My Muslim Friends Tell Me Islam Is About Peace and Love. Is this True?

[Hawker]

LOL yeah no other religion does that....Deuteronomy
Chapter 13
KJV

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Lol admit it, you are a racist.

I don't know where to start here, but anyways.








This is hilarious to me for whatever reason, the bible mentions the word sword several times, 424 to be exact. The quran however never mentions the word "sword" anywhere. In arabic, there are several words for sword, but even so there is not a word in it in the Quran.

You mentioned Muslims interpret the quran literally, whatever you meant by that, the case remains you just did the same. You're taking every passage in a literal sense without even judging the chemistry and historical background behind the verses. the below verse is/can be interpreted in several ways, individually, those who read it first hand without a proper understanding would signify it as violence.

Jesus called upon his followers to sell their coats and buy swords. He explained that he did not come with peace, but rather a sword. He and his companions were engaged in mortal combat with their enemies, the Pharisees when one of the priests slaves had his ear cut by the sword. Jesus then told them to put down their swords. This is mentioned in the Bible.

That's like me, picking up a novel, reading a paragraph from it than conducting a conclusion of the entire book "this book is shit dawg, it bad, guns and shizz" without understanding the entire scenario written there. It's called Argument from anecdotal evidence, in other words its a fallacy.

Not only that, currently, well temporarily, I'm staying in a town dominated by sharia law. The people here are not violent, they don't decapitate people, my neighbor is a christian, he is treated as an equal and with respect, there are many Christians who live here, if there was compulsion they would have been dead already, and women are not oppressed nor are they sexually objectified, try cat calling here or raising your voice to a lady here in public, you'll end up getting jumped by a horde of 6'2 dudes.

Basically, This law was established during muhammads time, if you're living in a non islamic nation, you are under that specific nations protections, in other words if a muslim who lives under the protection or as a national residence in a non muslim country is not allowed to wreak havoc there or cause any damage to the people and follow the nations specifc laws, as it is assigned as a contract, the same is with Islamic countries, if minorities wish to live in the nation with peace they can, breaking this rule by any muslims are marked as munafikeens. Hypocrites.

Dafuq is wrong with you guys? Never did I say I accept the teachings of christianity or that it doesn't have questionable passages. Catholism has been one of the worst religious factions in the history of humankind. Now the worst religion is undoubtetly islam. I refuse to read both of those books because they both suck.

What I mean by literally is that christianity has adapted to the change over the centuries. Islam has sharia law.

Why are you guys listing sh!t that bible says when the argument here was that he concrete impacts of the islam in the everyday lives of people around the world are mostly negative. Tell me: How that stuff you listed about christianity is seen in today's life?`Christians are mostly secular people who have established democrasies all over the west.

Also P3in what you say about sharia law is just your own subjective experience. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in all the countries in the Middle-East run by sharia law. Women have to wear a veil and if they don't they are punished severely. Women also have less financial rights or marital rights and to my understanding they even have to ask permission from theisr husbands if they want to leave their house. These are the facts. I don't care what rights koran gives those women. The issue is that no religion shoulb in the position to tell you or any women what your rights are!

I say again: in my country muslim immigranst rape 13 times more than a natives. They are following girls in the streets, shouting them demeaning names, calling them whores and ambushing them at night. Sh!t like this tells me there is something wrong with the culture itself. And that is not just in my country but for example in Sweden too. Muslim immigration has failed in Europe. This is a fact.

 

[P3ĮÑ]

Also P3in what you say about sharia law is just your own subjective experience.

Sure it is. You're telling that to a guy who's traveled to places like Riyadh, kabul, Peshawar. Don't make me laugh. Just because criminal activity is glorified via the media in the middle east doesn't mean it happens on a daily occurrence. I could point fingers to America, or south africa or in fact any other nation based on surveys on sexual crimes, and form a basis as whole, there is no credibility to that.

Women have to wear a veil and if they don't they are punished severely

It is not forced or obligatory by any means. We have hired a maid here for our house, she is a Muslim, she wears traditional clothing without any scarf, in a community where over 90% women wear the hijab. Nothing has happened to her, she walks around these streets. Pakistani women mostly don't, neither do most afghani women when I was in kabul. Qatar, UAE, turkey, labanon, Egypt and most parts even in saudi arabia don't and they're all fine. inb4 you post an article about "hurr women dead for no veil lolz" it doesn't happen, 90% the time that is, it's funny how most of the media would love to emphasize on it regardless.

Women also have less financial rights or marital rights and to my understanding

Facepalm, they don't. That's why the husband is obliged to pay a hak mahr amirite? Before marriage the husband pays a hak mahr, and usually a big sum, this is a money given to the bride for hers to keep, it's also to ensure that in case the husband files a divorce she can financially support herself. They can work and earn, despite that it is still obligatory for the husband to provide her and fulfill her needs of whatever she asks.

