be used and abused as one wills, but that they, like humans, have rights which must be given in order to ensure that the justice and mercy of Islam be met to all which inhabit this earth.

Footnotes: [1] Saheeh Al-Bukhari

[2] Saheeh Al-Bukhari

[3] Abu Dawud, Saheeh Muslim

[4] Saheeh Muslim

[5] Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi


http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/185/

[marwen]

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

It's an Islamic forum, but not a "Just for muslims Forum". That means it talks about Islam, and anyone can join it if he want to express his opinion about Islam.

But my question is : why are atheist more likely to be vegetarian, more than the others ? I mean, what exists in atheism that pushes you to be vegetarian? I just want to know.

And btw, I'll be happy if I was invited to dinner by a vegetarian : I'll eat all the meat in the table, and I'll let to him all the salad ;D

[جوري]

Interesting, what do you mean by "free will" and how do you know that humans, and only humans have that?

A cat can decide whether it should lie down in front of the door or in front of a chair, just like I can decide whether I should lie down on a bed or a sofa. Why would my choice be more "free" than that of the cat?

free will not to be Muslim or to be Muslim.. lying on a couch or doing whatever isn't really a question of creed.

I was looking for the article here on how everything submits its will to God, written by Ansar Al'Adl but taken quite a bit of my time, perhaps someone should find it insha'Allah..

peace

[The Adogmatist]

why are atheist more likely to be vegetarian, more than the others ? I mean, what exists in atheism that pushes you to be vegetarian? I just want to know.

Thank you for the enlightenment about the forum :)

You asked "what exists in atheism...?" the answer to that is "nothing". "Atheism" means "without/no personal God", so all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in any of the personal Gods (Allah, Jahweh, Krishna, Vishnu etc.).
It is just like being a vegetarian means that you do not eat meat. People have many different reasons for being vegetarian, but the only thing vegetarians have in common is that they do not eat meat. Just like with atheists, there are no special rules or commandments for vegetarians that all of them must follow. The only thing is that if they start to eat meat they are, by definition, no longer vegetarians. Just like an atheist who starts believing in a God is no longer an atheist.

I do not even know IF there are more vegetarians among people who do not believe in a personal God (atheists) than among people who do (theists). Many Hindus are vegetarians. But I would assume if it was so, it could be because an atheist would usually not have any incentives to follow the holy texts that usually accompany the personal Gods. And at least the three largest middle-eastern religions say that animals are made to serve and feed humans. Since atheists do not follow these texts they have to decide themselves what animals are for, and many seem to decide that they are not made to feed humans and so they become vegetarians (they seem to decide that plants are ok for eating).

[The Adogmatist]

free will not to be Muslim or to be Muslim.. lying on a couch or doing whatever isn't really a question of creed.

That is also interesting. Why does free will have to be only related to creed? Why is the choice of religion more relevant to free will than the choice of football-team? Or the choice of materialism vs spiritualism? or the choice of considering a cat to be food or not?

[جوري]

That is also interesting. Why does free will have to be only related to creed? Why is the choice of religion more relevant to free will than the choice of football-team? Or the choice of materialism vs spiritualism? or the choice of considering a cat to be food or not?

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else? anyhow here is an article that I was able to find but not the one I had in mind:

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadeeth/...ostrating.html

thus when a creature fulfills its duty i.e making honey, 'rising/setting' etc that is its prescribed form of worship!

And Allah swt knows best

[The Adogmatist]

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else?

I'm not sure if I can choose to have free will or not, and I'm not sure what would be the most desirable. What are the pro's and con's of having free will?

I guess we are talking about any agent that one might suspect of having a free will :)

As to the animals (and the sun) worshiping Allah in everything they do: Firstly, I was told that they was actually worshiping Krishna in everything they did, how do you know that they do not worship both? Also how do we know that what they do is worship, but what other people do is not? For all I know I'm the only one with free will (which I'm not even convinced of) and everyone else are simply mindlessly worshiping Krishna, like the sun.

[جوري]

I'm not sure if I can choose to have free will or not, and I'm not sure what would be the most desirable. What are the pro's and con's of having free will?

I guess we are talking about any agent that one might suspect of having a free will :)

As to the animals (and the sun) worshiping Allah in everything they do: Firstly, I was told that they was actually worshiping Krishna in everything they did, how do you know that they do not worship both? Also how do we know that what they do is worship, but what other people do is not? For all I know I'm the only one with free will (which I'm not even convinced of) and everyone else are simply mindlessly worshiping Krishna, like the sun.

Greetings,

some questions you have to answer for yourself as to whether or not you like free will etc...
as for which religion, well again you need to establish that there is a God before you go off on tangents of which 'God'
There has only always been one God and folks trying to bring that God to a low common denominator by rendering him born or human or blue multi-colored or a reincarnate playing a flute . God should be outside of creation and outside the laws physics and the universe not the 8th avatar of Vishnu; incarnated as a handsome young man playing a flute. But that is something you have to figure out on your own time..
to me the less convoluted the more correct. God should be instinctively found as did Abraham and Moses and Enoch and Mohammed (p) reached him without rendering long tall tales of his being.

all the best

[Justufy]

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else? anyhow here is an article that I was able to find but not the one I had in mind:

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadeeth/...ostrating.html

thus when a creature fulfills its duty i.e making honey, 'rising/setting' etc that is its prescribed form of worship!

And Allah swt knows best

You keep spreading this free will idea; however, im far from convinced free will exists at all, why wouldn't the choices we take only appear free? Could they in fact be influenced by society, our own particular human nature, biological factors and cetera? I think free will would be awesome, but im far from convinced it exists, here I would opt for a more deterministic point of vue.

Are we really free? Is a much controversial question in philosophy and much debate remains on this issue, I even think il create a thread about it here ‘’ are we really free?’’.

[Skavau]

Until such a time you survey the majority door to door you don't get to dictate what the majority wants, society is composed of families as its basic units, and most families value structure and ethics as suitable environment to raise their children and live decent productive lives!

Of course. I am not saying I know what the majority wants. However you believe it is acceptable to dictate what the majority should do. I suspect in any case, that the majority in secular nations do not support the introduction of Islamic jurisprudence - as you do. Fair assumption?

No one in an Islamic state would be telling you an atheist what to do either, so long as your personal freedoms don't impinge on the general good of the public.

Well that's a reasonable perspective. Regretfully, Islam - or at least many Muslims in my experience have a fairly low standard for what constitutes as impinging on the general good of the public. I have observed Muslims stating that criticism and/or mockery of Islam can upset the balance and existence of a hypothetical 'utopian' Islamic state, and therefore ought to be banned for the general good. I have observed Muslims making similar justifications for the condemnation of apostasy and homosexuality.

So, I hope you can respect my caution when I hear you say someone is free to do as they will as long as they don't 'interfere' with the public. I mean, what to you constitutes interfering in this context?

It is a sad state when the ignorant such as yourself speak of societies that are neither in existence nor do they have the slightest sliver of knowledge about!
Reading two paragraphs on a forum from third party sources is no substitute for a proper education!

In this context, it is irrelevant. You have already said that right and wrong is simply a matter of obedience and disobedience to God. You have already stated people ought to adjust themselves to the 'supremacy' of Islamic ethics.

I have shown quite the extensive list two posts ago, you have chosen to ignore it. and it remains if you don't have a clearly delineated system of right or wrong you are left to your devices, you add and subtract as you see fit and come up with nonsensical conclusions at the end of the day which you plaster for the purpose of having the last word not because you have some semblance of knowledge of what it is you are talking about!

You made some ridiculous claim that a government that arbitrarily murders people on the basis of population control is a good one (ironically and despite your intentions, this is not a justification for murder but a claim that a necessary evil has to exist to quell overpopulation). Now, I'm going to assume that you take this point seriously and therefore could not find a means to condemn it in a godless universe.

So I'll ask you: Why would say, a government that murders people on the basis of over-population be unacceptable in a universe that presumes a theistic God that a universe that does not?

And onto the point, why is murder more contemptible on the presumption of a deity that it is not on the presumption of an absence of one?

Where did your 'own perspective' come from? you created in yourself ex nihilo?

My own perspective is an amalgamation of my own knowledge, my own experiences, my own biases and my own objectives.

What is the point when I have already shown you that stats are often wrong and misinterpreted and are a tool of the ignorant, which frankly you are!

The information I give you are effectively results from analysis and information from census. Draw what you will, but Scandinavia does very well. As does much of Europe.

[MicroSalma]

I'm not an atheist, but as an evolutionary biologist I feel I can give a decent response:

Whether a carnivorous lifestyle is moral or not is a question for all of us, not just atheists. I will say that there's nothing wrong with being a carnivore; that's simply how we've evolved.

The question then becomes: if we're willing to farm other animals, why should we not farm humans too?

Elaborate answers have been given (and I'd refer you to anthropology textbooks, and also work on moral philosophy), but the basic idea is that we have evolved empathy for each other, and the golden rule is inherent within us. Why though? Because without them, we would have died off long ago.

A society cannot function properly if we're out for ourselves; altruism is a key feature for survival (and something not unique to humans!)

[The Adogmatist]

The question then becomes: if we're willing to farm other animals, why should we not farm humans too?

Elaborate answers have been given (and I'd refer you to anthropology textbooks, and also work on moral philosophy), but the basic idea is that we have evolved empathy for each other, and the golden rule is inherent within us. Why though? Because without them, we would have died off long ago.

A society cannot function properly if we're out for ourselves; altruism is a key feature for survival (and something not unique to humans!)

Thank you for your insightful comment. Though I agree with you that this is one of the most probable sources for human morality, I would add that though you used this perspective for humans behavior towards other humans and hinted at other animals, I would also think this perspective can be used in relations between humans and other animals i.e. that some humans use the same empathy toward animals that other humans reserve exclusively for humans (or even just groups of people).

[MicroSalma]

Thank you for your insightful comment. Though I agree with you that this is one of the most probable sources for human morality, I would add that though you used this perspective for humans behavior towards other humans and hinted at other animals, I would also think this perspective can be used in relations between humans and other animals i.e. that some humans use the same empathy toward animals that other humans reserve exclusively for humans (or even just groups of people).

Indeed, a lot of people feel things like empathy for other animals (essentially a 'misfiring' of our empathy for other humans).

In fact, notice how the more human-like an animal is, the more important we consider it? For instance, no one bats an eyelid if you kill an ant. In fact, there wouldn't even be a huge uproar if you killed a bird. But kill a chimpanzee, and you'll probably end up in prison!

This is an example of anthropomorphisms.

[CosmicPathos]

I'm not an atheist, but as an evolutionary biologist I feel I can give a decent response:

Whether a carnivorous lifestyle is moral or not is a question for all of us, not just atheists. I will say that there's nothing wrong with being a carnivore; that's simply how we've evolved.

The question then becomes: if we're willing to farm other animals, why should we not farm humans too?

Elaborate answers have been given (and I'd refer you to anthropology textbooks, and also work on moral philosophy), but the basic idea is that we have evolved empathy for each other, and the golden rule is inherent within us. Why though? Because without them, we would have died off long ago.

A society cannot function properly if we're out for ourselves; altruism is a key feature for survival (and something not unique to humans!)

There is no evidence that without empathy we would have died off long time ago. Its a conjecture of your mind in regards to what you want to justify. Some plant cells undergo necrosis to protect the neighboring cells during viral infections. But is it because they are being empathetic? We as humans should have lost those primitive functions of sacrificing one-self for other or empathy if we were constantly being selected against by nature. Empathy does not insure in any way whatsoever that a species will be safeguarded. It is rather an emotion which could damage the survival of the fittest. In this context, which individual would be more fit? The one with strong emotions of empathy or the one with least emotions of empathy? If the one with strong emotions of empathy was also the most strong and fit, it might damage his own survival at the expense of failing to spread his genes for protecting his less than fit species members.

[MicroSalma]

There is no evidence that without empathy we would have died off long time ago. Its a conjecture of your mind in regards to what you want to justify. Some plant cells undergo necrosis to protect the neighboring cells during viral infections. But is it because they are being empathetic? We as humans should have lost those primitive functions of sacrificing one-self for other or empathy if we were constantly being selected against by nature. Empathy does not insure in any way whatsoever that a species will be safeguarded. It is rather an emotion which could damage the survival of the fittest. In this context, which individual would be more fit? The one with strong emotions of empathy or the one with least emotions of empathy? If the one with strong emotions of empathy was also the most strong and fit, it might damage his own survival at the expense of failing to spread his genes for protecting his less than fit species members.

As with many other species (like packs of wolves), humans are much more likely to survive if they are in groups - that is, if they cooperate and help each other. If we happily killed and ate each other, our population would of course drop (potentially below a critical value).

There are numerous examples of the importance of empathy and altruism for survival; one is that involved in raising offspring. How would a man protect and feed his family if he feels no desire to help or protect them?

(And indeed, if a lack of empathy were advantageous, most of us would be psychopaths!)

[CosmicPathos]

As with many other species (like packs of wolves), humans are much more likely to survive if they are in groups - that is, if they cooperate and help each other. If we happily killed and ate each other, our population would of course drop (potentially below a critical value).

There are numerous examples of the importance of empathy and altruism for survival; one is that involved in raising offspring. How would a man protect and feed his family if he feels no desire to help or protect them?

(And indeed, if a lack of empathy were advantageous, most of us would be psychopaths!)

It is yet to be shown by you that if humans are in group then they are more likely to survive. A sole sniper has higher chances of survival in a battlefield than a whole group soldiers.

Cannibalism here has no relevance to our discussion of self-sacrifice and empathy. Cannibalism on the other hand is an anti-empathetic emotion and action.

There is a difference in the desire to feed one's family than the desire to sacrifice one self for providing food for one's family.

No. If a lack of empathy was advantageous, it does not necessitate we would be psychopaths. The very definition of psychopath is constructed within the context of normative behavior or humans but there is no one set of normative behavior, it can vary from one community to another. So we have to be wary of what you are saying. I at least would not be a psychopath, as you define psycopathy, regardless of whether I was empathetic or not. Actually, I still think that most humans are psychopaths despite their claims of being empathetic. Millions of humans are dying everyday yet when you turn TV on, you see smiling faces as if nothing has happened. If that is not a tell-tale symptom of psychopathy then I dont know what is.

[tetsujin]

It is yet to be shown by you that if humans are in group then they are more likely to survive. A sole sniper has higher chances of survival in a battlefield than a whole group soldiers.

That ranks pretty high up with one of the worst analogies I've ever read. Survival in nature is nothing like survival in a war between two nations or states.

If you have a small village of 10 people. Is it better for them to act alone, each hunting for food, making and maintaining shelter, looking for mates etc... individually

or

is it better to have a couple people hunting and/or farming, making clothes and shelter, making tools etc... as a group.

What is more economical? What is in the best interest of each person? Can a group of individuals create a synergistic relationship to increase their ability to survive and reproduce?

If you're having trouble with the question. Do you have a job? Do you have kids that go to school? Do they have teachers/janitors/administrators? Did you go to a school? If you're reading this, someone shared knowledge with you, possibly for selfish motives, so that you could have an education.


All the best,


Faysal

[CosmicPathos]

That ranks pretty high up with one of the worst analogies I've ever read. Survival in nature is nothing like survival in a war between two nations or states.

If you have a small village of 10 people. Is it better for them to act alone, each hunting for food, making and maintaining shelter, looking for mates etc... individually

or

is it better to have a couple people hunting and/or farming, making clothes and shelter, making tools etc... as a group.

What is more economical? What is in the best interest of each person? Can a group of individuals create a synergistic relationship to increase their ability to survive and reproduce?

If you're having trouble with the question. Do you have a job? Do you have kids that go to school? Do they have teachers/janitors/administrators? Did you go to a school? If you're reading this, someone shared knowledge with you, possibly for selfish motives, so that you could have an education.


All the best,


Faysal

How does that relate to the emotion of empathy? No one self-sacrificed for me. We are talking about self-sacrifice, not division of labor.

Division of labor is only there to facilitate working in a group. Division of labor by itself has no meaning if the group was not formed in the first place or the need was not felt to form a group. And that can very well be viable to survive in nature as a lone man.

Regarding that analogy, war between two states is also a part of nature. It is not excluded from nature. or unless you wanted to differentiate between animate and inanimate forces of natural selection?

[جوري]

Of course. I am not saying I know what the majority wants. However you believe it is acceptable to dictate what the majority should do. I suspect in any case, that the majority in secular nations do not support the introduction of Islamic jurisprudence - as you do. Fair assumption?

I'll say that the majority haven't experienced it and as such don't know what they are missing!

Well that's a reasonable perspective. Regretfully, Islam - or at least many Muslims in my experience have a fairly low standard for what constitutes as impinging on the general good of the public. I have observed Muslims stating that criticism and/or mockery of Islam can upset the balance and existence of a hypothetical 'utopian' Islamic state, and therefore ought to be banned for the general good. I have observed Muslims making similar justifications for the condemnation of apostasy and homosexuality.

I do condemn homosexuality and apostasy in certain context. I don't see how you can be punished for rejecting God and keeping it to yourself, but I do see how when used to usurp the khalifate that it would be considered an act of treason. Which by the way is punishable by death even in the secular west!

So, I hope you can respect my caution when I hear you say someone is free to do as they will as long as they don't 'interfere' with the public. I mean, what to you constitutes interfering in this context?

It is a matter of common sense.

In this context, it is irrelevant. You have already said that right and wrong is simply a matter of obedience and disobedience to God. You have already stated people ought to adjust themselves to the 'supremacy' of Islamic ethics.

Again, not obedience in the atheistic sense but acquiescence of the common good!

You made some ridiculous claim that a government that arbitrarily murders people on the basis of population control is a good one (ironically and despite your intentions, this is not a justification for murder but a claim that a necessary evil has to exist to quell overpopulation). Now, I'm going to assume that you take this point seriously and therefore could not find a means to condemn it in a godless universe.

