Atheists and vegetarianism

[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?

[SIZE=-1][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.[/SIZE]
​

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.

 

[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/Treason.html#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.

Dont forget Maréchal Petain!

He was an evil mustachionistan too!

 

[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?