I say again: in my country muslim immigranst rape 13 times more than a natives

At this point I think you need a time out, your remove kebab game went from 100-0. This is not a good argument, but let's play this game, Muslim penetration is 3% in south africa and yet it has the highest rape rates in the world, so does Mexico, Brazil and america. There's also high numbers of child abuse there not accounting those reported. This is practically equivalent of me saying aggression committed by african Americans symbolizes their status as whole, which it obviously does not.

They are following girls in the streets, shouting them demeaning names, calling them whores and ambushing them at night

That's the spirit. You just explained to me my hometown, except there's a lot of muslims there and i'm the one being followed around by the natives having slurs hauled at me. Let me take you to brooklyn. The natives there are real sweet trust me. And no, you're not gettin a taser.

Sh!t like this tells me there is something wrong with the culture itself

Confusing it with culture, but speaking of culture, most Muslim societies have implanted unnecessary practices. Which does not evaluate Islam.

 

[Honord Sage]

History say no,and thats a fact. And until Muslims clean up their own extremist groups intend of cowering to their violence nothing will change. From he time of Mohamed to today they haven fighting outsider and insiders,Suni vs Shiest,Muslim vs Jews and Muslim vs Christians. Its a historical fact even if you do not like the facts.

 

[shelke]

Dafuq is wrong with you guys? Never did I say I accept the teachings of christianity or that it doesn't have questionable passages. Catholism has been one of the worst religious factions in the history of humankind. Now the worst religion is undoubtetly islam. I refuse to read both of those books because they both suck.

What I mean by literally is that christianity has adapted to the change over the centuries. Islam has sharia law.

Yet you haven't read anything on any front. But, of course, you are such a expert on Sharia Law and 'adaptations' in Christianity. I do not even remotely care about some giant fairy, all Omnipotent being, whose windy cosmic farts run the universe, but what a ridiculous poster.

 

[eyesofthekyuubi44]

Dafuq is wrong with you guys? Never did I say I accept the teachings of christianity or that it doesn't have questionable passages. Catholism has been one of the worst religious factions in the history of humankind. Now the worst religion is undoubtetly islam. I refuse to read both of those books because they both suck.

What I mean by literally is that christianity has adapted to the change over the centuries. Islam has sharia law.

Why are you guys listing sh!t that bible says when the argument here was that he concrete impacts of the islam in the everyday lives of people around the world are mostly negative. Tell me: How that stuff you listed about christianity is seen in today's life?`Christians are mostly secular people who have established democrasies all over the west.

Also P3in what you say about sharia law is just your own subjective experience. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in all the countries in the Middle-East run by sharia law. Women have to wear a veil and if they don't they are punished severely. Women also have less financial rights or marital rights and to my understanding they even have to ask permission from theisr husbands if they want to leave their house. These are the facts. I don't care what rights koran gives those women. The issue is that no religion shoulb in the position to tell you or any women what your rights are!

I say again: in my country muslim immigranst rape 13 times more than a natives. They are following girls in the streets, shouting them demeaning names, calling them whores and ambushing them at night. Sh!t like this tells me there is something wrong with the culture itself. And that is not just in my country but for example in Sweden too. Muslim immigration has failed in Europe. This is a fact.

Christianity has CHANGED?? Our laws here in America were founded by Christian principles which are VERY much like Islam. For instance, the reason that the eating of DOGS are outlawed here in America is because the Bible said it was an unclean animal. You guys hate us Arab folks but why in the world do you guys invade our countries? You guys invaded America for the land, you invaded Africa for the labor and invaded the Middle East looking for oil. Christianity has not really "adapted" they just put on suit and ties and call it something a little more classy. A president can be a terrorist whether he has a long beard or a suit and tie.

Why is it, from my home here in America, I see not a SINGLE Arab/Muslim or anything of the sort out there with guns, but if I go to my country in the Middle East, I see tons of white men with snipers? And yes, Islam is a religion of peace and ISIS are a bunch of nutjobs, just as the KKK were and they were RECENT HISTORY believe it or not. They literally lynched black folks and burned crosses in the name of the Lord.

It's hilarious that you feel that Muslims tend to rape 13 times more than others. My family thought before they came here that all Americans raped their kids :-D lol. Perspectives differ, but honestly, you are still very close-minded. You don't read the books not because of a "refusal" but you don't really want to be proven wrong.

And about the financial and marital rights...

Here in America, specifically Michigan, a woman who divorces a man is entitled to HALF (that is right... HALF) of what he owns. Including his money, house and all that stuff. There are women here who get married, get divorced and end up basically rich off of stuff they didn't earn.

Women in America get paid less than men do. It's not really a "Middle East" problem. It is a WORLD problem unless you live in Sweden. Little known fact here is that if a woman schedules a hair appointment in Michigan, if the husband calls to cancel it it HAS to be cancel and they are denied service. Interesting huh?