I never said it was good I was playing devil's advocate assimilating the atheist view to show that your sense of right or wrong is irrelevant to what good actually is for you have no sense of its definition save your own devices.. indeed murder as would occur in the animal kingdom would better the situation for many when you really think about it. Would you have famine, disease, plagues in the outbreaks that occur if murder a la mode of the animal kingdom were a common thing?

So I'll ask you: Why would say, a government that murders people on the basis of over-population be unacceptable in a universe that presumes a theistic God that a universe that does not?

[Pickthal 5:32] -- whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

such is the theistic view, you are yet to show me a palpable good reason that murder is 'wrong' per atheism!

And onto the point, why is murder more contemptible on the presumption of a deity that it is not on the presumption of an absence of one?

It is contemptible on the account we were created with a sense of love and compassion and a moral compass which we only divorce ourselves of when we reject God and make up our own moral compass and think it superior!

My own perspective is an amalgamation of my own knowledge, my own experiences, my own biases and my own objectives.

Yes and that can be anything unfortunately.. it can be something very bad that the rest of us simply have to risk as a part of the human condition!

The information I give you are effectively results from analysis and information from census. Draw what you will, but Scandinavia does very well. As does much of Europe.

well is a relative term.. and generally should be surveyed from an independent source .. what is the point of analyzing yourself..
I once was foolish enough to think I should join the American army and the head of that place told me that they are the best rated army in the world.. I asked who rated you, he said 'we did of course' ;D

all the best

[Skavau]

I'll say that the majority haven't experienced it and as such don't know what they are missing!

Irrelevant. The majority of the people in Secular nations do not wish for Islamic domination over their lives.

I do condemn homosexuality and apostasy in certain context. I don't see how you can be punished for rejecting God and keeping it to yourself,

There's another subjective term: "keeping it to yourself"?

What constitutes an apostate bringing it out into the open?

but I do see how when used to usurp the khalifate that it would be considered an act of treason. Which by the way is punishable by death even in the secular west!

No it isn't.

I've even told you this. Most western states now, if not all even - do not impose the death penalty for treason anymore. In any case, you're talking about the attempt to usurp a state as treason - which is not and has nothing to do with apostasy.

It is a matter of common sense.

No it isn't. It really isn't. It is why people value human rights. It is why people debate over objectives by their governments and whether they interfere with people's own personal freedom or not. You cannot claim with clarity that we 'know' at all times, what constitutes an interference to public life.

Again, not obedience in the atheistic sense but acquiescence of the common good!

How is my understanding (or an 'atheistic' understanding) of obedience any different than how you understand it. Explain.

And what exactly do you mean by the 'common good' here?

I never said it was good I was playing devil's advocate assimilating the atheist view to show that your sense of right or wrong is irrelevant to what good actually is for you have no sense of its definition save your own devices..

I know you were playing devil's advocate. I also know that you were peddling the claim that murder could not be condemned in an atheistic world view. So I assume that you take that position seriously and believe it to be wholly true.

indeed murder as would occur in the animal kingdom would better the situation for many when you really think about it. Would you have famine, disease, plagues in the outbreaks that occur if murder a la mode of the animal kingdom were a common thing?

Yes you would. Many species now that run by those rules have disease and famine whilst leading short and harsh lives. We don't need to live by those rules.

[Pickthal 5:32] -- whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

such is the theistic view, you are yet to show me a palpable good reason that murder is 'wrong' per atheism!

All that verse does is make a claim. It just simply decides that someone who murders has done as much evil as murdered of all of humanity.

It is contemptible on the account we were created with a sense of love and compassion and a moral compass which we only divorce ourselves of when we reject God and make up our own moral compass and think it superior!

This is begging the question. You assume that love, compassion and a 'moral compass' (which is incoherent to you, since you've already defined right and wrong as obedience to God) rely upon the existence of a God. You have not provided any evidence to support this.

In any case, you also haven't answered the question. I could presume for the sake of argument that yes, perhaps love, compassion and a moral compass are gifts from a God of sorts - but I still would not need to believe in, or recognise this God if they are hardwired tendencies.

So I will ask again: How is the condemnation of murder more plausible under the assumption of a deity than it is without one, keeping in mind we already are hardwired (and I agree, but for different reasons) to do good, and think in moral terms.

Yes and that can be anything unfortunately.. it can be something very bad that the rest of us simply have to risk as a part of the human condition!

No. It can only be my own experiences.

well is a relative term.. and generally should be surveyed from an independent source .. what is the point of analyzing yourself..
I once was foolish enough to think I should join the American army and the head of that place told me that they are the best rated army in the world.. I asked who rated you, he said 'we did of course'

You still haven't clicked on the link to even know the sources. And I repeat again, it is a safe website.

[جوري]

Irrelevant. The majority of the people in Secular nations do not wish for Islamic domination over their lives.

Quite relevant (you don't know what people want) you only speak for yourself!

There's another subjective term: "keeping it to yourself"?

What constitutes an apostate bringing it out into the open?

Not really difficult to fathom what that means!

No it isn't.

Yes it is!

I've even told you this. Most western states now, if not all even - do not impose the death penalty for treason anymore. In any case, you're talking about the attempt to usurp a state as treason - which is not and has nothing to do with apostasy.

That isn't true. Treason is punishable by death. Islam isn't merely a religion but state law, it is political, political crimes have political punishment.. pls get that down now so we are not arguing the same thing over and over..

No it isn't. It really isn't. It is why people value human rights. It is why people debate over objectives by their governments and whether they interfere with people's own personal freedom or not. You cannot claim with clarity that we 'know' at all times, what constitutes an interference to public life.

Then don't discuss matters of jurisprudence if you don't know what constitutes what.. kind renders your entire effort here futile don't you think?

How is my understanding (or an 'atheistic' understanding) of obedience any different than how you understand it. Explain.

I already have!

And what exactly do you mean by the 'common good' here?

If you want a definition for everything then there is no point to this dialogue which in fact I see no point to a dialogue with any atheist!

I know you were playing devil's advocate. I also know that you were peddling the claim that murder could not be condemned in an atheistic world view. So I assume that you take that position seriously and believe it to be wholly true.

I do until you can convince me why it shouldn't be adapted as atheistic world view given atheistic history of mass murders!

Yes you would. Many species now that run by those rules have disease and famine whilst leading short and harsh lives. We don't need to live by those rules.

Why not? why prolong life needlessly? not long ago we were at a thread of 'swine flu' imagine the savings and sense if all those people weren't hysterical!

All that verse does is make a claim. It just simply decides that someone who murders has done as much evil as murdered of all of humanity.

Indeed!

This is begging the question. You assume that love, compassion and a 'moral compass' (which is incoherent to you, since you've already defined right and wrong as obedience to God) rely upon the existence of a God. You have not provided any evidence to support this.

I didn't define it as obedience to God, I defined it as instinctively created in us by God until we divorce ourselves from it on our own volition!

In any case, you also haven't answered the question. I could presume for the sake of argument that yes, perhaps love, compassion and a moral compass are gifts from a God of sorts - but I still would not need to believe in, or recognise this God if they are hardwired tendencies.

I am not asking you to recognize God.. who are you in the scheme of things to recognize anything or for anyone to want your recognition let alone the originator?

So I will ask again: How is the condemnation of murder more plausible under the assumption of a deity than it is without one, keeping in mind we already are hardwired (and I agree, but for different reasons) to do good, and think in moral terms.

How is earning a degree in engineering more worthy when you have gone through academia vs. learning engineering in your garage?

You still haven't clicked on the link to even know the sources. And I repeat again, it is a safe website.

I have given two legitimate and verifiable reasons why no stats you post should matter to someone who can cut through the crap!

all the best

[Skavau]

Quite relevant (you don't know what people want) you only speak for yourself!

It is relevant. Whether or not the masses know about the intricacies of Islamic law does not matter to the fact that most people in western nations do not want it.

Unless of course, you're going to make the frankly ridiculous claim that most people in western nations do want Islamic Law. Do you think that?

Not really difficult to fathom what that means!

I agree. But apparently some Muslims believe that an apostate announcing their newly held position is bringing it out into the open.

That isn't true. Treason is punishable by death.

Excuse me.

The nations Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and several others do not punish treason by death. I suggest you click here.

In fact, that link does not even reference liberal scandinavian states or some of the smaller states in Europe, who I expect also do not produce the death penalty for it.

Islam isn't merely a religion but state law, it is political, political crimes have political punishment.. pls get that down now so we are not arguing the same thing over and over..

I stated that some Muslims consider the very existence of an apostate in an Islamic state a threat to the public wellbeing. You then went on the defensive, attempting to tell me that apostates are only executed if committed of treason against the Islamic state as well.

We weren't really talking about that.

Then don't discuss matters of jurisprudence if you don't know what constitutes what.. kind renders your entire effort here futile don't you think?

I don't believe I have access to special knowledge: you do. That renders the above an affirmation of arrogance, not wisdom.

I already have!

If you're talking about the other thread, I don't recall it. Can you please cut and paste where you explained it?

If you want a definition for everything then there is no point to this dialogue which in fact I see no point to a dialogue with any atheist!

When you constantly throw out terms for everything without being in the slightest bit clear - expect people to ask you to clarify what you mean.

I do until you can convince me why it shouldn't be adapted as atheistic world view given atheistic history of mass murders!

There is no such thing as an 'atheistic world view'. And even if there was a credible version of it, it has nothing to say on the validity of murder at all.

Why not? why prolong life needlessly?

I want to live. Millions of people want to live. It is the presumption all morality rests upon that people rather live existence and prolonging it. In fact it is the desire to continue this existence in a particular way that represents the hope of all religious adherents.

not long ago we were at a thread of 'swine flu' imagine the savings and sense if all those people weren't hysterical!

Your moral 'dilemmas' are bordering on the ridiculous. How exactly is it a balanced response to commit mass murder to all of the peddlers of the swine flu epidemic?

Indeed!

So... really? That's all you have? After all the proclamations of objective morality founded in absolutes... all you have against murder is a... claim against it?

I didn't define it as obedience to God, I defined it as instinctively created in us by God until we divorce ourselves from it on our own volition!

In the other thread, you specifically mentioned that a right action is in line with what God wants and a wrong action is not in line with what God wants.

Do you want me to dig it up and post it?

I am not asking you to recognize God.. who are you in the scheme of things to recognize anything or for anyone to want your recognition let alone the originator?

I never said you were asking me to recognise God. I am stating that if God gave us compassion, love and a moral compass then they are there in spite of my disbelief - rendering your claims of morality being different sans God rather meaningless.

How is earning a degree in engineering more worthy when you have gone through academia vs. learning engineering in your garage?

A silly analogy. You haven't answered my question.

I asked you how a firmer stance must exists against murder for a theist than it does an atheist. All you have done to reply to it is pointlessly reference a verse where God claims that murder is wrong (something that can be just as prudently emulated by, anyone claiming murder is wrong and better with a decent reason) and claim that love, compassion and moral compasses are gifts from God (another claim that is besides the point).

I have given two legitimate and verifiable reasons why no stats you post should matter to someone who can cut through the crap!

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Nevermind your expert analysis of statistics, you still haven't actually bothered to look to discover whether or not they mean anything.

[جوري]

It is relevant. Whether or not the masses know about the intricacies of Islamic law does not matter to the fact that most people in western nations do not want it.

Then why are you here *****ing against it?

Unless of course, you're going to make the frankly ridiculous claim that most people in western nations do want Islamic Law. Do you think that?

I really don't know.. question is how do you know.. further how can you speak of something you know nothing about? is it because the term Islam is attached to it?

I agree. But apparently some Muslims believe that an apostate announcing their newly held position is bringing it out into the open.

?

Excuse me.

??

The nations Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and several others do not punish treason by death. I suggest you click here.

Historically and in many countries it is punishable by death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

and as well it should be.. the same way murder like that of the Muslim pharmacist in Germany with her infant child should have been punished by death but what can we do about ludicrous laws in ludicrous countries!

I stated that some Muslims consider the very existence of an apostate in an Islamic state a threat to the public wellbeing. You then went on the defensive, attempting to tell me that apostates are only executed if committed of treason against the Islamic state as well.

What you consider and what is the law are separate issues .. I suggest in general you refrain from gauging topics you know nothing about, else show us your Islamic law degree before hand!

We weren't really talking about that.

what are we talking about?

I don't believe I have access to special knowledge: you do. That renders the above an affirmation of arrogance, not wisdom.

What special knowledge is that?

If you're talking about the other thread, I don't recall it. Can you please cut and paste where you explained it?

It isn't my job to do your homework for you or to repeat myself because you are lazy!

When you constantly throw out terms for everything without being in the slightest bit clear - expect people to ask you to clarify what you mean.

If I clarified myself to someone who has a mental block of some sort do you think it will be clearer the ten time around?

There is no such thing as an 'atheistic world view'. And even if there was a credible version of it, it has nothing to say on the validity of murder at all.

Sure there is, in fact Albania was once declared the world's first atheistic nation and we saw what its atheist dictator did along with other atheist dictators. Sorry you can't divorce yourself from your ideology just because you decided to subtract God from the formula!

I want to live. Millions of people want to live. It is the presumption all morality rests upon that people rather live existence and prolonging it. In fact it is the desire to continue this existence in a particular way that represents the hope of all religious adherents.

Why is existence important?

Your moral 'dilemmas' are bordering on the ridiculous. How exactly is it a balanced response to commit mass murder to all of the peddlers of the swine flu epidemic?

Who said anything about 'mass murder' I specifically stated murder as happens in the animal kingdom.. Most animals don't go killing an entire tribe!
and you still haven't beyond 'I want to live shown me why it is ethical and moral to let folks that can be considered dead weight otherwise live?

So... really? That's all you have? After all the proclamations of objective morality founded in absolutes... all you have against murder is a... claim against it?

and what have you?

In the other thread, you specifically mentioned that a right action is in line with what God wants and a wrong action is not in line with what God wants.

Absolutely!

Do you want me to dig it up and post it?

post what?

I never said you were asking me to recognise God. I am stating that if God gave us compassion, love and a moral compass then they are there in spite of my disbelief - rendering your claims of morality being different sans God rather meaningless.

What is the point of doing it at all if you can't give credit to how you chanced upon a favorable trait? If you are hungry and found a bowl of soup the type that you like.. no one around, you'd eat it and not look for a reason what it is there and who left it for you to give some thanks?

A silly analogy. You haven't answered my question.

Actually it more than amply answers your question.
why do we need to do anything formally if we can do it outside and fancy it just as refined?

I asked you how a firmer stance must exists against murder for a theist than it does an atheist. All you have done to reply to it is pointlessly reference a verse where God claims that murder is wrong (something that can be just as prudently emulated by, anyone claiming murder is wrong and better with a decent reason) and claim that love, compassion and moral compasses are gifts from God (another claim that is besides the point).

Again answered more than adequately, when you don't like the response it doesn't make the answer incorrect, just makes you a tireless verruca out to waste everyone's time because you don't know when to say when!

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

I'd think you are a poster boy for it, so you let me know how it is working out for you.. and if you are blissfully happy, why do you keep coming back for more?

You have only one life man and a random nonsensical one tomorrow you can wake up with a glioblastoma multiforme and I'd hate to think that this is how you spent your life..
arguing that you are good on your own because you willed goodness in you and have the million page rant about it and still gain nothing from the experience!

all the best

[Trumble]

Sure there is, in fact Albania was once declared the world's first atheistic nation and we saw what its atheist dictator did along with other atheist dictators. Sorry you can't divorce yourself from your ideology just because you decided to subtract God from the formula!

:heated: You know perfectly well there is no logical link between one and the other. Hitler was a vegetarian and therefore, by your thinking, must have had a 'vegetarian world view'. Your argument is as nonsensical as claiming people should not be vegetarians as they will then necessarily become mass murderers intent on world domination. You also know perfectly well that atheism is no more an 'ideology' than monotheism is.

[Pygoscelis]

No Trumble it wasn't a vegetarian world view, it was a Mustachionista world view. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Emperor of Japan all had mustaches. Therefore mustaches are evil and anybody with facial hair must belong to the evil Mustachionista world view. :p

[Skavau]

Then why are you here *****ing against it?

I'd have to know what that bleeped out word was supposed to be in order to respond.

I really don't know.. question is how do you know.. further how can you speak of something you know nothing about? is it because the term Islam is attached to it?

First of all, there's an unpleasant trend across many European nations to ban or limit the hijab and niqaab (with passive public support). I do not suspect people who want Sharia Law would support this.

Second of all, many European nations are specifically liberal in their ways. I do not suspect people who want Sharia Law would tolerate this.

Third of all, most europeans are non-muslim! I do not expect that most non-muslims would desire to live under Islamic dominance. I also expect any non-muslim that began believing that would soon become a Muslim.

There's three reasons.

?

Apparently, some Muslims believe that an apostate of Islam merely announcing his or her defection from Islam is an act bought out into the open.

??

Perhaps you should begin quoting things in context, and you won't get confused.

Historically and in many countries it is punishable by death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

That is my link that I gave you. And in any case, we're not talking about whether or not treason was punishable by death historically. We're talking about now.

And in what first-world secular nation is treason still punishable by death?

What special knowledge is that?

You believe that you have specific insight into the workings of the universe. You claim that not only do you know that a God exists, but you can also accurately vouch for in some respects what this God wants, and demands everyone else to do.

It isn't my job to do your homework for you or to repeat myself because you are lazy!

All I asked was for you to cut and paste where you explained what you said. You said it, and you know what you said. Whereas I would have to specifically interpret your text.

If I clarified myself to someone who has a mental block of some sort do you think it will be clearer the ten time around?

Is that another, less subtle insult?

Sure there is, in fact Albania was once declared the world's first atheistic nation and we saw what its atheist dictator did along with other atheist dictators. Sorry you can't divorce yourself from your ideology just because you decided to subtract God from the formula!

Why should I care what Albania did? How, exactly does it reflect upon me in anyway shape or form? I have already told you that I do not propose that we all ought to live in an atheist state.

Why do you keep lying about this point?

Why is existence important?

It isn't, as far as the universe appears to be concerned. We declare it important.

Who said anything about 'mass murder' I specifically stated murder as happens in the animal kingdom.. Most animals don't go killing an entire tribe!
and you still haven't beyond 'I want to live' shown me why it is ethical and moral to let folks that can be considered dead weight otherwise live?

Dead weight according to whom, precisely?

What constitutes pulling your weight in a social darwinist world view you are pointlessly trying to get me to endorse, or concede? What do you imagine is the 'objective' of such a society that emulates the animal kingdom?

and what have you?

Nevermind this tu quoque, I have given you reasons why murder should be considered an unacceptable behaviour that hinders the progression and advancement of humanity. You only response to my reasons was to exclaim that perhaps we should live in accordance to the animal kingdom, or some social darwinist structure (without giving any good reason as to why).

I cannot get over this. You, after all this time, have nothing. Your statements of infallibility on moral issues... your statements of absolute and perfect morality as a gift from God and all you've had this whole time is simply a claim against it.

post what?

I am seriously believing you're either just being petulant, or you have some dire comprehension and contextual issues. Here is what I typed, in exact order:

In the other thread, you specifically mentioned that a right action is in line with what God wants and a wrong action is not in line with what God wants.

Do you want me to dig it up and post it?

You chose to address these points separately and got confused as to what the second question was referring to. I reference this now because your frequent confusion is a problem in almost every discussion I have with you.

That and your unwillingness to ever stay on point.

What is the point of doing it at all if you can't give credit to how you chanced upon a favorable trait?

This is a projection of how you look at the world. You only see positive actions in the context of God. You are unable to imagine a good action or a good thing without the intervention of a God, and thus give thanks accordingly. I don't have such a world view. Some things come about through the endeavour of individuals, without divine assistance and their relevance and meaning have power without or in spite of this.

If you are hungry and found a bowl of soup the type that you like.. no one around, you'd eat it and not look for a reason what it is there and who left it for you to give some thanks?

I'd be curious as to who left a bowl of soup just lying around. But unless I was hungry, as in on the point of a day without eating - I would not eat it.

I certainly wouldn't praise an arbitrary figure. If someone left it there, it would be by chance I may have stumbled upon it. I could only compliment their soup.

Again answered more than adequately, when you don't like the response it doesn't make the answer incorrect, just makes you a tireless verruca out to waste everyone's time because you don't know when to say when!

You have not addressed the question. Do you even understand it? Given your refusal to answer and your original misunderstanding, I don't expect that you do.

You have only one life man and a random nonsensical one tomorrow you can wake up with a glioblastoma multiforme and I'd hate to think that this is how you spent your life..
arguing that you are good on your own because you willed goodness in you and have the million page rant about it and still gain nothing from the experience!

It takes two to tango. And about 5 minutes per post, sometimes I only post once or twice a day unless I'm browsing the internet and you're active - in which case we repeat.

Chill

[جوري]

I'd have to know what that bleeped out word was supposed to be in order to respond.

Hmmmmmmn.. I'll give you a hint.. it starts with a B!

First of all, there's an unpleasant trend across many European nations to ban or limit the hijab and niqaab (with passive public support). I do not suspect people who want Sharia Law would support this.

'Europe' is hypocritical not liberal.. there is quite the disparate difference.. plus the occasional identity crisis.. they don't know who they are, but sure as hell know who they don't want to be!

Second of all, many European nations are specifically liberal in their ways. I do not suspect people who want Sharia Law would tolerate this.

See above response!

Third of all, most europeans are non-muslim! I do not expect that most non-muslims would desire to live under Islamic dominance. I also expect any non-muslim that began believing that would soon become a Muslim.

Not yet, but we are slowly moving in that direction and I suspect all the hoopla to malign Islam and a system that most have no clue about is born of that fear!

There's three reasons.


Apparently, some Muslims believe that an apostate of Islam merely announcing his or her defection from Islam is an act bought out into the open.

This is the part where I'll ask you again to not simply spew what some Muslims think or don't think... this is a judicial matter not a lay person matter!

Perhaps you should begin quoting things in context, and you won't get confused

I am not confused.. you are!.

That is my link that I gave you. And in any case, we're not talking about whether or not treason was punishable by death historically. We're talking about now.

Still in the here and now, the majority of countries outside of the few you hand picked punish it by death!

And in what first-world secular nation is treason still punishable by death?

Th U.S, Japan.. and many others:

Treason - Further Readings

Ads by Google
Attorney Jim Sokolove
Over 30 Years Experience In MA
Get Your Free Legal Consultation!
www.SokoloveLaw.com

Get the Premiere Issue
Sign Up Now for a Free Copy of
The New Bloomberg Businessweek.
www.preview.businessweek.com

Pass the California Bar
Former Bar Exam Graders Teach You.
Have 1 on 1 Sessions! Call Us Today
www.BarGraders.com

Death Penalty Facts
Free Death Penalty & Criminal Law
Resources. Learn About The Law.
DeathPenalty.FindLaw.com

Personal Injury Money
How Much is Your Personal Injury
Case Worth? Free Info & Case Review
www.Totalinjury.com



The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the COMMON LAW. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them AID AND COMFORT has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of ESPIONAGE committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during WORLD WAR II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. CIVIL WAR, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President ANDREW JOHNSON issued a universal AMNESTY.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
Ads by Google
Ask a Lawyer: Punishment
12 Criminal Lawyers Are Online!
Ask a Question, Get an Answer ASAP.
Law.JustAnswer.com

1 Trick of a tiny belly :
Cut down a bit of your belly every
day by using this 1 weird old tip.
Thedietsolutionprogram.com

Free Online Games
Play With Others. Win Movie Tickets
Gift Cards, Magazines, CDs & DVDs!
www.Winster.com

Iran Human Rights
A searchable database for right
abuses in the Islamic Republic
www.iranrights.org

Support Death Penalty?
Do you support Capital Punishment?
Answer a 3 second poll
capital-punishment.net



As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an OVERT ACT of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during WORLD WAR I was not constitutionally protected speech (SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. ALIENS who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.
Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.
The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of FORFEITURE to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.

Read more: Treason - Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/10876/Tre...#ixzz0jxfdw54a

You believe that you have specific insight into the workings of the universe. You claim that not only do you know that a God exists, but you can also accurately vouch for in some respects what this God wants, and demands everyone else to do.

Indeed.. and until such a time you prove that a God doesn't exist and that the Quran isn't his direct word, so it shall remain.. believing that God doesn't exist is as much a belief I don't know if anyone has let you on that pearl!

All I asked was for you to cut and paste where you explained what you said. You said it, and you know what you said. Whereas I would have to specifically interpret your text.

I have no idea what this drivel means?

Is that another, less subtle insult?

I think all my insults are devoid of sugar coating!

Why should I care what Albania did? How, exactly does it reflect upon me in anyway shape or form? I have already told you that I do not propose that we all ought to live in an atheist state.

The only examples we have of atheist morality is when atheists took control of something be it 15 million peasants or foreign nations.. sorry you can't extricate yourself from the actions of other atheists simply because you don't have a book to reference to as to whether this type of behavior is abominable or not.. haven't seen any of you condemn it, the best you can come up with is all an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in God.. sorry it doesn't cut it anymore!

Why do you keep lying about this point?

Which point am I lying about?

It isn't, as far as the universe appears to be concerned. We declare it important.

Who is 'we'?

Dead weight according to whom, precisely?

according to the same people who did away with millions of people before without batting an eye-lash.. we can only look to history for who!

What constitutes pulling your weight in a social darwinist world view you are pointlessly trying to get me to endorse, or concede? What do you imagine is the 'objective' of such a society that emulates the animal kingdom?

Look into his principles and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who..

Nevermind this tu quoque, I have given you reasons why murder should be considered an unacceptable behaviour that hinders the progression and advancement of humanity. You only response to my reasons was to exclaim that perhaps we should live in accordance to the animal kingdom, or some social darwinist structure (without giving any good reason as to why).

Sadly you haven't given me any viable reasons, you have merely protested. None of them fall under ethics or morality.. you have parted with some half baked reasons mostly in query form!

I cannot get over this. You, after all this time, have nothing. Your statements of infallibility on moral issues... your statements of absolute and perfect morality as a gift from God and all you've had this whole time is simply a claim against it.

You can't argue that a sense of right or wrong isn't a palpable calculable trait.. you have it and it is refined by religion.. or you deny it and render your own desires under such a claim. If you can't provide equally scientific grounds as to why something is ethical or not, then why not take a hike and stop wasting both our time?

I am seriously believing you're either just being petulant, or you have some dire comprehension and contextual issues. Here is what I typed, in exact order:

more protests in the form of gibber!

You chose to address these points separately and got confused as to what the second question was referring to. I reference this now because your frequent confusion is a problem in almost every discussion I have with you.

have you considered that the problem might actually lie with you?

This is a projection of how you look at the world. You only see positive actions in the context of God. You are unable to imagine a good action or a good thing without the intervention of a God, and thus give thanks accordingly. I don't have such a world view. Some things come about through the endeavour of individuals, without divine assistance and their relevance and meaning have power without or in spite of this.

I can accept that you have that world view.. what is your point? you believe you live without divine assistance and that is fine but it isn't correct until you can prove it.. and until such a time you compose a body ex-nihilo and will each cell to take form and function to your own command so it shall remain fulfilling the duty of its creator!

I'd be curious as to who left a bowl of soup just lying around. But unless I was hungry, as in on the point of a day without eating - I would not eat it.

You'd starve? that is fine.. one then questions why do you remain alive because you are in fact gifted with life through no will of your own and yet you can't even recognize the significance of that.. btw this is no way to sway you one way or the other.. out of the majority of Muslims I have to say I am sincerely happy that some of you are atheists and deserving of whatever comes your way if nothing else for the endless vain discourse that you bait others into to make constant non-points!

I certainly wouldn't praise an arbitrary figure. If someone left it there, it would be by chance I may have stumbled upon it. I could only compliment their soup.

Of course!

You have not addressed the question. Do you even understand it? Given your refusal to answer and your original misunderstanding, I don't expect that you do.

You really are a sad case!
I have answered you amply. if you can't employ minor abstract thinking to the reply, then I can't be faulted for it.

It takes two to tango. And about 5 minutes per post, sometimes I only post once or twice a day unless I'm browsing the internet and you're active - in which case we repeat.

Do you give it five mins? lol

Chill

I am chilling, question is are you? go out and bike get some sun and be careful of snipers and cars that come out of no where..

all the best

[Justufy]

No Trumble it wasn't a vegetarian world view, it was a Mustachionista world view. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Emperor of Japan all had mustaches. Therefore mustaches are evil and anybody with facial hair must belong to the evil Mustachionista world view. :p

Dont forget Maréchal Petain!

He was an evil mustachionistan too!:p

[Justufy]

You have only one life man and a random nonsensical one tomorrow

Reality is frightening, isn’t it?

[Skavau]

Hmmmmmmn.. I'll give you a hint.. it starts with a B!

Oh, I think I see. I'm not b'ing against it.

'Europe' is hypocritical not liberal.. there is quite the disparate difference.. plus the occasional identity crisis.. they don't know who they are, but sure as hell know who they don't want to be!

If true, then Europe certainly doesn't want to be Muslim and therefore cannot plausibly have large swabs of the population desiring Sharia Law.

This is the part where I'll ask you again to not simply spew what some Muslims think or don't think... this is a judicial matter not a lay person matter!

I know you say this is a judicial matter, but that is only a hypothetical in a hypothetical state. I am only specifically interested in what Muslims actually say and believe.

Still in the here and now, the majority of countries outside of the few you hand picked punish it by death!

I take by the epic unaltered text block I'm getting next that I'm going to see.

The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the COMMON LAW. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them AID AND COMFORT has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of ESPIONAGE committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during WORLD WAR II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. CIVIL WAR, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President ANDREW JOHNSON issued a universal AMNESTY.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

Nothing in this extract says anything about treason in modern times being punishable by death.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an OVERT ACT of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during WORLD WAR I was not constitutionally protected speech (SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. ALIENS who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.
Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.
The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of FORFEITURE to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.

The United States still has the death penalty in many states for different crimes. The fact that treason is still punishable by death in some of those states is no surprise of mine.

Japan also appears to include capital punishment for it, as you said (but interestingly did not bother to back up, I did that). In any case, I mentioned many different countries across Europe and Oceania that do not consider treason a capital offense. They are not simply a few. And in any case, your original claim was that treason is in every nation, a capital offense.

It is not.

Indeed.. and until such a time you prove that a God doesn't exist and that the Quran isn't his direct word, so it shall remain.. believing that God doesn't exist is as much a belief I don't know if anyone has let you on that pearl!

Well, it is not my claim that a God does not exist (I simply lack belief in a God). I've already told you this and you even said "ok!" in response. Why do you keep forgetting such trivial things such as what my metaphysical position on God is?

I have no idea what this drivel means?

All I asked you to do was to cut and paste where you said how 'obedience' means something different to an atheist, than it does a theist.

In fact, no, wait. It doesn't really matter whether or not we do have a differentation. You haven't actually disputed my analysis of theistic morality being synonymous with obedience. All you have done is call it disgusting.

I think all my insults are devoid of sugar coating!

I am quite interested, then - since you've basically admitted it. Why do you think that you're quite within your capacity on here, as a non-moderator to go around and insult who you like? I have on many different occasions seen you casually make fairly childish and in any other context, inflammatory remarks about users and atheists in general that would get other people banned for saying it about Muslims.

Why do you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable?

The only examples we have of atheist morality is when atheists took control of something be it 15 million peasants or foreign nations.. sorry you can't extricate yourself from the actions of other atheists simply because you don't have a book to reference to as to whether this type of behavior is abominable or not..

You do not seem to understand atheism. Atheism is not a coherent, or self-consistent ideology - it is merely a position. All every atheist has in common is simply that they do not believe that a God exists. There is no social, ethical, political or moral system involved with atheism or coherent set of beliefs outlined in some obscure manifesto - it is just a descriptive term used to refer to those who hold no belief in a deity. It literally means "without God". If my own atheism implicates me in the pseudo anti-theistic states of the 20th century, then by extension your theism must therefore link you and implicate you in some of the torrid theocratic dictatorships throughout history.

By your logic, you yourself are affiliated and passively responsible for the horrors of Al-Qaeda. By your logic, you are implicated entirely for the workings of any Islamic group ever.

haven't seen any of you condemn it, the best you can come up with is all an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in God.. sorry it doesn't cut it anymore!

Okay. The Albanian 'atheist state' by Enver Hoxha is condemnable. I condemn it. I am for Secular Humanism, not a psuedo anti-religious fascist state.

Which point am I lying about?

Begin quoting me in context and you won't keep missing what I mean: why do you keep claiming I say we should live in an atheist state when I do not make any such claim of the sort?

Who is 'we'?

Us, humans.

according to the same people who did away with millions of people before without batting an eye-lash.. we can only look to history for who!

Okay, but these dictators who thrived in genocide were only interested in furthering imperialistic and/or ideals of control. They weren't moral. They weren't interested in humanity, only themselves. Why would I want to look at these as an ideal?

Look into his principles and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who..

Still waiting.... why should I entertain social darwinism?

Sadly you haven't given me any viable reasons, you have merely protested.

All of your protests to my reasons have involved rejecting civil society.

You can't argue that a sense of right or wrong isn't a palpable calculable trait.. you have it and it is refined by religion..

[citation needed]

or you deny it and render your own desires under such a claim. If you can't provide equally scientific grounds as to why something is ethical or not, then why not take a hike and stop wasting both our time?

Ethics, other than its origins and our tendency towards it have little to do with science - you understand that? We do not derive an ought and ought not from an is (well, you do - which explains your failure to grasp civilisation).

have you considered that the problem might actually lie with you?

Uhm, no. Because I don't just converse with you on the internet, I converse with many people and to their faults they still most of them, are able to remember the context of things I type out. If I with you, however phrase a question in a specific way or do not completely rewrite it you get confused and type a "?".

You can't seem to respond to things on their own, they have to be together in a paragraph or the context escapes you.

I can accept that you have that world view.. what is your point?

You asked me what the point of doing things was without something to thank.

you believe you live without divine assistance and that is fine but it isn't correct until you can prove it.. and until such a time you compose a body ex-nihilo and will each cell to take form and function to your own command so it shall remain fulfilling the duty of its creator!

Eh? I believe we all exist without divine assistance.

What does my inability to produce something out of nothing have to do with anything here? I also can't think a computer into existence. What does this have to do with whether a supernatural arbiter exists?

You'd starve? that is fine.. one then questions why do you remain alive because you are in fact gifted with life through no will of your own and yet you can't even recognize the significance of that..

No, I said that unless I was on the verge of starvation (or implied it) that I would not eat it....

In any case, I can't recognise the significance of something I believe there is no plausible evidence for.

btw this is no way to sway you one way or the other.. out of the majority of Muslims I have to say I am sincerely happy that some of you are atheists and deserving of whatever comes your way if nothing else for the endless vain discourse that you bait others into to make constant non-points!

Baiting?

You, the person who insults just about every Non-Muslim they interact with on the forum is accusing me of baiting? My irony meter just exploded.

I have answered you amply. if you can't employ minor abstract thinking to the reply, then I can't be faulted for it.

If I had another irony meter, it would explode again.

[جوري]

Oh, I think I see. I'm not b'ing against it.

Oh good.. we don't like chronic complainers!

If true, then Europe certainly doesn't want to be Muslim and therefore cannot plausibly have large swabs of the population desiring Sharia Law.

It isn't up to 'Europe' to decide if its body of citizens are passively converting to Islam and at some point cause a shift in ideals!

I know you say this is a judicial matter, but that is only a hypothetical in a hypothetical state. I am only specifically interested in what Muslims actually say and believe.

I am not interested in wasting time on a hypothetical .. how people 'feel' is irrelevant the world doesn't run on feelings!

I take by the epic unaltered text block I'm getting next that I'm going to see.