In my country, whites shoot up schools and movie theatres and are often serial killers yet they get to be called "fragile and damaged".

History say no,and thats a fact. And until Muslims clean up their own extremist groups intend of cowering to their violence nothing will change. From he time of Mohamed to today they haven fighting outsider and insiders,Suni vs Shiest,Muslim vs Jews and Muslim vs Christians. Its a historical fact even if you do not like the facts.

So what are Christians going to do about their extremist groups? Are they working to get them out of our countries? We sure as hell aren't causing damage in the millions inside of yours.

 

[Hawker]

Sure it is. You're telling that to a guy who's traveled to places like Riyadh, kabul, Peshawar. Don't make me laugh. Just because criminal activity is glorified via the media in the middle east doesn't mean it happens on a daily occurrence. I could point fingers to America, or south africa or in fact any other nation based on surveys on sexual crimes, and form a basis as whole, there is no credibility to that.

Why the f*ck would it make any difference whether it happens on daily basis or not? Point is it happens. A lot. All you are arguing is irrelevant. Go ahead point fingers to U.S and tell me where do they stone homosexualrs or treat women like lesser beings? Even if you do point your holy finger on some issue, it doesn't change the fact that barbaric retarded actions are taking place in Middle-East because of sharia law.

It is not forced or obligatory by any means. We have hired a maid here for our house, she is a Muslim, she wears traditional clothing without any scarf, in a community where over 90% women wear the hijab. Nothing has happened to her, she walks around these streets. Pakistani women mostly don't, neither do most afghani women when I was in kabul. Qatar, UAE, turkey, labanon, Egypt and most parts even in saudi arabia don't and they're all fine. inb4 you post an article about "hurr women dead for no veil lolz" it doesn't happen, 90% the time that is, it's funny how most of the media would love to emphasize on it regardless.

Once again you are missing the point. Why don't you make her put on minishorts and a tank top and then see how those awesome tolerant neighbour men of yours respond.
Also you said she is wearing traditional clothing --> she follows tradition --> she does what muslims want --> she does what muslim men want.

Facepalm, they don't. That's why the husband is obliged to pay a hak mahr amirite? Before marriage the husband pays a hak mahr, and usually a big sum, this is a money given to the bride for hers to keep, it's also to ensure that in case the husband files a divorce she can financially support herself. They can work and earn, despite that it is still obligatory for the husband to provide her and fulfill her needs of whatever she asks.

I don't really understand why you insist on making me destroy you. Same with all you muslim defenders. You try to divert the focus from the problems that actually matter from a bunch of irrelevant seemingly "good" stuff which on your account means that "hey islam is giving these women the rights to work and the men are paying them money before marriage so let's forget how muslim men throw acid on on womens faces or beat them senseless as soon as they show signs of disobedience."

And let us not forget the treating of women who are rape victims:

Saudi arebia annouced 80 lashes for rape victims. When victim requested to reanalize, her lashes doubled. This is how you respect your woman. This simply means your woman will not file complaints. Because it is being discouraged

Another example:

You must be registered for see links

This time 200 lashes.

"But “do not beat your wife on the face or in such a way as to leave a mark on her body.” (Muhammad)"

And abou womens rights (geez you actually made me post this here while I know you are completely aware of this):

Spoiler

Marital Rights

Although various opinions exist regarding Islamic marriage laws, the following constants remain:

A man is entitled to up to four wives, but a woman may only have one husband. In Western societies, a man typically only takes one wife.
The husband (or his family) pays a “bride price” or "dower" (mahr, which is money or property paid to the bride) which she is entitled to keep. This “mahr” is in exchange for sexual submission (tamkin). Sexual submission is traditionally regarded as unconditional consent for the remainder of the marriage.
A man can divorce his wife by making a declaration (talaq) in front of an Islamic judge irrespective of the woman's consent. Even her presence is not required. For a woman to divorce a man (khula), his consent is required.
The husband is responsible for the financial upkeep of home (nafaqa).
“Temporary marriage” (even for less than a half an hour) is allowed by some scholars, others regard it as a form of prostitution. A report by the Gatestone Institute charts its development in Britain.
Wife beating permitted according to some scholars.
There is no joint property; the man owns all property, (except for what the woman owned before the marriage).
There is no specific minimum age for marriage, but most agree a woman must have reached puberty. Marriage as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries. In Yemen in 2013, there was a highly publicized case of an eight-year-old girl who died of internal injuries suffered on her wedding night. According to Al Jazeera, "Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls [are] married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18." The case prompted calls for Yemen to pass a law setting a minimum age for marriage, although it has not yet done so.

Muslim Feminists such as Dr. Elham Manea argue that the interpretation of sharia in the area of marriage amounts to discrimination, the type of which is prohibited under Western legal systems.