Nothing in this extract says anything about treason in modern times being punishable by death.

In many places it still is and has been.. it doesn't matter if some countries don't believe in it.. death penalty for other reasons differs from state to state.. it shouldn't change the fact of the matter.. serious crimes require serious punishment!

The United States still has the death penalty in many states for different crimes. The fact that treason is still punishable by death in some of those states is no surprise of mine.

good

Japan also appears to include capital punishment for it, as you said (but interestingly did not bother to back up, I did that). In any case, I mentioned many different countries across Europe and Oceania that do not consider treason a capital offense. They are not simply a few. And in any case, your original claim was that treason is in every nation, a capital offense.

you asked for so-called first world countries .. or is this another exercise in futility?

Well, it is not my claim that a God does not exist (I simply lack belief in a God). I've already told you this and you even said "ok!" in response. Why do you keep forgetting such trivial things such as what my metaphysical position on God is?

I guess because I don't care :hmm:

All I asked you to do was to cut and paste where you said how 'obedience' means something different to an atheist, than it does a theist.

and all I asked was that you go fetch it yourself!

In fact, no, wait. It doesn't really matter whether or not we do have a differentation. You haven't actually disputed my analysis of theistic morality being synonymous with obedience. All you have done is call it disgusting.

I don't see how 'obedience' comes to the picture it is a complete non-sequitur that doesn't follow from the premise!

I am quite interested, then - since you've basically admitted it. Why do you think that you're quite within your capacity on here, as a non-moderator to go around and insult who you like? I have on many different occasions seen you casually make fairly childish and in any other context, inflammatory remarks about users and atheists in general that would get other people banned for saying it about Muslims.

We are your hosts and you are the guests, if we find your belligerent then we'll point it out.. quite frankly I haven't seen anyone troll as much as atheists and certain fundie christians on here.. whatever the case if you don't like a particular member you are always welcome to
1- report them
2- take yourself where your opinion and in turn and self-worth will have some weightiness
3- leave all together
surely you can't expect that others should modulate their feelings to accommodate you?

Why do you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable?

What sort of behavior!

You do not seem to understand atheism. Atheism is not a coherent, or self-consistent ideology - it is merely a position. All every atheist has in common is simply that they do not believe that a God exists. There is no social, ethical, political or moral system involved with atheism or coherent set of beliefs outlined in some obscure manifesto - it is just a descriptive term used to refer to those who hold no belief in a deity. It literally means "without God". If my own atheism implicates me in the pseudo anti-theistic states of the 20th century, then by extension your theism must therefore link you and implicate you in some of the torrid theocratic dictatorships throughout history.

Whatever!

By your logic, you yourself are affiliated and passively responsible for the horrors of Al-Qaeda. By your logic, you are implicated entirely for the workings of any Islamic group ever.

That is if I accept that such an entity as 'al qaida' actually exists as per the current description.. also one country's terrorists is another country's freedom fighter!

Okay. The Albanian 'atheist state' by Enver Hoxha is condemnable. I condemn it. I am for Secular Humanism, not a psuedo anti-religious fascist state.

blah!

Begin quoting me in context and you won't keep missing what I mean: why do you keep claiming I say we should live in an atheist state when I do not make any such claim of the sort?

how does secular state law run? on religion?

Okay, but these dictators who thrived in genocide were only interested in furthering imperialistic and/or ideals of control. They weren't moral. They weren't interested in humanity, only themselves. Why would I want to look at these as an ideal?

How does an atheist define morality?

Still waiting.... why should I entertain social darwinism?

What is your alternative?

Ethics, other than its origins and our tendency towards it have little to do with science - you understand that? We do not derive an ought and ought not from an is (well, you do - which explains your failure to grasp civilisation).

You weren't the one asking for the basis of theistic ethics and morality otherwise? if you fail to defend your position with logic don't go around asking others if they grasp the concept! funny guy

Uhm, no. Because I don't just converse with you on the internet, I converse with many people and to their faults they still most of them, are able to remember the context of things I type out. If I with you, however phrase a question in a specific way or do not completely rewrite it you get confused and type a "?".

Where have I re-written what you wrote? you do see quotes around your pearls?

You can't seem to respond to things on their own, they have to be together in a paragraph or the context escapes you.

you can't seem to grasp the responses and for that we can't be faulted!

You asked me what the point of doing things was without something to thank.

and you gave the expected thankless response!

Eh? I believe we all exist without divine assistance.

your beliefs are just that beliefs!

What does my inability to produce something out of nothing have to do with anything here? I also can't think a computer into existence. What does this have to do with whether a supernatural arbiter exists?

If you can't think a computer into existence than you should concede that someone put it together!

In any case, I can't recognise the significance of something I believe there is no plausible evidence for.

this concerns me how?

Baiting?

merriam is good if something escapes you!

You, the person who insults just about every Non-Muslim they interact with on the forum is accusing me of baiting? My irony meter just exploded.

don't sit so close to it then you don't want it to explode on the wrong end!

If I had another irony meter, it would explode again.

let us know when to call the ambulance!

all the best

[Skavau]

It isn't up to 'Europe' to decide if its body of citizens are passively converting to Islam and at some point cause a shift in ideals!

By Europe in this case, I am referring to Europeans.

In many places it still is and has been.. it doesn't matter if some countries don't believe in it.. death penalty for other reasons differs from state to state.. it shouldn't change the fact of the matter.. serious crimes require serious punishment!

Okay.

you asked for so-called first world countries .. or is this another exercise in futility?

I did, but then originally you claimed that treason was punishable by death across the board.

I guess because I don't care

So, now that we've established this, and we already know that you keep forgetting things that I say - how do you know exactly, whether or not what you think I think is actually what I think?

I don't see how 'obedience' comes to the picture it is a complete non-sequitur that doesn't follow from the premise!

I've already said my piece on this in the other thread. Why don't you respond to it (other than calling it "disgusting")?

We are your hosts and you are the guests

No

You are not the host here, nor a representative of them. The moderators and the administrators are the hosts here. This forum has specific codes of conduct outlined in the forum rules stickied in every sub-section, and you (as you know from prior experiences) just as I am are bound by that code of conduct.

if we find your belligerent then we'll point it out..

Again, you are not a moderator and, in line with the forum rules not allowed to begin insulting people.

1- report them
2- take yourself where your opinion and in turn and self-worth will have some weightiness
3- leave all together

1. I do, as you yourself very well know.
2. You are not a moderator to imply those sort of things.
3. See above

surely you can't expect that others should modulate their feelings to accommodate you?

I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about the forum rules, that you seem to believe you are exempt from.

What sort of behavior!

Do try and keep context here. Do you think it is an acceptable form of conduct to just repeatedly insult people?

Whatever!

As arrogant and dismissive as always: I accept your concession.

blah!

See above.

how does secular state law run? on religion?

A Secular state is irreligious, not anti-religious. Go look up the difference. Indeed, if you need help try comparing apathy to pro-active.

How does an atheist define morality?

Morality is the difference between right and wrong, specifically referring in this context to what one ought and ought not to do within the context and respect of a community.

I can only inform you of my perspectives of morality, not all atheists. Atheism as I've explained above (you said "Whatever!" to it) has nothing to say on morality as it does not address it.

What is your alternative?

Secular Humanism.

I'm sorry, did you only think that is only Social Darwinism of Theocracy?

You weren't the one asking for the basis of theistic ethics and morality otherwise? if you fail to defend your position with logic don't go around asking others if they grasp the concept! funny guy

You keep relating morality to what is (not what ought), when it cannot have anything to do with that even by definition. That is why I asked you if you understood it.

Where have I re-written what you wrote? you do see quotes around your pearls?

Amusingly ironic, as you've just done it again. I didn't say you re-wrote what I write. I said that I have to keep rewriting and rephrasing things I say so you can specifically understand it. Otherwise I get "?" responses from you.

If you can't think a computer into existence than you should concede that someone put it together!

Yes... but I concede that people create computers due to overwhelming evidence of computers being put together. I have in fact, witnessed computers being made and even chimed in myself.

I don't, as you seem to think I should believe that because I cannot wish a computer into existence then therefore, it was created. I believe that computers are assembled for other, more specific reasons.

this concerns me how?

Again... it doesn't. You just complained that I don't see the significance of something that I see no evidence for.

[جوري]

By Europe in this case, I am referring to Europeans.

Doesn't change the fact of the matter!

I did, but then originally you claimed that treason was punishable by death across the board.

and you desired two first world countries that imposed it when at a loss to defend your position either way I often refrain from making all or none statement perhaps you should pay closer attention before you spam the board? !

So, now that we've established this, and we already know that you keep forgetting things that I say - how do you know exactly, whether or not what you think I think is actually what I think?

how amusing!

I've already said my piece on this in the other thread. Why don't you respond to it (other than calling it "disgusting")?

putting gibber together doesn't constitute logical consistency, no relation of parts!

You are not the host here, nor a representative of them. The moderators and the administrators are the hosts here. This forum has specific codes of conduct outlined in the forum rules stickied in every sub-section, and you (as you know from prior experiences) just as I am are bound by that code of conduct.

Nope all Muslims on board are your hosts.. Muslims aren't going to prefer a kaffir over a Muslim least of which the belligerent sort! .. we are one for all and all for one!

Again, you are not a moderator and, in line with the forum rules not allowed to begin insulting people.

telling you how it is matter of fact doesn't constitute an insult.. I know how much you (collectively) enjoy crying wolf when at a loss for substance!

1. I do, as you yourself very well know.
2. You are not a moderator to imply those sort of things.
3. See above

see previous!

I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about the forum rules, that you seem to believe you are exempt from.

What forum rules are those?

Do try and keep context here. Do you think it is an acceptable form of conduct to just repeatedly insult people?

I think it is very acceptable to expose you for the trolls that you are absolutely and I think the sentiment is shared by most Muslims even those who exercise better tolerance!

As arrogant and dismissive as always: I accept your concession.

whatever you have to tell yourself to get through this!

A Secular state is irreligious, not anti-religious. Go look up the difference. Indeed, if you need help try comparing apathy to pro-active.

secular: Of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
look up things before you write.. now if you don't find it 'anti-religious' why do you protest so much when religion is brought to the door?

Morality is the difference between right and wrong, specifically referring in this context to what one ought and ought not to do within the context and respect of a community.

I believe I gave you that definition a few pages ago and you didn't like it!

I can only inform you of my perspectives of morality, not all atheists. Atheism as I've explained above (you said "Whatever!" to it) has nothing to say on morality as it does not address it.

there isn't any perceivable difference!

Secular Humanism.

I'm sorry, did you only think that is only Social Darwinism of Theocracy?

with you anything goes!

You keep relating morality to what is (not what ought), when it cannot have anything to do with that even by definition. That is why I asked you if you understood it.

you haven't been able to elucidate it in any terms least of which by definition in fact the definition you bestowed is the one that I parted with a few pages ago!

Amusingly ironic, as you've just done it again. I didn't say you re-wrote what I write. I said that I have to keep rewriting and rephrasing things I say so you can specifically understand it. Otherwise I get "?" responses from you.

see my answer in comment number 4

Yes... but I concede that people create computers due to overwhelming evidence of computers being put together. I have in fact, witnessed computers being made and even chimed in myself.

you mean to tell me that computers don't by themselves self-assemble?

I don't, as you seem to think I should believe that because I cannot wish a computer into existence then therefore, it was created. I believe that computers are assembled for other, more specific reasons.

do computers self-assemble on their own volition?

[Pygoscelis]

Explanation Given:

You do not seem to understand atheism. Atheism is not a coherent, or self-consistent ideology - it is merely a position. All every atheist has in common is simply that they do not believe that a God exists. There is no social, ethical, political or moral system involved with atheism or coherent set of beliefs outlined in some obscure manifesto - it is just a descriptive term used to refer to those who hold no belief in a deity. It literally means "without God".

Explanation Ignored:

Whatever!

Explanation Asked for:

How does an atheist define morality?

*crickets chirping*

[Justufy]

Nope all Muslims on board are your hosts.. Muslims aren't going to prefer a kaffir over a Muslim least of which the belligerent sort! .. we are one for all and all for one!

I managed to found this peice and pardon me for interrupting but...


Lets analyse this en profondeur, By this small bit of a post we can see what kind of an attitude is present here, ''muslims no matter how much they insult members on this board will not be held accountable or even punished or corrected by the rules of this forum because ''Muslims aren't going to prefer a kaffir over a Muslim''

Skavau to my knowledge has engaged with this user with honesty and has made many worthy points, however the same cannot be said of this other user who has engaged in arrogant and insulting behaviour, but none of this matters.

Forum rules and other net regulation are not that important, the same goes for the users on any board over the internet.

However when out of curiosity I try to imagine a world that would be run with the same attitude, a reality where someone would be above the law for simply belonging to a certain religion and where inequality would be created by this belonging, a world where murder or rape ( replace the insults by these) of someone that is of a different religion and opposing oppinion would not matter because that person would be considered worthless from the start. I can’t help but have an overwhelming feeling of fear that takes hold of me.

[Skavau]

Doesn't change the fact of the matter!

It actually does. You claimed that "It isn't up to 'Europe' to decide if its body of citizens are passively converting to Islam and at some point cause a shift in ideals!"

However, I did not mean Europe, I meant Europeans and I would say that it certainly ought to be up to Europeans as to what they are governed by.

how amusing!

I'll take that as yet another concession. You don't know what I think because, and you've admitted this - do not listen.

putting gibber together doesn't constitute logical consistency, no relation of parts!

And neither does responding with "disgusting" constitute a rebuttal.

Nope all Muslims on board are your hosts.. Muslims aren't going to prefer a kaffir over a Muslim least of which the belligerent sort! .. we are one for all and all for one!

Whether or not this group-thought you espouse is scripturally true or not, you are not a moderator. You do not and have not been given the capacity to tell me what to do. You have not been given permission to insult people on here, and I suspect further that some on here would say that having a single member doing nothing but insulting and talking down to non-muslims on here portrays a rather bad image and does more damage than good.

telling you how it is matter of fact doesn't constitute an insult.. I know how much you (collectively) enjoy crying wolf when at a loss for substance!

Whether or not you tell me how it is doesn't excuse you from the reality that, and you have also admitted this - insult people.

And that is against the forum ethos.

What forum rules are those?

These

I suggest you pay particular attention to the following:

9. Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)

14. Do not upload, post or otherwise transmit any contents that is unlawful (haram), harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.

I think it is very acceptable to expose you for the trolls that you are absolutely and I think the sentiment is shared by most Muslims even those who exercise better tolerance!

You appear to be the only person who thinks this.

whatever you have to tell yourself to get through this!

"To get through this!" What you think I am in a crisis of identity, or something?

secular: Of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
look up things before you write.. now if you don't find it 'anti-religious' why do you protest so much when religion is brought to the door?

That is a crude definition, for which you have bought no source to the table for. In any case, a doctrine that reject religion is not necessarily anti-religious. Secularism does reject religious rule.

I believe I gave you that definition a few pages ago and you didn't like it!

Did you? When? Even if you did, you then contradict an original claim you made which was to say that morality was about being obedient to God.

there isn't any perceivable difference!

Eh? Are you saying there's no difference between atheists and atheism?

with you anything goes!

No it doesn't. I've explained that.

do computers self-assemble on their own volition?

No, and I never claimed that.

[جوري]

It actually does. You claimed that "It isn't up to 'Europe' to decide if its body of citizens are passively converting to Islam and at some point cause a shift in ideals!"

And how does this change things in your mind?

However, I did not mean Europe, I meant Europeans and I would say that it certainly ought to be up to Europeans as to what they are governed by.

Indeed and as such when there is a shift in religion there will be a shift in priorities

I'll take that as yet another concession. You don't know what I think because, and you've admitted this - do not listen.

you have nothing of substance to impart, I don't even recognize you as a contender to make a concession.. but you are good for comic relief!

And neither does responding with "disgusting" constitute a rebuttal.

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal rather an honorable annotation!

Whether or not this group-thought you espouse is scripturally true or not, you are not a moderator. You do not and have not been given the capacity to tell me what to do. You have not been given permission to insult people on here, and I suspect further that some on here would say that having a single member doing nothing but insulting and talking down to non-muslims on here portrays a rather bad image and does more damage than good.

firstly show me where you have been insulted I think the lot of you have rather been treated with kid gloves on another forum you'd not have lasted a week!
2- I'll tell you what to do in the capacity that I am concerned with.
3- One doesn't need to be a moderator to point out mindless drivel
4- I was offered the job of the mod long ago and I declined it. A mod is someone who intercedes but it doesn't involve any of the other factors or the limitations that you desire unfortunately as such I'll say it again, if you don't like it here, don't be a member here.. if you don't like engaging a particular member here then don't!

Whether or not you tell me how it is doesn't excuse you from the reality that, and you have also admitted this - insult people.

Again, you have failed to show the so-called 'insults' but you can always start a support group for you and others where you scrub each other's backs and lick each other's wounds

And that is against the forum ethos.


These

Indeed I don't see how they are applicable here!

I suggest you pay particular attention to the following:

?

You appear to be the only person who thinks this.

You appear to have a both comprehension and reading impediment I see nothing in my posts that would indicate any of what you have just quoted!

"To get through this!" What you think I am in a crisis of identity, or something?

I am not here for your CBT!

That is a crude definition, for which you have bought no source to the table for. In any case, a doctrine that reject religion is not necessarily anti-religious. Secularism does reject religious rule.

Then why do you object to rule by theology if you are not 'anti-religious' .. I should point out by the way that this goes along the same lines you use whenever one points out the ills of 'homosexuality' where you often resort to the two things you know best 1- homophobia 2- consent.. as if at a loss for anything of merit to impart!

Did you? When? Even if you did, you then contradict an original claim you made which was to say that morality was about being obedient to God.

I never said obedience to God, this is something that your mind can't let go of because you don't have the mental capacity unfortunately to process what was written outside your atheist agenda and manifesto.. makes it tedious to engage you or others like you all together!