Public Rights

Most Muslim-majority countries are not democracies, so issues of who can vote do not apply. Nevertheless, women still have a significantly reduced role in the public sphere in these countries compared to men.

Conservative ideas of gender roles are taken very seriously in Islamic societies. Even in the West, where Muslim women have the same legal rights as men, they have been prevented from exercising those rights by their male relatives.

Under sharia, women have:

Lesser inheritance rights compared to men
Lesser status as witnesses

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive.



Modesty Laws

Many Muslim women respect the requirement to dress modestly and choose to do so. However, in Muslim-majority countries, women do not necessarily have the choice not to do so. Failure to comply with modesty laws has been known to elicit extreme violence from police in places like Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan.

Garments women are required to wear range from a hijab (a scarf covering the hair and neck), an abaya (a cloak-like, loose-fitting overgarment), a niqab (a face veil worn in addition to the hijab and abaya) to a burqa (a full-body and head cloak which includes a netted rectangle over the eyes). Exactly what constitutes immodest dress is the subject of much debate.

Violations of modesty laws are frequently met with violence in Muslim countries. Western women visiting Muslim-majority countries – for example, Saudi Arabia -- are advised to dress modestly and not to travel unaccompanied by a man.

Dubai has notoriously strict public indecency laws. Many Western tourists have fallen foul of them in the past.

Iranian President Rouhani has recently halted the activities of the country’s modesty police, but has handed over their remit to the Ministry of the Interior.



Male Guardianship

Male Guardianship applies to all women whether married or not according to strict interpretations of sharia. In the event of the deaths of male relatives, it can result in mothers being legally subservient to their sons. Under sharia:

A woman becomes subservient to her husband and needs his permission to: "leave the house, take up employment, or to engage in fasting or forms of worship other than what is obligatory."
An unmarried woman is under the guardianship of her nearest male relative.

Human Rights Watch has issued a 50-page report condemning the situation of women in Saudi Arabia alone.

At this point I think you need a time out, your remove kebab game went from 100-0. This is not a good argument, but let's play this game, Muslim penetration is 3% in south africa and yet it has the highest rape rates in the world, so does Mexico, Brazil and america. There's also high numbers of child abuse there not accounting those reported. This is practically equivalent of me saying aggression committed by african Americans symbolizes their status as whole, which it obviously does not.

So the fact that it happens elsewhere somehow justifies what muslims do all around the world? That is the dumbest argument I know and it's a classic muslim defender argument. The point was how our cultures differ. It's the relative rapist numbers that matter. That's how european culture differs from the muslim culture. 13:1 in Finland. Remember that.

It's no surprise that countries like Britain, Sweden and Finland have recently made their way on the top 10 list for most rape crimes in the world, since they are the countries that have been taking great amount of muslim immigranst in the last few years.
What I didn't know was the high rape numbers in U.S. I think it sucks and needs to be dealt with. However what you did not mention is that black men rape

"In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man."

source: Table 40 or 42 of the US Department of Justice’s yearly “Criminal Victimization in the United States, Statistical Tables”

Only 52% of rapists in U.S are white.

You must be registered for see links

The numbers are high but non whites are distorting those statistics if you want to read them in a manner that there's something wrong with the american culture. Since U.S consist of many different ethnicities you can't really generalize their culture, but what you can do is to sort out the ethnicities from those stats. Since the non whites (especially black people) are the minorities in there, but yet commit more rapes relativily than the majority ethnicities, do more crimes than natives and fail to get a job more often than whites. This is something to consider when making your point.

Confusing it with culture, but speaking of culture, most Muslim societies have implanted unnecessary practices. Which does not evaluate Islam.

Yet you have failed to make an argument which actually prvoes me wrong and tells me all those issue I listed aren't happening because of islam.
I'm also not seeing the point you are trying to make. 99% of sharia law is shit but that you want to tell me about that 1% with your mouth foaming? Does that 1% then maybe represent islam culture?
I hope we do not continue this discussion as it goes nowhere. I actually wasted again 30 minutes of my life destroying another muslim defender. And soon after you another blindfolded individual appears and tells me how I am the victim of western propaganda. Tell to all those millions of women in the gulf states who can't wear what they want or the homosexuals killed because of their sexual orientation or the thousand of women killed because of islam, that you don't think there's a problem in the muslim culture. Your shaming all those victims with this post of yours.

Yet you haven't read anything on any front. But, of course, you are such a expert on Sharia Law and 'adaptations' in Christianity. I do not even remotely care about some giant fairy, all Omnipotent being, whose windy cosmic farts run the universe, but what a ridiculous poster.

Why do I have to read the books? The issue of sharia law is political with religious basis. All I need to know is what sharia law entails and that it comes from islam. Sharia law sucks. Believing in koran sucks. Islam sucks. Why do I have to read the book tell me? Does it change what's happening somehow? Does the content of koran somehow justify killing homosexuals and stoning women? Please enlighten me with your awesome logic.

Everything I've posted about the negative effects and the issues of islam are true and happening right now. And you know it.

So please stop focusing on irrelevant sh!t.

 

[Hawker]

You must be registered for see images

Yeah, your idiotic posts make no sense. You seem incapable of rational discussion, and you are the perfect example of fedora tipping, foolish atheists that I absolutely despise (along with the following religious group). You are right up there with the religious zealots that refuse to acknowledge that there can be another perspective to their rancor for the liberal life and their first grade lunacy concerning God.

But since you are at it; define justification and ethics.

Ad hominems and crying. Why don't you tell me what the problem is instead of spewing sh!t? Why are the problems following muslims everywhere they go? Explain the high rate of muslims justifying suicide bombins on innocent victims. Explain nearly billion of muslims wanting sharia law which sh!ts on human rights. Explain muslims raping relatively more than native europeans in their countries. Expain the high unemployment rates of muslim immigrants in relation to the immigrants from inside the Eu. Please share your logic instead of focusing on attacking the person you are talking to.

What you actually meant to say is that you don't understand the case I'm making, you don't understand the statistics and reseaches I've posted in these threads, you don't understand how women are opressed by islam, you don't understand why muslims immigrants don't intergrate to western communities as well as others do. Most importantly you don't want to believe facts over your own biased opinion. That's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[shelke]

Ad hominems and crying. Why don't you tell me what the problem is instead of spewing sh!t? Why are the problems following muslims everywhere they go? Explain the high rate of muslims justifying suicide bombins on innocent victims. Explain nearly billion of muslims wanting sharia law which sh!ts on human rights. Explain muslims raping relatively more than native europeans in their countries. Expain the high unemployment rates of muslim immigrants in relation to the immigrants from inside the Eu. Please share your logic instead of focusing on attacking the person you are talking to.

What you actually meant to say is that you don't understand the case I'm making, you don't understand the statistics and reseaches I've posted in these threads, you don't understand how women are opressed by islam, you don't understand why muslims immigrants don't intergrate to western communities as well as others do. Most importantly you don't want to believe facts over your own biased opinion. That's called cognitive dissonance.

I asked you a question; define justification and ethics. Your flip-flopping doesn't even remotely concern me.

@Bold I sincerely hope this was a mental fumble, because that is just stupid.

 

[Hawker]

I asked you a question; define justification and ethics. Your flip-flopping doesn't even remotely concern me.

@Bold I sincerely hope this was a mental fumble, because that is just stupid.

Great job dodging all the points that matter. Ofcourse they don't consern you since you can't deny them.

But on to your question which solves the problem with muslims then (lol):
Basic human rights. If a person isn't hurting anyone mentally or physically he or she has the right for her own free will.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

You must be registered for see links

While those rights are based on thought out, argumented morals of the west unlike the morals of islam which are based on religion and a book that was written from the mans point of view. A religion that encourages a person not to think for themselves, but to outsource their thinking to an invisible third party.

Justification is based on those rights. If you do not respect the freedom of people around you lose the right to freedom.


Are you trying to say you accept the oppression of sharia law because they have different morality? Tell that to the millions of victims of it.
Or are you trying to say muslim immigrants aren't supposed to follow western laws, the laws of the country they are living?

 

[shelke]

Great job dodging all the points that matter. Ofcourse they don't consern you since you can't deny them.

But on to your question which solves the problem with muslims then (lol):
Basic human rights. If a person isn't hurting anyone mentally or physically he or she has the right for her own free will.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

You must be registered for see links

While those rights are based on thought out, arguments morals of the west unlike the morals of Islam which are based on religion and a book that was written from the mans point of view. A religion that encourages a person not to think for themselves, but to outsource their thinking to an invisible third party.

Justification is based on those rights. If you do not respect the freedom of people around you lose the right to freedom.

Are you trying to say you accept the oppression of sharia law because they have different morality? Tell that to the millions of victims of it.
Or are you trying to say Muslim immigrants aren't supposed to follow western laws, the laws of the country they are living?

You mean human rights constructed by humans ... are better and a more viable option over ethics constructed by ... humans as well? All you have given me is a human ideology versus another human ideology. One is better ... because ... because?

What rights? There is no such thing as morals and there is no such thing as ethics. They do not exist within the ontological argument for God nor the existential crisis of humanity; they are a byproduct of human soceity. Your foundation is wrong, short-sighted and very foolish from the very beginning, because you believe morality to be a real thing, when it isn't. It doesn't exist and it isn't real. Write it on your forehead. Better yet, tattoo it there so that you can get a reminder of this foolish thought process every morning you stare at your dubious expression in the mirror. That definition of human rights was laughable, by the way, given that by definition, there is not a single man who is born within a free setup.