Eh? Are you saying there's no difference between atheists and atheism?

I don't care to know if there is a difference, you are what you do and the majority of you encountered do and think along the same lines.

No it doesn't. I've explained that.

You haven't!

No, and I never claimed that.

Oh good, then perhaps an obvious conclusion can be drawn in a similar setting of a different quality!

all the best

[Skavau]

firstly show me where you have been insulted I think the lot of you have rather been treated with kid gloves on another forum you'd not have lasted a week!

I know precisely what you've called me in the past, and what you said has now been removed from the forum. You've also made slurs against atheists in general that if hurled towards an ethnic group would be considered racist. You frequently refer to atheists as uncivilised, immoral, unevolved, apes and often in a deliberately derogatory and personal manner. This does not offend me in the slightest, takes a lot to make me cry - but it does not reflect well on the forum.

4- I was offered the job of the mod long ago and I declined it. A mod is someone who intercedes but it doesn't involve any of the other factors or the limitations that you desire unfortunately as such I'll say it again, if you don't like it here, don't be a member here.. if you don't like engaging a particular member here then don't!

You were offered the job were you? I'm glad you rejected it, you have no concept of objectivity and fair play.

Again, you have failed to show the so-called 'insults' but you can always start a support group for you and others where you scrub each other's backs and lick each other's wounds

I am not going to go through your posts and list it all. At least not here. If I was to do it, I'd specifically invoke it in the helpdesk subforum.

Indeed I don't see how they are applicable here!

They are the rules of IslamicBoard.com. You are posting on IslamicBoard.com. How are they not applicable?

You appear to have a both comprehension and reading impediment I see nothing in my posts that would indicate any of what you have just quoted!

Eh? How exactly would you be able to infer what other people think through your own posts?

Then why do you object to rule by theology if you are not 'anti-religious' ..

For the same reason I would object to rule by some hypothetical atheist fascist. For the same reason I would object to having my life controlled by Scientology. Because I value personal freedom. Why should I have to answer or adjust my life in accordance to a faith which I do not believe in?

In the reality of a multi-faith (and faithless) society it is impractical, unfair to insist that everyone not of Islam observe its tenets, or observe specific aspects of it.

I should point out by the way that this goes along the same lines you use whenever one points out the ills of 'homosexuality' where you often resort to the two things you know best 1- homophobia 2- consent.. as if at a loss for anything of merit to impart!

There are ills in many activities. Only the religious appear to fervently point out the ills in homosexuality. It is not consistent with being concerned with everyone's interests and that is why I suggest there is passive prejudice involved.

I never said obedience to God, this is something that your mind can't let go of because you don't have the mental capacity unfortunately to process what was written outside your atheist agenda and manifesto..

There we go. Personal insult.

And, yes you did say obedience to God to describe what was right.

I don't care to know if there is a difference, you are what you do and the majority of you encountered do and think along the same lines.

What hypocrisy. You have chastized me for suggesting that Islam is only what Muslims do. You have stated that you are not interested in what Muslims think about Sharia Law, only what Islamic jurisprudence actually states and now I discover that you are no better than I.

In any case, please do enlighten me on how you think (difficult to know how accurate this is, seeing as you don't listen) most atheists think. And please, enlighten me precisely on how what most atheists think have any impact on me.

Oh good, then perhaps an obvious conclusion can be drawn in a similar setting of a different quality!

Could you give an example?

[marwen]

Hey guys, cool down ;D
Any conclusion about the subject ?

I see huge posts contains many quotes, but that doen't really help.

If we fail to convince each other than there is no problem: sometimes the subject has many sides and each one can have his reasons. Personnally I don't think it's a big deal to eat meat ot to just live on vegetables, but we have just to keep this a the level of personal choice, not to make it a fundamental principle based on our belief or something.(IMHO)

[Gator]

Any conclusion about the subject ?

I think the first few responses by atheists were what the OP was looking for, which was basically how do atheists fell about eating meat

After that its just discussion.

Thanks.

[Pygoscelis]

I think all my insults are devoid of sugar coating!

firstly show me where you have been insulted I think the lot of you have rather been treated with kid gloves

on another forum you'd not have lasted a week!
3- One doesn't need to be a moderator to point out mindless drivel

Again, you have failed to show the so-called 'insults' but you can always start a support group for you and others where you scrub each other's backs and lick each other's wounds

Is this a personality trait or does Islam do this to people? I would hope the former but some may start to wonder. Is it a tribal thing? Hostility to the outsider to forment bonds with the ingroup perhaps? There is a difference between holding views people find offensive and just being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

Perhaps as she herself suggests, if we all ignored such behaviour then it may not ruin every thread. Restraint may not be the easiest thing, but it is a virtue, and many great thinkers and spiritual leaders (Jesus, the Buddha, I think Mohammed?) taught it.

marwen, for conclusions and civil discussion on the matter look to the start of the thread. It seems that some atheists DO indeed feel worse about eating meat whereas others do not. As atheism is just a lack of belief in God and has no bearing on one's other opinions or ideas this isn't surprising. :) Its simpler where there is a holy book or doctrine stating Thou Shalt Not Eat Meat (or thou shalt not eat a particular kind of meat) but atheism doesn't have this.

[tetsujin]

Is this a personality trait or does Islam do this to people? I would hope the former but some may start to wonder. Is it a tribal thing? Hostility to the outsider to foment bonds with the in-group perhaps? There is a difference between holding views people find offensive and just being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

I'm sure this isn't a matter of Islam, if you read her other posts she seems humble and kind, and doesn't obfuscate the discussion with disingenuous claims. I think it's a matter of being passionate about what one believes, and our existence and participation on this board for any reason other than to agree with her is upsetting. Clearly, a dual set of moral values couldn't have risen from a religion, right?

In any case, I would rather have this discussion than not. It's important to allows people to express themselves in dialogue, whether or not that expression is offensive.


All the best,


Faysal

[جوري]

I know precisely what you've called me in the past, and what you said has now been removed from the forum. You've also made slurs against atheists in general that if hurled towards an ethnic group would be considered racist. You frequently refer to atheists as uncivilised, immoral, unevolved, apes and often in a deliberately derogatory and personal manner. This does not offend me in the slightest, takes a lot to make me cry - but it does not reflect well on the forum.

what is that, you don't have something to show me? like to whine over concocted nonsense?
Being immoral isn't an insult it is a natural observation based on your writing here.. certainly someone who doesn't for instance view incestuous relationships as immoral is in fact immoral.. If it doesn't reflect well on the forum then don't be a member of the forum for the umpttenth time, no one is sticking a gun to your head to be here!

You were offered the job were you? I'm glad you rejected it, you have no concept of objectivity and fair play.

I did indeed. There is nothing fair about life.. as for objectivity whose standards are we going by here?

I am not going to go through your posts and list it all. At least not here. If I was to do it, I'd specifically invoke it in the helpdesk subforum.

If you can't backup your allegations then perhaps you can quit your whining? meandering posts to get the mods attention also goes against forum rules, but I fear you are failing miserably at your attempts.. I suppose because the concept of 'objectivity' really eludes you?!

They are the rules of IslamicBoard.com. You are posting on IslamicBoard.com. How are they not applicable?

You haven't shown me where my posts and the rules are at odds.. you have simply mouthed off your personal grievances with me. I fear that doesn't constitute going against the rules of an Islamic board!

Eh? How exactly would you be able to infer what other people think through your own posts?

I have no idea what this means!

For the same reason I would object to rule by some hypothetical atheist fascist. For the same reason I would object to having my life controlled by Scientology. Because I value personal freedom. Why should I have to answer or adjust my life in accordance to a faith which I do not believe in?

two vacuous statements. Scientology is neither a religion nor a political system it doesn't apply here and quite the other reason why folks have no interest in engaging an atheist, they pull any crap out of a hat and think it a viable analogy and turn every page to a 20 byway tirade!

In the reality of a multi-faith (and faithless) society it is impractical, unfair to insist that everyone not of Islam observe its tenets, or observe specific aspects of it.

How is it fair when a Muslim woman is stabbed to death in court and the rest are asked to strip naked? lol.. funny funny!

There are ills in many activities. Only the religious appear to fervently point out the ills in homosexuality. It is not consistent with being concerned with everyone's interests and that is why I suggest there is passive prejudice involved.

As is, atheists are the only ones to point out the ills of religion, and are only concerned with their own personal interests!

There we go. Personal insult.

How so?

And, yes you did say obedience to God to describe what was right.

I never used the word obedience go ahead quote me!

What hypocrisy. You have chastized me for suggesting that Islam is only what Muslims do. You have stated that you are not interested in what Muslims think about Sharia Law, only what Islamic jurisprudence actually states and now I discover that you are no better than I.

I said that jurisprudence is a judicial matter and not a matter left to lay persons least of which to be left to a person like you!

In any case, please do enlighten me on how you think (difficult to know how accurate this is, seeing as you don't listen) most atheists think. And please, enlighten me precisely on how what most atheists think have any impact on me.

I don't care to enlighten you.. again I ask, who are you that anyone should take notice or confer some dignity on you with a response when half of each post is spent to coax your ego back to good health?

Could you give an example?

use your imagination!

[جوري]

Is this a personality trait or does Islam do this to people? I would hope the former but some may start to wonder. Is it a tribal thing? Hostility to the outsider to forment bonds with the ingroup perhaps? There is a difference between holding views people find offensive and just being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

Perhaps as she herself suggests, if we all ignored such behaviour then it may not ruin every thread. Restraint may not be the easiest thing, but it is a virtue, and many great thinkers and spiritual leaders (Jesus, the Buddha, I think Mohammed?) taught it.

marwen, for conclusions and civil discussion on the matter look to the start of the thread. It seems that some atheists DO indeed feel worse about eating meat whereas others do not. As atheism is just a lack of belief in God and has no bearing on one's other opinions or ideas this isn't surprising. :) Its simpler where there is a holy book or doctrine stating Thou Shalt Not Eat Meat (or thou shalt not eat a particular kind of meat) but atheism doesn't have this.

Mindless drivel and devoid of sugar coating hardly constitute the F bombs that I have personally received in the dawkin forum after discussing a scientific article with the locals and in and of itself hardly constitutes an 'insult' .. You don't strike me as the sort who can either put a cohesive piece of evidence against someone together or actually as per the other fellow understand what objectivity is.. for your sake I hope you are not a criminal's defense lawyer!

I think the others (Muslims) on the thread have lost interest long ago, as is the case with most atheists, they are neither restrained by convention nor morality and the religion of Islam does teach us not to gauge in vain discourse with the ignorant.. and an atheist would constitute the perfect example of what that is!


I really suggest that if the lot of you are unhappy here and think this hilarious three man drive by shooting with your BB guns is going to accomplish your end that your efforts would be better suited to establish some form of support group to gain your manhood and piece your self-worth back into good health!


P.S if you wish to ignore me, it would be prudent not to quote me in the process, least of which when straining so hard to make another one of your famous brain farts!

all the best

[Justufy]

Mindless drivel and devoid of sugar coating hardly constitute the F bombs that I have personally received in the dawkin forum after discussing a scientific article with the locals and in and of itself hardly constitutes an 'insult'

Just because you had a bad experience on the RDF forum does not mean that you must reproduce it here, and if you were approaching non muslim members with the same attitude what you got might be understandable.

.. You don't strike me as the sort who can either put a cohesive piece of evidence against someone together or actually as per the other fellow understand what objectivity is.. for your sake I hope you are not a criminal's defense lawyer!

¸Another insult.

I think the others (Muslims) on the thread have lost interest long ago,

Your not a porte-Parole for any of them here, in fact im starting to associate you with a very distinct minority here.

as is the case with most atheists, there are neither restrained by convention nor morality

This is untrue, you know very well that atheists are restrained by conventions and morality, they just dervide them eslwhere, as for conventions if we are talking about social norms then everyone are subject to them regardless of religion.

and the religion of Islam does teach us not to gauge in vain discourse with the ignorant.. and an atheist would constitute the perfect example of what that is!

Then what was that diatribe with a a non- muslim ( ignorant you would say) here you just had (and are still having) ???

I really suggest that if the lot of you are unhappy here and think this hilarious three man drive by shooting with your BB guns is going to accomplish your end that your efforts would be better suited to establish some form of support group to gain your manhood and piece your self-worth back into good health!

Yet anothe insult.

P.S if you wish to ignore me, it would be prudent not to quote me in the process, least of which when straining so hard to make another one of your famous brain farts!

Oh look! Here is some of the (numerous) insults Skavau was talking about.

[جوري]

ahhhh.. ''me too' I was wondering when you'd join and gain some status by proxy!

Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

good luck with all that, let me know how it works out for you!

[tetsujin]

marwen, for conclusions and civil discussion on the matter look to the start of the thread. It seems that some atheists DO indeed feel worse about eating meat whereas others do not. As atheism is just a lack of belief in God and has no bearing on one's other opinions or ideas this isn't surprising. :) Its simpler where there is a holy book or doctrine stating Thou Shalt Not Eat Meat (or thou shalt not eat a particular kind of meat) but atheism doesn't have this.

Somewhat back to the original topic, I'll share an experience I had.

Around the age of 11, I experienced my first Eid-ul-Adha in Pakistan. I've never been a picky eater, so up to this point in my life, and I assume others my age as well, had not associated the source of meat, and the eventual meal you have prepared in front of you.

On Eid-ul-Adha, for those who are able to afford the cost, you take your most prized livestock or cattle, and sacrifice it. Since most people don't keep livestock, you would go to a market and buy the best you could afford or find. Most families bring them home a few days earlier for logistical reasons, and the kids usually get involved in the transport and care taking of the of the animals.

A day or two before eid itself, one of the goats was set aside, and my father called out to me. At this point I'm oblivious to what is going to happen. We proceed to give the goat some water and isolate it from the others by taking it to the front lawn. I am given a sharp knife and while someone else holds down the goat I am asked to cut the throat in the prescribed manner to make the sacrifice.

I did not grow up in Pakistan, so I was not familiar with this scene. Once they realized I simply wasn't going to do it myself. My father stood behind me, and with his hand over my hand, we performed the sacrifice. I was still stunned by the initial request and in retrospect I should probably have closed my eyes.

Was there a lesson in it for me? I didn't feel any empathy towards the animal, and in the back of my mind I knew that the food we ate that day and the following days would come from the animals we slaughtered on our lawn and driveway. However, that didn't change my view of the purpose of slaughtering, and I didn't decide whether it was morally justified, and I didn't see it as a necessity of life. I suppose those are not discussions you have with 11 year old boys. It was done to feed us, and to offer food to others less fortunate.


All the best,


Faysal

[Pygoscelis]

Interesting twist. A plea for civility as a status symbol.

The remark on the dawkins board is also interesting. Never been there but I have been on paltalk from time to time and seen some pretty nasty and hateful things said about muslims (I even find myself defending Islam believe it or not). So she takes angst from hearing that sort of thing, associates it with all non-muslims and downloads that to here. Irrational but understandable I suppose, given that non-muslims here are more civil and less likely to respond with the same.

I guess that sort of thing should be expected, but I still say its best to ignore it and attempt some sort of civil discussion. Too many interesting discussions have been ruined and too many threads have been closed due to this.

[Justufy]

Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

Attacks? alliances? combat? LoL you seem to view this as some cyber battelfield :p I bet you must think you are an important ''warrior'' here!:D Hahahaha! AND I looked at this site yoiu linked, they actually have a whole bunch of these characters, I bet you must assciate with one or the other?:statisfie. And single combat? ha! this is all to funny:hiding:.

I voice my oppinions here about what I wish and I will continue to do so, and frankly I never viewed any of this as a '' combat'' as you and your childish site seeme to. My suggestion here is that if you have that ''combat'' attitude in a forum discussion then nothing will be accomplished, I would suggest video games here, you might like Halo 3 or counter strike?? many good games to pass all that ROAR! warrior agressivity on:statisfie.

good luck with all that, let me know how it works out for you!

I better call in air support and the reservist '' warriors'' against such an impressive net-combattant as yourself! Please dont hurt me.

[Pygoscelis]

I assume others my age as well, had not associated the source of meat, and the eventual meal you have prepared in front of you.

Yes, this is a very good point. I think it is telling in many peoples' reaction to eating lobster for the first time, after picking it out live. Many of us, I suspect both religious and not would have difficulty killing a cow, goat or chicken to eat without at least some twinge of "is this right?"

I did not grow up in Pakistan, so I was not familiar with this scene. Once they realized I simply wasn't going to do it myself. My father stood behind me, and with his hand over my hand, we performed the sacrifice. I was still stunned by the initial request and in retrospect I should probably have closed my eyes.

I can only imagine

Was there a lesson in it for me? I didn't feel any empathy towards the animal, and in the back of my mind I knew that the food we ate that day and the following days would come from the animals we slaughtered on our lawn and driveway. However, that didn't change my view of the purpose of slaughtering, and I didn't decide whether it was morally justified, and I didn't see it as a necessity of life. I suppose those are not discussions you have with 11 year old boys. It was done to feed us, and to offer food to others less fortunate.

Thank you for sharing this experience with us. I think I would have been horrified, which I admit is completely hypocritical given that I do eat meat, but I think is a relic more of my society and distance from farming. When you've never worked in the slaughterhouse you may never solidify the emotional connection between the meat and its source, as you noted above.

[Justufy]

Yes, this is a very good point. I think it is telling in many peoples' reaction to eating lobster for the first time, after picking it out live. Many of us, I suspect both religious and not would have difficulty killing a cow, goat or chicken to eat without at least some twinge of "is this right?" I can only imagine
Thank you for sharing this experience with us. I think I would have been horrified, which I admit is completely hypocritical given that I do eat meat, but I think is a relic more of my society and distance from farming. When you've never worked in the slaughterhouse you may never solidify the emotional connection between the meat and its source, as you noted above.

As said previously I think this is because of the relation we now have with animals, no one has to kill an animal to eat his flesh anymore, we can just go to the grocery store and get it there pre-packaged, but these sentiments towards as I postied previously werent always so.

[جوري]

Attacks? alliances? combat? LoL you seem to view this as some cyber battelfield :p I bet you must think you are an important ''warrior'' here!:D Hahahaha! AND I looked at this site yoiu linked, they actually have a whole bunch of these characters, I bet you must assciate with one or the other?:statisfie. And single combat? ha! this is all to funny:hiding:.

I voice my oppinions here about what I wish and I will continue to do so, and frankly I never viewed any of this as a '' combat'' as you and your childish site seeme to. My suggestion here is that if you have that ''combat'' attitude in a forum discussion then nothing will be accomplished, I would suggest video games here, you might like Halo 3 or counter strike?? many good games to pass all that ROAR! warrior agressivity on:statisfie



I better call in air support and the reservist '' warriors'' against such an impressive net-combattant as yourself! Please dont hurt me.

what is with all the verbiage ''me too''?
take one of these PRN whenever you feel a verbal diarrhea attack coming on.

and generally if you can't stick to the topic then take yourself out of it!

all the best

[tetsujin]

As said previously I think this is because of the relation we now have with animals, no one has to kill an animal to eat his flesh anymore, we can just go to the grocery store and get it there pre-packaged, but these sentiments towards as I postied previously werent always so.

I take issue with defining morals based on how I feel about a subject. I shouldn't have to feel good about something for it to be right. I don't know how many people define morals in stoic manner, but I suspect it's very few.

On the one hand we have evolved emotions as an evolutionary shorthand to a controlled thought process, and on the other hand we've molded those emotions from an early age with our own sociocultural values and we only react when we perceive something as outside of the norm.

Are we capable of rewiring our minds after a childhood spent learning particular normative values, or do we accept that although it is difficult we have to bypass any automatic thinking and spend a few extra moments deciding what is right or wrong?


All the best,


Faysal

[Justufy]

I take issue with defining morals based on how I feel about a subject. I shouldn't have to feel good about something for it to be right. I don't know how many people define morals in stoic manner, but I suspect it's very few.

Indeed.

Are we capable of rewiring our minds after a childhood spent learning particular normative values, or do we accept that although it is difficult we have to bypass any automatic thinking and spend a few extra moments deciding what is right or wrong?

To change completely and ''rewire ones mind'' would have to be one of the hardest things to do in my oppinion, this is why there is no objective morality, all the choices we make, what we deem right or wrong is influenced by our own nature, by our experience and society, It’s like viewing things trough glasses, and everyone has a different kind of glasses, religious moral can try to narrow the scope and attempt to center peoples morals towards certain points and make them more uniform and homogenous, however this does not mean that these morals are in any way better than the morals of a simple individual, If religious morals condemn something, it does not ought to be that way either. Again, in psychology there is an important moral dilemma that was put forth in Kohlberg's stages of moral development. il post it here.


<<In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."

So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963).>>


Depending on the answers here Kohlberg could classify them according to a measuring scale.
Its an interesting to make, for instance if someone would not steal the medicine for simple fear of punishment of Hell, he or her would be at the pre-conventionnal stage of morals, which is one the the least sophisticated moral level.

[tetsujin]

Its an interesting to make, for instance if someone would not steal the medicine for simple fear of punishment of Hell, he or her would be at the pre-conventionnal stage of morals, which is one the the least sophisticated moral level.

Not related to food specifically, but I find Dr. Andy Thomson' s lectures on morality helpful.

About 45 minutes for the lecture. You can skip the first 2:20.


All the best,


Faysal

[Skavau]

what is that, you don't have something to show me? like to whine over concocted nonsense?
Being immoral isn't an insult it is a natural observation based on your writing here.. certainly someone who doesn't for instance view incestuous relationships as immoral is in fact immoral.. If it doesn't reflect well on the forum then don't be a member of the forum for the umpttenth time, no one is sticking a gun to your head to be here!

I can't reference some of your more vile insults because you and I both know the moderators removed them. I already called you out on a specific one in a different thread that was eventually closed.

I did indeed. There is nothing fair about life.. as for objectivity whose standards are we going by here?

...no-one's. Objectivity cannot refer to someone's standards.. that would be subjective.

You haven't shown me where my posts and the rules are at odds.. you have simply mouthed off your personal grievances with me. I fear that doesn't constitute going against the rules of an Islamic board!

As I said, I'm not going to go back through your posts and individually cut and paste every insult. The fact that you're denying to have ever actually insulted people is really quite comical.

I have no idea what this means!

Perhaps you should read what you write then. You said: "You appear to have a both comprehension and reading impediment I see nothing in my posts that would indicate any of what you have just quoted!" in response to me pointing out that you are the only one who appears to be under the apprehension that I am a troll. I then asked how you seem to think that your posts demonstrated what other people think.

two vacuous statements. Scientology is neither a religion nor a political system it doesn't apply here

Atheism is neither a religion nor a political system - it doesn't apply here. Bazinga!

and quite the other reason why folks have no interest in engaging an atheist, they pull any crap out of a hat and think it a viable analogy and turn every page to a 20 byway tirade!

How is it not a viable analogy? Do you know anything about Scientology?

How is it fair when a Muslim woman is stabbed to death in court and the rest are asked to strip naked? lol.. funny funny!

It isn't. A good job then, that such a course of action doesn't follow directly and from each other.

As is, atheists are the only ones to point out the ills of religion, and are only concerned with their own personal interests!

Correct. Many atheists are prejudiced against religion. I have never denied that. A lot are also apathetic, or antipathic as well.

And I am not only concerned with my personal interests.

How so?

Insinuating that someone is mentally weak, even in passive terms is an insult.

I never used the word obedience go ahead quote me!

Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!

You did not use the terms obedience, correct. However, in actuality it is and amounts to the same thing. Only what Allah deems as good is good and only what Allah deemsn to be bad is bad. It is based on obeying the words of Allah. It is in no uncertain terms, if you are to be consistent - a system of obedience.

I said that jurisprudence is a judicial matter and not a matter left to lay persons least of which to be left to a person like you!

Fair enough. So how is it fair for you to then stereotype atheists after complaining about others stereotyping Muslims?

I don't care to enlighten you.. again I ask, who are you that anyone should take notice or confer some dignity on you with a response when half of each post is spent to coax your ego back to good health?

So no evidence. Okay. Don't complain when I can't be bothered to produce any either. You're like a kid in a playground that has information, or has evidence but then hides it being abusive and mocking to other people in the process.

use your imagination!

Alright, so you've abandoned your point about things not coming ex nihilo. I thought you were going to eventually return with the teleological argument.

[Skavau]

Not related to food specifically, but I find Dr. Andy Thomson' s lectures on morality helpful.

About 45 minutes for the lecture. You can skip the first 2:20.


All the best,


Faysal

I watched a clip of this guy on dprjones channel. I will watch all of it now I have the link. Thank you for sharing.

[جوري]

I can't reference some of your more vile insults because you and I both know the moderators removed them. I already called you out on a specific one in a different thread that was eventually closed.

Really? I had nothing deleted, so unless you can back up your claims I suggest you button up?

...no-one's. Objectivity cannot refer to someone's standards.. that would be subjective.

so long as you have a sense of self then there will be no such thing as objectivity!

As I said, I'm not going to go back through your posts and individually cut and paste every insult. The fact that you're denying to have ever actually insulted people is really quite comical.

see comment number one!

Perhaps you should read what you write then. You said: "You appear to have a both comprehension and reading impediment I see nothing in my posts that would indicate any of what you have just quoted!" in response to me pointing out that you are the only one who appears to be under the apprehension that I am a troll. I then asked how you seem to think that your posts demonstrated what other people think.

No, you reading and comprehension impediment is a well deserved observation to misconstruing my remarks to be tailored to your needs.

Atheism is neither a religion nor a political system - it doesn't apply here. Bazinga!

It is an immoral way of life what is your point?

How is it not a viable analogy? Do you know anything about Scientology?

I do.. question is do you?

Correct. Many atheists are prejudiced against religion. I have never denied that. A lot are also apathetic, or antipathic as well.

to what do we owe this sudden burst of honesty? I feel about atheism the same way you many atheists feel about theism!

And I am not only concerned with my personal interests.

what you are concerned with doesn't concern me so long as it isn't a threat to the public in any shape form or fashion!

Insinuating that someone is mentally weak, even in passive terms is an insult.

No it isn't.. we have entire books dedicated to levels and gradation of mental weakness and the types of vocations and activities that are best suited for them based on such gradation!

You did not use the terms obedience, correct. However, in actuality it is and amounts to the same thing. Only what Allah deems as good is good and only what Allah deemsn to be bad is bad. It is based on obeying the words of Allah. It is in no uncertain terms, if you are to be consistent - a system of obedience.

No, it doesn't mount to the same thing. You merely want views to fit into your sophomoric creations and I frankly refuse to descend down to word-play with someone such as yourself!

Fair enough. So how is it fair for you to then stereotype atheists after complaining about others stereotyping Muslims?

Show me where I have complained that Muslims are being stereotyped and then come and ask me this question again!

So no evidence. Okay. Don't complain when I can't be bothered to produce any either. You're like a kid in a playground that has information, or has evidence but then hides it being abusive and mocking to other people in the process.

Evidence for what? I haven't complained that you have produced no evidence in fact repeatedly I have told you that I have no expectations from you and the one analogy I have used to demonstrate that certain esoterics aren't calculable and it bewilders me at all how non-materialism fits into the dynamics of being an atheist. But certainly not enough to lose sleep over!

Alright, so you've abandoned your point about things not coming ex nihilo. I thought you were going to eventually return with the teleological argument

I haven't abandoned it, you have no suitable reply and I don't like to whittle away the day on worthless banter!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Somewhat back to the original topic, I'll share an experience I had.

Around the age of 11, I experienced my first Eid-ul-Adha in Pakistan. I've never been a picky eater, so up to this point in my life, and I assume others my age as well, had not associated the source of meat, and the eventual meal you have prepared in front of you.

On Eid-ul-Adha, for those who are able to afford the cost, you take your most prized livestock or cattle, and sacrifice it. Since most people don't keep livestock, you would go to a market and buy the best you could afford or find. Most families bring them home a few days earlier for logistical reasons, and the kids usually get involved in the transport and care taking of the of the animals.

A day or two before eid itself, one of the goats was set aside, and my father called out to me. At this point I'm oblivious to what is going to happen. We proceed to give the goat some water and isolate it from the others by taking it to the front lawn. I am given a sharp knife and while someone else holds down the goat I am asked to cut the throat in the prescribed manner to make the sacrifice.

I did not grow up in Pakistan, so I was not familiar with this scene. Once they realized I simply wasn't going to do it myself. My father stood behind me, and with his hand over my hand, we performed the sacrifice. I was still stunned by the initial request and in retrospect I should probably have closed my eyes.

Was there a lesson in it for me? I didn't feel any empathy towards the animal, and in the back of my mind I knew that the food we ate that day and the following days would come from the animals we slaughtered on our lawn and driveway. However, that didn't change my view of the purpose of slaughtering, and I didn't decide whether it was morally justified, and I didn't see it as a necessity of life. I suppose those are not discussions you have with 11 year old boys. It was done to feed us, and to offer food to others less fortunate.


All the best,


Faysal

I am not sure why your father would hand you the knife to do the honors for sacrificing the animal while you were "just" 11? Maybe you were too "innocent" at that age to see the blood? Many people are fearful of blood even when they reach their 20s and if asked why did not you become a doctor despite liking the profession, the answer usually is "I cant see blood." A girl fainted in my lab just because we were dissecting a grasshopper for neurophysiological measurements! Surprise, surprise.

I never sacrificed an animal at the age of 11 but I witnessed the sacrifices for couple of years or house's roof-top as a child and witnessed all that gore and blood fountain oozing into the air but I wonder why I did not feel the pain with the intensity you did? Also got to see public beheading as a child and found it just for the murderer to be murdered.

[جوري]

I think most people on this thread need to spend a couple of days in L&D or SF general trauma center!
guaranteed to desensitize you in two hours!

:w:

[Skavau]

Really? I had nothing deleted, so unless you can back up your claims I suggest you button up?

I can't. They've been deleted. I could reference the threads they happened in, but that would be to memory. I know that in an old thread now started by you, in your opening post a moderator edited out the insult and made a comment regarding it but that now appears to have been changed or removed.

so long as you have a sense of self then there will be no such thing as objectivity!

Uh, okay. So this means that objective morality is impossible then?

It is an immoral way of life what is your point?

You do not seem to understand atheism. Atheism is not a coherent, or self-consistent ideology - it is merely a position. All every atheist has in common is simply that they do not believe that a God exists. There is no social, ethical, political or moral system involved with atheism or coherent set of beliefs outlined in some obscure manifesto - it is just a descriptive term used to refer to those who hold no belief in a deity. It literally means "without God".

Yes, I cut and paste but I'd just be repeating myself if I typed it out again manually. I need to start saving this stuff and put it into documents for future use.

I do.. question is do you?

Yes, very much so.

to what do we owe this sudden burst of honesty? I feel about atheism the same way you many atheists feel about theism!

It has always been true that many atheists feel contempt towards religion - usually due to personal issues. I certainly don't have any of the vitrolity that you have towards atheists to theists.

what you are concerned with doesn't concern me so long as it isn't a threat to the public in any shape form or fashion!

Isn't this the same for everyone? You see, I don't get this with you - you make a claim about me, or about something and I state that no, it is not correct what you claim and then immediately I get some strange "I don't care" response. Do you ever follow anything through?

No, it doesn't mount to the same thing. You merely want views to fit into your sophomoric creations and I frankly refuse to descend down to word-play with someone such as yourself!

Descending down to word-play would be to dispute my usage over obedience in this context... In any case however, are you actually suggesting that there is a time where you would not obey Allah on matters of what is right and wrong?

[جوري]

I can't. They've been deleted. I could reference the threads they happened in, but that would be to memory. I know that in an old thread now started by you, in your opening post a moderator edited out the insult and made a comment regarding it but that now appears to have been changed or removed.

lol.. yeah I know you can't.. and I had personally nothing deleted from that thread for insults save for off topic posts due to other off topic posts!

Uh, okay. So this means that objective morality is impossible then?

the topic you brought wasn't of 'objective morality' it was of your gratitude that I have declined the mod position because of my personal lack of objectivity. Perhaps now you can see a sliver of why it is an utter waste to engage you in any topic!

You do not seem to understand atheism. Atheism is not a coherent, or self-consistent ideology - it is merely a position. All every atheist has in common is simply that they do not believe that a God exists. There is no social, ethical, political or moral system involved with atheism or coherent set of beliefs outlined in some obscure manifesto - it is just a descriptive term used to refer to those who hold no belief in a deity. It literally means "without God".

I understand that you no social, ethical or moral system, yes anything goes, why do you keep hammering in a point already established?

Yes, I cut and paste but I'd just be repeating myself if I typed it out again manually. I need to start saving this stuff and put it into documents for future use.

you do that!

Yes, very much so.

a one time pleasure indeed!

It has always been true that many atheists feel contempt towards religion - usually due to personal issues. I certainly don't have any of the vitrolity that you have towards atheists to theists.

well that is good for you!

Isn't this the same for everyone? You see, I don't get this with you - you make a claim about me, or about something and I state that no, it is not correct what you claim and then immediately I get some strange "I don't care" response. Do you ever follow anything through?

No, and I suspect that if you had something of substance to impart on a different topic and in a cohesive manner I might engage you in a positive fashion but I know that you are after wasting your time and much worse mine I have had about all the tolerance I can have for you!

Descending down to word-play would be to dispute my usage over obedience in this context... In any case however, are you actually suggesting that there is a time where you would not obey Allah on matters of what is right and wrong?

lol.. I like leading questions with implicit assumptions as much as the next guy..

all the best

[Trumble]

I understand that you no social, ethical or moral system, yes anything goes, why do you keep hammering in a point already established?

Probably because you continue to deliberately distort it, as you have done yet again. The simple belief that "there is no God" does not imply in any way that 'anything goes' in relation to ethics and morality.

[CosmicPathos]

Probably because you continue to deliberately distort it, as you have done yet again. The simple belief that "there is no God" does not imply in any way that 'anything goes' in relation to ethics and morality.

no one said that anything goes among your ilk. Rather what goes on among your ilk is subject to natural forces and what if those natural forces became evil? So then what "would go" among your ilk would certain be evil, from an unbiased point of view, yet for your ilk it would be normal as the situation is such that it changes the perception.

[Pygoscelis]

What does "natural forces mean"?

Note that if you consider "good" to equate to "what God wants" then good is just obedience to God and "your ilk" is easily made to do evil by convincing them that God wants it. History shows this isn't impossible and has happened a number of times.

[Justufy]

no one said that anything goes among your ilk. Rather what goes on among your ilk is subject to natural forces and what if those natural forces became evil? So then what "would go" among your ilk would certain be evil, from an unbiased point of view, yet for your ilk it would be normal as the situation is such that it changes the perception.

Natural forces going evil? what is this?

I don't get what you mean here.

[CosmicPathos]

Natural forces going evil? what is this?

I don't get what you mean here.

lets say many people have contracted a virus whose spread can only be stopped by killing those people in a timely manner in order to save the rest of humanity. In such cases, certain people's godless morality might decide that "greater evil must be stopped by committing the lesser evil"

[tetsujin]

lets say many people have contracted a virus whose spread can only be stopped by killing those people in a timely manner in order to save the rest of humanity. In such cases, certain people's godless morality might decide that "greater evil must be stopped by committing the lesser evil"

I can not think of a "moral" action taken by a believer in this scenario that could not be taken by a non-believer, without resorting to a holy book for an answer. What's the Islamic/religious response to a hypothetical deadly and contagious H5N1 outbreak?


All the best,


Faysal

[جوري]

I can not think of a "moral" action taken by a believer in this scenario that could not be taken by a non-believer, without resorting to a holy book for an answer. What's the Islamic/religious response to a hypothetical deadly and contagious H5N1 outbreak?