Let me make the whole thing simple for you: In every age, ethics (or ideology in this case) are constructed for a 'group' to function within the domains of the said society they are meant to preside over. If need be, they are revised, made relevant for the group's needs and if they manage to sustain, the revision halts.

You come from the society that literally breathes in the concept of 'the idolatry of democracy'. The same unquestioning mentality from the masses, the same ritualistic morality that is well-suited for its own domain and the same domains of justifications for wars, rift in morality and ideological setups that deal with a certain class and panders superficially to its whims in a way. Your system of ideology is not in any way less faulty than a religion. In fact, it has become one.

You talk about Islam, yet its main five pillars do not deal with ethics at all. Your knowledge on Christianity is just as foolish and faulty, when the Roman Catholic Chruch controlled the political set up, and people were relentlessly persecuted by the King's men. It was not until a fiasco over titties, that the Chruch was given a cold shoulder. This isn't any different, then say, the democratic set up or the communist one where the group demands are/were met in a different manner. Oh, but wait, you haven't read anything at all. How stupid of me.

So, what is the problem? The democratic setup of Western countries provides rights to gay people, equal rights for all and whatnot, yet, their ideology dictates the similar self-righteous mindset where another Nation can be attacked, people slaughetred in spades for the same 'in-group, idolatric agenda' religion promotes? You seem to be mentally stuck on 'man-made' versus 'God-made', when frankly speaking none of these setups promote actual rights. It is all group pandering and the odd one out is always just that ... the odd one out.

The nation is free to purge those 'against the nation' and people are put to death for Treason and the breach of its bounds. All of the nationalistic views are just as dogmatic and shortsighted as religious dogma. There is no actual value placed on human freedom, when they are bound by taxation, race from one social class to the next, industrialization dilemmas, societal rift in class and the laws of the nation. All ritualistic and mundane at its crux.

Same notions of absolution are placed on people following the political setups and the heroic figures are showered with songs and accolades and the same ideas of immortal heroes as religion does; the whole thing is nothing more than a pile of domagtic garbage.

Which rights are you talking about then? The same in-group rights versus the out-group moral differences or is it something more to this sad tale of morality? The fact that you gave me a definition made by men for men renders your entire argument null and void. You can talk about humanity or transcendent morality (even that doesn't exit), but you cannnot discuss religions and politics and claim that one political setup has less morals and more shortsighted than the next one or that the world has, somehow, moved on to more liberal agendas; it is nothing but stupidity on your part.

So, spare me your nonsense. You are not even close to understanding the concept of a rational debate, let alone engaging in one, as I gotta say, there are plenty of stupid posts from religious zealots in this thread, but none are worse than yours in their sheer ignorance. You baffle me!

P.s: And, I have yet to see any decent explanations on ethics and justifications. Looks like I asked for a bit too much.

 

[Hawker]

You mean human rights constructed by humans ... are better and a more viable option over ethics constructed by ... humans as well? All you have given me is a human ideology versus another human ideology. One is better ... because ... because?

What rights? There is no such thing as morals and there is no such thing as ethics. They do not exist within the ontological argument for God nor the existential crisis of humanity; they are a byproduct of human soceity. Your foundation is wrong, short-sighted and very foolish from the very beginning, because you believe morality to be a real thing, when it isn't. It doesn't exist and it isn't real. Write it on your forehead. Better yet, tattoo it there so that you can get a reminder of this foolish thought process every morning you stare at your dubious expression in the mirror. That definition of human rights was laughable, by the way, given that by definition, there is not a single man who is born within a free setup.

Let me make the whole thing simple for you: In every age, ethics (or ideology in this case) are constructed for a 'group' to function within the domains of the said society they are meant to preside over. If need be, they are revised, made relevant for the group's needs and if they manage to sustain, the revision halts.

You come from the society that literally breathes in the concept of 'the idolatry of democracy'. The same unquestioning mentality from the masses, the same ritualistic morality that is well-suited for its own domain and the same domains of justifications for wars, rift in morality and ideological setups that deal with a certain class and panders superficially to its whims in a way. Your system of ideology is not in any way less faulty than a religion. In fact, it has become one.

You talk about Islam, yet its main five pillars do not deal with ethics at all. Your knowledge on Christianity is just as foolish and faulty, when the Roman Catholic Chruch controlled the political set up, and people were relentlessly persecuted by the King's men. It was not until a fiasco over titties, that the Chruch was given a cold shoulder. This isn't any different, then say, the democratic set up or the communist one where the group demands are/were met in a different manner. Oh, but wait, you haven't read anything at all. How stupid of me.

So, what is the problem? The democratic setup of Western countries provides rights to gay people, equal rights for all and whatnot, yet, their ideology dictates the similar self-righteous mindset where another Nation can be attacked, people slaughetred in spades for the same 'in-group, idolatric agenda' religion promotes? You seem to be mentally stuck on 'man-made' versus 'God-made', when frankly speaking none of these setups promote actual rights. It is all group pandering and the odd one out is always just that ... the odd one out.