All the best,


Faysal

Greetings,

the Islamic response to any plague and as was demonstrated during plague times under the Muslims empire is that no one leaves the city and no one enters!

all the best

[جوري]

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 679:

Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
Allah's Apostle said, "Plague was a means of torture sent on a group of Israelis (or on some people before you). So if you hear of its spread in a land, don't approach it, and if a plague should appear in a land where you are present, then don't leave that land in order to run away from it (i.e. plague)."



_____________________________


Volume 4, Book 56, Number 680:

Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I asked Allah's Apostle about the plague. He told me that it was a Punishment sent by Allah on whom he wished, and Allah made it a source of mercy for the believers, for if one in the time of an epidemic plague stays in his country patiently hoping for Allah's Reward and believing that nothing will befall him except what Allah has written for him, he will get the reward of a martyr."



_______________________________________________
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 624:

Narrated Saud:
The Prophet said, "If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place."



________________________________________




so you now you know quarantining and its Islamic roots although I know you view Islamic philosophy as inferior.. the more we pursue knowledge the more superior it becomes!


all the best

[Skavau]

no one said that anything goes among your ilk. Rather what goes on among your ilk is subject to natural forces and what if those natural forces became evil? So then what "would go" among your ilk would certain be evil, from an unbiased point of view, yet for your ilk it would be normal as the situation is such that it changes the perception.

If 'natural forces' became evil or destructive (somehow) that I see no reason why atheists could not view these natural forces are evil or destructive. There is no compulsion for an atheist to consider nature as moral, or as a guideline for what ought. Natural forces now are and can be destructive, killing millions at a whim and yet I know of no secular individual that would look upon natural disasters with apathy.

However, as Pygo touched upon - with a moral system direct from God. With a moral system direct from and with its foundations in obedience towards God, no exceptions - any notion of 'right' and 'wrong' cannot be seperated from that. So if God was to decree murder, or rape as acceptable, you could not despite any potential inclinations have any reason to consider it wrong. If your criteria and moral system involves complete subjugation to the rule of God then this is the only conclusion that you can come to. That 'good' means 'obedience', that 'bad' means 'disobedience'. That humanity is merely tools for 'devout' to do work on God's behalf. And remember, much evil has been committed for the objectives of doing work on behalf of some emperor, king, or monarch of sorts.

If God is the focus of a theists morality (something many are proud to announce) - then I will say humanity is the focus of the atheists, or the humanists.

[tetsujin]

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 679: [INDENT] Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
Allah's Apostle said, "Plague was a means of torture sent on a group of Israelis (or on some people before you). So if you hear of its spread in a land, don't approach it, and if a plague should appear in a land where you are present, then don't leave that land in order to run away from it (i.e. plague)."



_____________________________


Volume 4, Book 56, Number 680: [INDENT] Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I asked Allah's Apostle about the plague. He told me that it was a Punishment sent by Allah on whom he wished, and Allah made it a source of mercy for the believers, for if one in the time of an epidemic plague stays in his country patiently hoping for Allah's Reward and believing that nothing will befall him except what Allah has written for him, he will get the reward of a martyr."



_______________________________________________
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 624: [INDENT] Narrated Saud:
The Prophet said, "If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place."



________________________________________

That's wonderful. Why didn't anyone think that a contagious disease could be controlled by separating the apparently sick, from the apparently healthy? I mean we knew diseases were spread by microorganisms, right? No, wait, it was god.

That's okay, those [insert enemy] deserved it. It's god's punishment for rejecting him and opposing the believers. He sent plagues as a message to other non-believers. Except for believers who died, for them it was a reward. When god sends a plague, he doesn't discriminate against the children, the weak and feeble, the nomad who was just passing by, or the cold hearted kuffar. Let them all die, I'll sort it out once they're buried.

You see god can perform the same action and it's a punishment for the enemy, and a test of faith and even a reward for the believers.

It's not that god doesn't like you (the faithful), he just wanted to thank you for all the effort and standing by his revealed truth. Can't be called a martyr if you don't die... :clever:

It's not that he couldn't save you (the faithful), but if he only selectively killed the kuffar, then it wouldn't seem like religion is a choice.

Whatever you do, you definitely shouldn't leave the area. What if god noticed you fleeing and got trigger happy. You wouldn't want to kill people in the next town or village, right?

Is that about right?

so you now you know quarantining and its Islamic roots

I had no idea people are quarantined because god selected a punishment for those people. It is not because people do not want to be infected, or out empathy for the neighbouring towns and villages.

although I know you view Islamic philosophy as inferior..

No, that's not something I would say. Just as you would not say Islamic philosophy is superior. Revealed truth cannot be ranked on a scale. If you have principles you stand by them. That's what your religion teaches you, and despite our inability to live up to our principles at every moment it is what we continue to strive for.

the more we pursue knowledge the more superior it becomes!

The more superior knowledge becomes? Don't bother clarifying.


All the best,


Faysal

[جوري]

That's wonderful. Why didn't anyone think that a contagious disease could be controlled by separating the apparently sick, from the apparently healthy? I mean we knew diseases were spread by microorganisms, right? No, wait, it was god.

Did we know? imagine then the lives that would have been saved in many of the various plagues if folks had applied such a basic principals!.. imagine all the rave when Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that hand-washing saves lives and it only took an autopsy and the death of his friend (the pathologist) for that to be clear sometime around 1847 or so!

That's okay, those [insert enemy] deserved it. It's god's punishment for rejecting him and opposing the believers. He sent plagues as a message to other non-believers. Except for believers who died, for them it was a reward. When god sends a plague, he doesn't discriminate against the children, the weak and feeble, the nomad who was just passing by, or the cold hearted kuffar. Let them all die, I'll sort it out once they're buried.

clearly not all the ahadith speak of just enemies being plagued.. the whole point is what to do during a plague whether you are incurring the wrath of God or not isn't the point.. your adds and subtracts and 'what does it all mean' should be left to ponder by yourself on your own private time.

You see god can perform the same action and it's a punishment for the enemy, and a test of faith and even a reward for the believers.

indeed!

It's not that god doesn't like you (the faithful), he just wanted to thank you for all the effort and standing by his revealed truth. Can't be called a martyr if you don't die... :clever:

It is the human condition of course you are free to not be a part of it and make your own 'superior' philosophy on the side-- whether you think God has anything to do with it or not, and whether sinners are being punished or not is not the focus of what do to during plague times, I'd think that would be kind of obvious but I feel your need for a personal purge on the side.

It's not that he couldn't save you (the faithful), but if he only selectively killed the kuffar, then it wouldn't seem like religion is a choice.

I have no idea what this means, but I notice that your repeated attempts at witty are failing you.. which is unfortunate...

Whatever you do, you definitely shouldn't leave the area. What if god noticed you fleeing and got trigger happy. You wouldn't want to kill people in the next town or village, right?

I am sure you personal village (composed of two people perhaps with a death wish) would appreciate a locust of sick individuals reigning down on them.. but most people don't.. most folks like situations to be under-control!

Is that about right?

what is about right?

I had no idea people are quarantined because god selected a punishment for those people. It is not because people do not want to be infected, or out empathy for the neighbouring towns and villages.

People are quarantined for medical reasons, whether or not they are sinners is a judgment that lies with God!
in fact any matter in medicine the ethical issues are judicial in nature and have a judge presiding over them once your clinical judgment no longer covers medicine but extends beyond it!

No, that's not something I would say. Just as you would not say Islamic philosophy is superior. Revealed truth cannot be ranked on a scale. If you have principles you stand by them. That's what your religion teaches you, and despite our inability to live up to our principles at every moment it is what we continue to strive for.

I actually would say that Islamic philosophy is superior if I didn't think it was I wouldn't be Muslim. I live in the west and am quite independent financially and emotionally and have an education that only 1% of the population are fortunate to have be that east or west- so I wouldn't speak for me- obviously.. furthermore Islam isn't merely philosophy, which is why I think it superior, no other individual system covers every aspect of our lives from medicine to politics, to economics, to social structure, to spirituality, everyday living etc. etc.

The more superior knowledge becomes? Don't bother clarifying.

I won't.. I usually view time wasted on atheists as just that a waste! nonetheless there is the occasion that arises when it might clarify something for another Muslim or a sincere seeker of knowledge and that is the only thing that compels me to reply!

All the best,


Faysal

and to you!

[Justufy]

lets say many people have contracted a virus whose spread can only be stopped by killing those people in a timely manner in order to save the rest of humanity. In such cases, certain people's godless morality might decide that "greater evil must be stopped by committing the lesser evil"

This is a false dillema wit respect to your analogy, there exists other means of stoping the spread of a virus, such as quarantine, no one needs to be ''killed'' I would like to point out that no holy book is needed to figure this out.

The Prophet said, "If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place."

Big Big common sense, why wouldn't atheists come up with the same reasoning?

Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I asked Allah's Apostle about the plague. He told me that it was a Punishment sent by Allah on whom he wished, and Allah made it a source of mercy for the believers, for if one in the time of an epidemic plague stays in his country patiently hoping for Allah's Reward and believing that nothing will befall him except what Allah has written for him, he will get the reward of a martyr."

Nope, in a religious context some natural forces may be attributed to divinity, for instance, Lightning coming down from the skye was an act of God up above before we knew otherwise.

so you now you know quarantining and its Islamic roots

the more we pursue knowledge the more superior it becomes!

I actually would say that Islamic philosophy is superior if I didn't think it was I wouldn't be Muslim

So you being muslim is because you subjectively think its a superior philosophy?

[جوري]

This is a false dillema wit respect to your analogy, there exists other means of stoping the spread of a virus, such as quarantine, no one needs to be ''killed'' I would like to point out that no holy book is needed to figure this out.

How does stopping the 'virus' by other means relate quarantining those who are sick so they don't infect others?

Big Big common sense, why wouldn't atheists come up with the same reasoning?

what reasoning when not 150 yrs ago or so folks couldn't correlate washing your hands with the spread and infection of others?

Nope, in a religious context some natural forces may be attributed to divinity, for instance, Lightning coming down from the skye was an act of God up above before we knew otherwise.

I have no idea what this means or its correlation to the topic.. in fact that is a common theme of most of what you write!

So you being muslim is because you subjectively think its a superior philosophy?

Subjective? yeah Ok maybe subjective to 1.86 billion people then!

all the best

[Justufy]

]How does stopping the 'virus' by other means relate quarantining those who are sick so they don't infect others?

This would be an effective way to stop the spread if the disease without resorting to killing the individuals.

what reasoning when not $150 yrs ago folks couldn't correlate washing your hands with the spread and infection of others?

sorry, I had no idea that the benefits of hand washing was documented in the qur'an well before that and associated with a good way to not spread infections to others, my bad.

I have no idea what this means or its correlation .. in fact that is a common theme of most of what you write!

It simply meant that when no explanation can be found for something, or cannot be explained then in these cases God was inserted. Out of curiosity, Do you view the disaster in Haiti as an act of God?

Subjective? yeah Ok maybe subjective to 1.86 billion people then!

And how does this ad popullum lend any credence to your subjective viewing of islam as superior?

all the best

Thank you. and all the best for you too.

[جوري]

This would be an effective way to stop the spread if the disease without resorting to killing the individuals.

This doesn't follow from what you have written earlier!

sorry, I had no idea that the benefits of hand washing was documented in the qur'an well before that and associated with a good way to not spread infections to others, my bad.

There are many things you don't know, that is precisely the point.. you and the other fellow think it is 'common knowledge' yet history tells a different story!

It simply meant that when no explanation can be found for something, or cannot be explained then in these cases God was inserted. Out of curiosity, Do you view the disaster in Haiti as an act of God?

There is a difference between knowing how something occurred as opposed to wherefore in the theological sense!
We don't know whether a plague hits a place as a test, or a punishment or the other multitudes of reasons for we are not God and neither judgment nor reason in that regard belongs to us.. so again the post evolved to what should be done during a time of a plague not why it occurred.. was that easy enough this time around for you to understand?

And how does this ad popullum lend any credence to your subjective viewing of islam as superior?

I said it was subjective to 1.86 billion people I didn't say whether it was or not.. obviously on some level I was being critical of you, given I don't think you understand simple statements for me to get into a deep theological or philosophical debate with you!

Thank you. and all the best for you too.

[Justufy]

This doesn't follow from what you have written earlier!

Pherhaps I have badly worded this, I hope its all clear now :).

There are many things you don't know, that is precisely the point.. you and the other fellow think it is 'common knowledge' yet history tells a different story!

What passages in the qu'ran would those be ( the ones where it is said that washing hands is a good way to prevent infections) Enlighten me.

there is a difference between knowing how something occurred as opposed to wherefore in the theological sense!

Indeed,if you want to add a theological aspect to such disasters, could it be normal to ask what meaning/sense that might be?

We don't know whether a plague hits a place as a test, or a punishment or the other multitudes of reasons for we are not God and neither judgment nor reason in that regard belongs to us.. so again the post evolved to what should be done during a time of a plague not why it occurred.. was that easy enough this time around for you to understand?

Thats special pleading, so try again?

I said it was subjective to 1.86 billion people I didn't say whether it was or not..

Alright.

obviously on some level I was being critical of you, given I don't think you understand simple statements for me to get into a deep theological or philosophical debate with you!

I understand. However if you do want to get into said debate , I would be up for it, first you could start by giving a theological and philosophical reason for why this entity killed thousands of people in Haiti, a country that is alredy stricken by poverty and many other problems. Why would God, according to you unleash such a disaster on Haiti and not on other countries? why not Israel?

Special pleading does not count.

[Justufy]

I had a preacher friend saying that this was God's way of Rapturing the people of Haiti into heaven, however I remarked that perhaps he could of found a more delicate way then crushing them under loads of concrete and debris, leaving the unfortunate survivors starved and thirsty with no infrastructure.

[جوري]

Pherhaps I have badly worded this, I hope its all clear now :).

How is it clearer?

What passages in the qu'ran would those be ( the ones where it is said that washing hands is a good way to prevent infections) Enlighten me.

Here are a few for brevity' sake!
Personal Hygiene In Islam

"Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers etc.).; (Al Baqarah 2:222)

O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.

Qur'an 4:43

Abu Huraira reported the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) to have said: When a dog licks a utensil belonging to any one of you, (the thing contained in it) should be thrown away and then (the utensil) should be washed seven times.

Sahih Muslim 2:546, See Also Sahih Muslim 2:547, Sahih Muslim 2:548, Sahih Muslim 2:549, Sahih Muslim 2:550, Sahih Muslim 2:551, Al-Muwatta 2 6.36

Narrated AbuMalik al-Ash'ari:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Cleanliness is half of faith and Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah) fills the scale, and SubhanAllah (Glory be to Allah) and Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah) fill up what is between the heavens and the earth, and prayer is a light, and charity is proof (of one's faith) and endurance is a brightness and the Qur'an is a proof on your behalf or against you. All men go out early in the morning and sell themselves, thereby setting themselves free or destroying themselves. (Sahih Muslim Book 2, Number 0432)

Cleanliness In Islam Is Of Three Kinds:

1. 
   
2. Purification from impurity (i.e. to attain purity or cleanliness, by taking a bath (ghusl) or performing ablution (wudoo) in states in which a bath or ablution is necessary or desirable according to Islamic Law).
3. To cleanse one's body, dress or place from an impurity of filth.
4. To remove the dirt or grime that collects in various parts of the body, such as cleaning the teeth and nostrils, the trimming of nails and the removing of armpit and pubic hair.

Types of Purification Allah (the Most High) says in the Quran (what is translated to mean):

O you who believe! When you intend to offer prayer, wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. post sexual relations), purify yourself (bathe your whole body).; (Al-Ma'idah 5:6)

1. GHUSL (A COMPLETE BATH) This is when all parts of the body are washed with water, including the mouth and the nose. WUDOO (A SIMPLE ABLUTION) This is when certain parts of the body are washed with water. For more information on this subject, please visit the following site The Prophet's Wudoo (Ablution): The superiority of ablution. And Al-Ghurr-ul-Muhajjalun (the parts of the body of the Muslims washed in ablution will shine on the Day of Resurrection and the angels will call them by that name) from the traces of ablution. Narrated Nu'aim Al-Mujmir:
   "Once I went up the roof of the mosque along with Abu Huraira (RA): He performed ablution and said, "I heard the Prophet (S) saying, 'On the Day of Resurrection, my followers will be called Al-Ghurr-ul-Muhajjalun from the traces of ablution and whoever can increase the area of his radiance should do so (by performing ablution in the most perfect manner.'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Hadith No. 138)
   Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:
   "The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: 'He who performed ablution well, his sins would come out from his body, even coming out from under his nails.'" (Sahih Muslim, Book 2, Number 0476)
   TAYAMMUM (PURIFICATION WITHOUT WATER) This method of purifcation, which does not require water, is used instead of ablution (Wudoo) and Ghusl in certain circumstances (i.e. such as no water is available, etc.). Allah (the Most High) says in the Quran (what is translated to mean): But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse) and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favor on you that you may be thankful.; (Al-Ma'idah 5:6)

Keeping The Fitrah Prophet (peace be upon him). He said, "From the acts of nature are five: circumcision (obligation for men, but not for women), removing pubic hairs, trimming the mustache, cutting the nails and plucking the hair from under the armpits."1 [Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim]. It is not allowed to leave them for more than forty nights. This is based on the Hadith of Anas who said, "The Messenger of Allah set a time limit for us for trimming the mustache, trimming nails, removing armpit hairs and removing pubic hairs. They cannot be left for more than forty nights."2 [Recorded by Muslim]. Letting them grow long resembles animals and some of the disbelievers. May Allah keep you well.

Links: http://www.total.net/~lgmz/Health.htm

Indeed,if you want to add a theological aspect to such disasters, could it be normal to ask what meaning/sense that might be?

? firstly why would I want to? and secondly how can any conclusion reached have a semblance of the truth?

Thats special pleading, so try again?