The nation is free to purge those 'against the nation' and people are put to death for Treason and the breach of its bounds. All of the nationalistic views are just as dogmatic and shortsighted as religious dogma. There is no actual value placed on human freedom, when they are bound by taxation, race from one social class to the next, industrialization dilemmas, societal rift in class and the laws of the nation. All ritualistic and mundane at its crux.

Same notions of absolution are placed on people following the political setups and the heroic figures are showered with songs and accolades and the same ideas of immortal heroes as religion does; the whole thing is nothing more than a pile of domagtic garbage.

Which rights are you talking about then? The same in-group rights versus the out-group moral differences or is it something more to this sad tale of morality? The fact that you gave me a definition made by men for men renders your entire argument null and void. You can talk about humanity or transcendent morality (even that doesn't exit), but you cannnot discuss religions and politics and claim that one political setup has less morals and more shortsighted than the next one or that the world has, showhow, moved on to more liberal agendas; it is nothing but stupidity on your part.

So, spare me your nonsense. You are not even close to understanding the concept of a rational debate, let alone engaging in one, as I gotta say, there are plenty of stupid posts from religious zealots in this thread, but none are worse than yours in their sheer ignorance. You baffle me!

P.s: And, I have yet to see any decent explanations on ethics and justifications. Looks like I asked for a bit too much.

Few points:

Ofcourse morals are man made. There's no other way for them to exist. I'm not going into a debate with you about morals since it's an endless pit. The whole topic is subjective. You can choose whichever way you like to define what makes a certain set of ethics better than the next. To me the consept of individuality and freedom is pretty clear.

I do however see the faults in western culture but in no way do they outshine the faults in in the middle east and in the muslim culture. If we don't have morals then we're no different than animals. I see you are very eager on rubbing the "morals are not real" point to my face, but it doesn''t really prove any point from you. All morals, norms, laws, religions are man made. Yet we have to make a way for us to coexist in this world with them.

I did say catholism has been one of the worst religious groups in the history, just a few post ago. Yet you didn't notice it and started lecturing me about it. Fail.

Taxation, treason. I don't see those as worse or as bad as the problems in the islamic world. "There is no actual value placed on human freedom" Wnat, so based on that you throw out all the positive sides of the modern democratic cultures in the west? Get off your high horse. No one is saying the west is perfect but atleast we are progressing, atleast we are building our societies on the understanding of science rather than religion.

Finally:

You write all that stuff down, but yet your argument is pretty vague. What are you trying to say? I mean, what's the problem; human are selfish, hypocrites and slaves of their cultures? Tell me something I don't know. While you are pouring your heart out with this philosophical rant, a point of view of how the human race sucks in it's very nature, I don't really see how you are contributing to this discussion. If I now say the problems of muslim culture are real do you say that they are just man made or that they don't matter since Europe has some problems too?

You say I'm ignorant because I believe in a world without religion. When I believe that the democrasy of the modern world is better than a religious based. Quoting Richard Dawkins here: "Religion which believes in absolute moralities like stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking a sabbath. I don't think I want to live in a world like that. I want a moral that is thought out, reasoned argued, discussed. Based on intelligence. Can we not design our society in such a way to have the sort of morality that we want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people: we don't believe in slavery anymore, we believe in the equality of women, we believe in being gentle, we believe in being kind to animals. Theses are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. They do not come from religion." I couldn't agree more with him.

You want me to define ethics and justice, but yet you don't accept what I say because "they are mand made". This whole conversation is entirely irrelevant. All you are trying to do is to show that your insight of the world somehow in all it's greatness makes my points all so little, naive and worthless because you are condemning the whole consept of human nature. Well choose a side already. You are not taking this conversation anywhere. I want people in the world to stop suffering because of muslims, because of religion. If that is something you don't understand then it's not my problem.

 

[shelke]

Few points:

Of course morals are man made. There's no other way for them to exist. I'm not going into a debate with you about morals since it's an endless pit. The whole topic is subjective. You can choose whichever way you like to define what makes a certain set of ethics better than the next. To me the consept of individuality and freedom is pretty clear.

I do however see the faults in western culture but in no way do they outshine the faults in the middle east and in the Muslim culture. If we don't have morals then we're no different than animals. I see you are very eager on rubbing the "morals are not real" point to my face, but it doesn''t really prove any point from you. All morals, norms, laws, religions are man made. Yet we have to make a way for us to coexist in this world with them.

I did say catholicism has been one of the worst religious groups in the history, just a few post ago. Yet you didn't notice it and started lecturing me about it. Fail.

Taxation, treason. I don't see those as worse or as bad as the problems in the Islamic world. "There is no actual value placed on human freedom" Wnat, so based on that you throw out all the positive sides of the modern democratic cultures in the west? Get off your high horse. No one is saying the west is perfect but atleast we are progressing, atleast we are building our societies on the understanding of science rather than religion.