I have no idea what this means (yet again)! one simple of way of judging success is to have a look at the peak period of history when Islam was implemented vs. other 'philosophies' Christianity's dark ages rather speaks volumes of its success and common sense!
Other philosophies have been widely replaced with science and its founding fathers have remained shelved in philosophy classes and history books to mark a particular period of history and for the pleasure of atheists to bring up whenever they desire a deflection from the really hard questions of why this and not that!

Alright.

 I understand. However if you do want to get into said debate , I would be up for it, first you could start by giving a theological and philosophical reason for why this entity killed thousands of people in Hait i, a country that is alredy stricken by poverty and many other problems. Why would God, according to you unleash such a disaster on Haiti and not on other countries? why not Israel? 

Again why would I want to? to do so is to assume a position that isn't ours and never was.. also, if there are disasters to befall a place of divine proportion and promise it will be Israel.. it is a question of when not why though!

Special pleading does not count.

I mean this in the nicest of ways.. but you need to work on your English.. I have no idea what you want or mean half the times!
and would prefer it if you not waste my time all together by quoting me in posts that weren't in fact directed at you.. I so hate to whittle myself on every person with an opinion!
all the best

[Justufy]

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.


An example of special pleading would be to say that something is the act of God but one does not know why God did or caused it because no one can know what God thinks.

An example:

I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena

[Justufy]

And no where does your quotes verses say anything about infections, what about hindus that bath in the gange? are they fighting infections also by bathing in the pure ( most polluted river) in the world?

[جوري]

I know what a specious argument is! I don't see its relevance to the thread nor the current distilled subject matter especially with the sort of phraseology you use!..
if you want to start a new thread, then by all means, but there is no point to meander yet another thread to suit your immediate whims!

all the best

[جوري]

And no where does your quotes verses say anything about infections, what about hindus that bath in the gange? are they fighting infections also by bathing in the pure ( most polluted river) in the world?

If you want a book that covers all aspects of prophetic medicine then you may purchase it directly from amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Medicine-Proph.../dp/0946621195

I will not layout compendiums because you decided that the amount of info given wasn't sufficient to satisfy your personal needs or because you can't follow from a basic premise .. in it you'll also learn (should that in fact be your desire) why it isn't OK to bathe in filthy water, or bathe your sheep or bury your dead where you use water for food or medicine!

all the best

[Justufy]

If you want a book that covers all aspects of prophetic medicine then you may purchase it directly from amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Medicine-Proph.../dp/0946621195

I may sound cheap, but I wont purchase anything , thank you. And prophetic medicine? first time I hear the term. Would you really think that the qur'an could replace modern medicine?

I will not layout compendiums because you decided that the amount of info given wasn't sufficient to satisfy your personal needs or because you can't follow from a basic premise .. in it you'll also learn (should that in fact be your desire)

I was hoping for some substance in the here and now and not some advice to buy a book, I will however check at my local library next time I go, mabey they have it? mabey not.

it isn't OK to bathe in filthy water, or bathe your sheep or bury your dead where you use water for food or medicine! all the best

Do you really think that people before 700 AD ( before the qur'an) did not know these things? I would be surprised if they did not :/. If this is the only health advice that is found in the qur'an, nothing new there.

I know what a specious argument is! I don't see its relevance to the thread nor the current distilled subject matter especially with the sort of phraseology you use!..
if you want to start a new thread, then by all means, but there is no point to meander yet another thread to suit your immediate whims!

all the best

I guess you are right, this should be left for another thread, however it will still be special pleading in the other thread if you start from the premise that we cannot know what God wants because he is God.

[جوري]

I may sound cheap, but I wont purchase anything , thank you. And prophetic medicine? first time I hear the term. Would you really think that the qur'an could replace modern medicine?

lol.. ok..
the Quran is a book of signs not a book of science, however nothing in the Quran or hadith contradicts science and there are certainly remedies that are still used modern day. Medicine is ever correcting and ever changing but certain fundamentals never change, even if from a western standard they are a modern find 'like washing your hands for instance'

I was hoping for some substance in the here and now and not some advice to buy a book, I will however check at my local library next time I go, mabey they have it? mabey not.

You were given plenty of substance and directly addressing what you wanted.. you decided it wasn't good enough, and there is nothing I can personally do about that, furthermore if you can't read a text and find a multitude of ways where a basic principal is useful, then again the fault here lies with you not with what is written. There will always be situations now a adays and diseases of now a days that weren't in existence back then, it still wouldn't change certain things for instance not infecting other people with your diseases will never go out of style!

Do you really think that people before 700 AD ( before the qur'an) did not know these things? I would be surprised if they did not :/. If this is the only health advice that is found in the qur'an, nothing new there.

I am not here to dwell on what I know or don't know, fact is I have shown that something as basic as washing your hands before surgery was elusive almost a hundred and fifty years ago.. further to add insult to injury and I quote:

To a modern reader, Semmelweis's experimental evidence—that chlorine washings reduced childbed fever—seem obvious, and it may seem absurd that his claims were rejected on the grounds of purported lack of "scientific reasoning". His unpalatable observational evidence was only accepted when seemingly-unrelated work by Louis Pasteur in Paris some two decades later offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis's observations: the germ theory of disease.

so I leave it to students of history to discern what was common sense and what wasn't!

I guess you are right, this should be left for another thread, however it will still be special pleading in the other thread if you start from the premise that we cannot know what God wants because he is God.

If you know what God wants aside from what we were given scripturally then I applaud you man, you've been singled out of creation and given special knowledge..

as for other threads I promise you I have no desire to re-engage you in any form or fashion so I'll be staying out of it.. so good luck with all the inane drivel!

[Justufy]

lol.. ok..
the Quran is a book of signs not a book of science,

agreed.

however nothing in the Quran or hadith contradicts science and there are certainly remedies that are still used modern day. Medicine is ever correcting and ever changing but certain fundamentals never change, even if from a western standard they are a modern find 'like washing your hands for instance'

Of course, but I would of tought that washing your hands with water, no soap or whatever does not really cleanse germs. and washing any part of the body with water is not new, its not the qur'an that invented this, just think of the terms of caracala in ancient rome, this was my point, the qur'an is meerly stating the obvious.

You were given plenty of substance and directly addressing what you wanted.. you decided it wasn't good enough, and there is nothing I can personally do about that, furthermore if you can't read a text and find a multitude of ways where a basic principal is useful, then again the fault here lies with you not with what is written. There will always be situations now a adays and diseases of now a days that weren't in existence back then, it still wouldn't change certain things for instance not infecting other people with your diseases will never go out of style!

I was told to buy a book, this reminded me of those commercials where they say <<buy this article for only 25.99$ and get another free!>>

I am not here to dwell on what I know or don't know, fact is I have shown that something as basic as washing your hands before surgery was elusive almost a hundred and fifty years ago.. further to add insult to injury and I quote:

With the methods of surgery back then, the fact that the '' doctor'' would of washed his hands would be the very least of my concerns im affraid.

To a modern reader, Semmelweis's experimental evidence—that chlorine washings reduced childbed fever—seem obvious, and it may seem absurd that his claims were rejected on the grounds of purported lack of "scientific reasoning". His unpalatable observational evidence was only accepted when seemingly-unrelated work by Louis Pasteur in Paris some two decades later offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis's observations: the germ theory of disease.

Il look into that experiment, never heard of it.

If you know what God wants aside from what we were given scripturally then I applaud you man, you've been singled out of creation and given special knowledge..

How do you know that what was given scripturally is the word of this entity? how can you know this? how can you know Im not connected to God as we speak- just like the ancient desert pastoralists you cite claimed to be? What about all the others ( and there are many others) who claim to know what this entity wills ( deus vult!) ? Are they right or wrong? If I was a muslim claiming to be in direct contactwith God, would I be any more right that a christian claiming to be in direct contact with God? If yes, how so?¸

Some important questions I would like answers to, if you could dignify them with a response It would be much appreciated! :)

as for other threads I promise you I have no desire to re-engage you in any form or fashion so I'll be staying out of it.. so good luck with all the inane drivel!

why, thank you!

[Justufy]

As for quarantine, a modest search shows that it was introduced by the Byzantine empire in AD549 and not a ground breaking discovery by the qur'an.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html

<<A.D. 549
In the wake of one of history's most devastating epidemics of bubonic plague, the Byzantine emperor Justinian enacts a law meant to hinder and isolate people arriving from plague-infested regions.>>

[جوري]

Of course, but I would of tought that washing your hands with water, no soap or whatever does not really cleanse germs. and washing any part of the body with water is not new, its not the qur'an that invented this, just think of the terms of caracala in ancient rome, this was my point, the qur'an is meerly stating the obvious.
I was told to buy a book, this reminded me of those commercials where they say <<buy this article for only 25.99$ and get another free!>>

Soap and perfumery as you know is an Islamic invention.. didn't I request that you read before you write so you come across less ignorant?
A number of hygienic cosmetics were invented by Muslim chemists, cosmetologists and physicians.[70]

• Cosmetic dentistry and tooth bleaching: In his Al-Tasrif (c. 1000), Abulcasis described methods for strengthening the gums and introduced the method of tooth bleaching using tooth whiteners.[71]
• Beauty parlour and cosmetology school: In the 9th century, Ziryab opened the first beauty parlour and "cosmetology school" for women near Alcázar, Al-Andalus."[72]
• Chemical depilatory for hair removal: In the 9th century, Ziryab taught women in Al-Andalus "the shaping of eyebrows and the use of depilatories for removing body hair".[72]
• Hair care and hair dye: In his Al-Tasrif (c. 1000), Abulcasis first described hair dyes for changing human hair color to blond or black hair, and hair care for correcting kinky or curly hair.[71] Dyestuff was also created by earlier Muslim chemists.[73]
• Lipstick, solid: In 1000 CE, the Andalusian Arab cosmetologist Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Abulcasis) invented solid lipsticks, which were perfumed stocks rolled and pressed in special molds, and he described them in his Al-Tasrif.[71]
• Pomade: Produced by Arabs.[13]

[edit] Hygiene

• Hand cream and lotion, and suntan lotion: In his Al-Tasrif (c. 1000), Abulcasis described the first hand creams and lotions, and the first early suntan lotions, describing their ingredients and benefits in depth.[71]
• Modern soap: The soap now used in modern times is made of vegetable oils (such as olive oil) with sodium hydroxide and aromatics (such as thyme oil). This formula was invented by Muslim chemists, and differed from the earlier soap-like detergents used in ancient times.[10] Sodium lye (al-soda al-kawia), perfumed and colored soaps, and liquid and solid soaps, were also produced by Muslim chemists.[70]
• Soap bar: The first hard soap bars were produced by Muslim chemists.[10] They gave recipes for soaps made from sesame oil, potash, alkali, lime, and molds, leaving hard soap.[70]
• Toothpaste, functional and pleasant: In the 9th century, the Persian musician and fashion designer Ziryab is known to have invented a type of toothpaste, which he popularized throughout Islamic Spain.[74] The exact ingredients of this toothpaste are not currently known,[72] but unlike the earlier Egyptian and Roman toothpastes, Ziryab's toothpaste was reported to have been both "functional and pleasant to taste."[74] In circa 1000, Abulcasis recommended a toothpaste made from cinnamon, nutmeg, cardamom and coriander leaves, as a remedy for bad breath resulting from eating garlic or onions.[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventi...medieval_Islam

it wasn't merely water that was used as stated I will not lay out compendiums for someone who refuses to do the bare minimum!

With the methods of surgery back then, the fact that the '' doctor'' would of washed his hands would be the very least of my concerns im affraid.

Again it is because you have no knowledge of history nor medicine..

How do you know that what was given scripturally is the word of this entity? how can you know this? how can you know Im not connected to God as we speak- just like the ancient desert pastoralists you cite claimed to be? What about all the others ( and there are many others) who claim to know what this entity wills ( deus vult!) ? Are they right or wrong? If I was a muslim claiming to be in direct contactwith God, would I be any more right that a christian claiming to be in direct contact with God? If yes, how so?¸

I don't think what you have is the word of God, I never claimed that it is, in fact I know quite the opposite.. and if you are personally connected to God then I suggest you head to your nearest psychiatrist, since your problems will go way beyond what anyone can offer on this forum also while at it I'd seriously consider enrolling in some basic courses on grammar, logic, history and theology. I can't stand sorting through your drivel much longer!

Some important questions I would like answers to, if you could dignify them with a response It would be much appreciated! :)

start your own thread and see if anyone has enough patience to bare with your language and your sphere of thought processes!

why, thank you

indeed!

[Justufy]

Soap and perfumery as you know is an Islamic invention

the same way electricity is a christian invention. of course it can't be an arab invention no, it has to be a Muslim™ invention. I do agree however that the arab world in general was in advance technologically on many of their european counterparts.

I don't think what you have is the word of God, I never claimed that it is, in fact I know quite the opposite.. and if you are personally connected to God then I suggest you head to your nearest psychiatrist, since your problems will go way beyond what anyone can offer on this forum also while at it I'd seriously consider enrolling in some basic courses on grammar, logic, history and theology. I can't stand sorting through your drivel much longer!

blah blah. what about the prophet? had you lived back then, ( and lets assume psychiatry existed back then) would you of told him the same thing.?

Again it is because you have no knowledge of history nor medicine..

so according to you, surgery in 700 AD or so was effective? You do know that until very recently molten led was poured on wounds?

[جوري]

As for quarantine, a modest search shows that it was introduced by the Byzantine empire in AD549 and not a ground breaking discovery by the qur'an.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html

<<A.D. 549
In the wake of one of history's most devastating epidemics of bubonic plague, the Byzantine emperor Justinian enacts a law meant to hinder and isolate people arriving from plague-infested regions.>>

Perhaps it is a merely comprehension impediment on your part, if you go back and follow the flow of this thread and I really hope you would in general as to not waste everyone's time, you'd see that the atheist fellow asked of the Islamic view on breakout epidemics not whether it was a 'unique' view.. obviously Arabia as the time of said ahadith which is not that far from 549 AD had no internet contacts of the outside world..
The emperor in your case meant to enact a law to hinder folks from coming into his ports, certainly doesn't cover the aspect of whether his own port was covered by the plague if he'd impose a similar sanction on himself and his own people.

Also before speaking in general I'd again familiarize myself the differences between the Quran and Ahadith..
I think I see more wisdom each day in the adage: Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience

all the best!

[جوري]

the same way electricity is a christian invention. of course it can't be an arab invention no, it has to be an islamic invention. I do agree however that the arab world in general was in advance technologically on many of their european counterparts.

No, not an 'Arab invention' Islam is the religion of the scientists as such their achievements go to the Muslim empire. We have seen nothing out of 'Christendom' save for soulless women and the darkest of ages anything outside of that is certainly a secular progress!

blah blah. what about the prophet? had you lived back then, ( and lets assume psychiatry existed back then) would you of told him the same thing.?

I'd get your echolalia checked by a psychiatrist, again we are not here to remedy your mental problems in whatever form they take!

so according to you, surgery in 700 AD or so was effective? You do know that until very recently molten led was poured on wounds?

You seem to pose and answer your own questions, and I suggest you continue on that road, I find you unreasonably tedious and completely under-educated!

all the best

[Justufy]

Perhaps it is a merely comprehension impediment on your part, if you go back and follow the flow of this thread and I really hope you would in general as to not waste everyone's time, you'd see that the atheist fellow asked of the Islamic view on breakout epidemics not whether it was a 'unique' view.. obviously Arabia as the time of said ahadith which is not that far from 549 AD had no internet contacts of the outside world..

I got the vibe that you were attempting to claim that it was God's unique message, im glad we now agree.

The emperor in your case meant to enact a law to hinder folks from coming into his ports, certainly doesn't cover the aspect of whether his own port was covered by the plague if he'd impose a similar sanction on himself and his own people.

does not matter, the method was used to stop or slow the epidemic.

Also before speaking in general I'd again familiarize myself the differences between the Quran and Ahadith..

you don't know me.

I think I see more wisdom each day in the adage: Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience

always a pleasure. :)

[Justufy]

No, not an 'Arab invention' Islam is the religion of the scientists as such their achievements go to the Muslim empire. We have seen nothing out of 'Christendom' save for soulless women and the darkest of ages anything outside of that is certainly a secular progress!

Cite or retract, because I know this is a lie.

I'd get your echolalia checked by a psychiatrist, again we are not here to remedy your mental problems in whatever form they take!

???

You seem to pose and answer your own questions, and I suggest you continue on that road, I find you unreasonably tedious and completely under-educated!

???

[جوري]

Cite or retract, because I know this is a lie.

try reading a book sometime!

all the best

[Justufy]

Will I still have to buy this one??? Who are you working for here?

[Pygoscelis]

I love the irony of how Skye keeps saying "I see time wasted on atheists as just that, time wasted" and "never argue with a fool" while she spends 14 pages "wasting" her time arguing with such "fools".

Don't know if anybody is still interested in the actual topic of this thread but if so, what are your opinions on the converse, religious belief leading to vegetarianism? Some religions forbid the eating of pork, and I think its forbidden for Hindus to eat beef? Jains must observe a strict vegetarian diet. Are there any theists here (people who believe in god) who are vegetarian due to their religious observance?

[جوري]

I love the irony of how Skye keeps saying "I see time wasted on atheists as just that, time wasted" and "never argue with a fool" while she spends 14 pages "wasting" her time arguing with such "fools".

Don't know if anybody is still interested in the actual topic of this thread but if so, what are your opinions on the converse, religious belief leading to vegetarianism? Some religions forbid the eating of pork, and I think its forbidden for Hindus to eat beef? Jains must observe a strict vegetarian diet. Are there any theists here (people who believe in god) who are vegetarian due to their religious observance?

Is it as ironic and foolish as you commenting on someone else's ironic and foolish comments? Imagine how deeper down the barrel you are.. I always enjoy that you come to tinkle some micturate whenever one of these threads spirals in a negative fashion for the fools partake in it. Perhaps you should have steered the posts upon the righteous path before one of you meandered so as to not be so bothered by some distillate that has nothing to do with the original topic if you are this concerned~!

all the best