Finally:

You write all that stuff down, but yet your argument is pretty vague. What are you trying to say? I mean, what's the problem; human are selfish, hypocrites and slaves of their cultures? Tell me something I don't know. While you are pouring your heart out with this philosophical rant, a point of view of how the human race sucks in it's very nature, I don't really see how you are contributing to this discussion. If I now say the problems of muslim culture are real do you say that they are just man made or that they don't matter since Europe has some problems too?

You say I'm ignorant because I believe in a world without religion. When I believe that the democracy of the modern world is better than a religious based. Quoting Richard Dawkins here: "Religion which believes in absolute moralities like stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking a sabbath. I don't think I want to live in a world like that. I want a moral that is thought out, reasoned argued, discussed. Based on intelligence. Can we not design our society in such a way to have the sort of morality that we want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people: we don't believe in slavery anymore, we believe in the equality of women, we believe in being gentle, we believe in being kind to animals. Theses are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. They do not come from religion." I couldn't agree more with him.

You want me to define ethics and justice, but yet you don't accept what I say because "they are mand made". This whole conversation is entirely irrelevant. All you are trying to do is to show that your insight of the world somehow in all it's greatness makes my points all so little, naive and worthless because you are condemning the whole consept of human nature. Well choose a side already. You are not taking this conversation anywhere. I want people in the world to stop suffering because of muslims, because of religion. If that is something you don't understand then it's not my problem.

So, you blatantly admit the subjectivity of morals, yet are quite preachy in your tone towards the 'right and wrong' morals? Either it's 'wrong and right' ... or 'they do not exist'. Do not bite both sides of the cheery. Individuality and freedom are also man-made concepts. The fact that you cannot use another vocabulary item to define them alone renders the whole thing moot, and your arguments completely worthless.

Precisely. All Morals are 'man-made' concepts. Your admission in your first paragraph is a telling tale in regards to the 'spin' you have given to your arguments. You admit that they do not exist, yet place more value on one system because it suits your notions and ideals, when at its crux, Western morals are just as despicable and self-serving as any other dogmatic set up of ideologies.

False. I created analogies to put down your in-loop, silly argument.

Right, there you go again with your short sightedness and nonsensical trite that western ideology is just better, when it has subjugated, slaughtered and created more conflict in the past hundred years or so. Your simpleminded belief that West progresses in regards to ideology is your own opinion, and is not grounded in actual reality. Not even close. It's a subjective matter of belief systems. Something you seem of incapable of grasping. That 'sure West has treason' and whatnot was a terrible take on shrugging off the rest of the stinking pile of democratic mediocrity you seem to be constantly preaching everyone about.

How have you contributed to this discussion other than slurping western agenda of superior ideology? I basically broke down the whole thing for you at the level a layman might grasp by simply stating facts that all setups run on common agencies. There is nothing spectacular about one mindset or the other. What was so difficult to grasp? Also, where did I even mention that the world isn't a better place without religion? Work on your comprehension; it's kinda hilarious.

And yet, Dawkins' views are far from the battle of ideas that are actually based on real discussions on ideologies? So, how many practice equality? How many are kind to animals? How many practice humanity? I mean, I can go on with this list, but it seems like such an absurd and superficial take on Western progress, when Nationalistic agendas have pretty much turned democracy into a religion in itself.

You have got causes 'worth dying for', people fighting and laying down their lives and killing countless in wars for their Nations and for their 'systems' in a manner religion demands. So, how has West really and truly progressed and moved so far far away from the basic dogma of religion? It's just one sham replaced by another.

There is no value or worth to his quote, when equality is a far-fetched fiction in 21st century given that the class inequality alone is a blight on progress. Do tell me something new, as Dawkins believes democracy to be such a right step ... in a really right direction, and I cannot help but laugh at this. It's as if a man starts from A, walks around in a circle and ends up at A, and starts screaming progression.

So, from morals you have jumed to human nature? I don't get it. I mean what is it; morals or nature? Either things are man-made and subject to change or no ideology is better? Which is it? And I want people who support any ideology to sit themselves down, as they are no better than the people they call out on. All birds of a same feather. Like I said, rational discussion seems beyond you as all you have told me is that, 'west is better ... because I say so'. When it isn't an argument; it's a dime-a-dozen opinion.

 

[Honord Sage]

So what are Christians going to do about their extremist groups? Are they working to get them out of our countries? We sure as hell aren't causing damage in the millions inside of yours.

Lets see the Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants have ben quit sines the 1990, but Fact Muslims have ben at war with each other and the World sines it’s founding. Don’t like it work to change it do not excuse it. For if Muslims don’t clean their act then do not complain when Non Muslims have to clean it up for them.

 

[Hawker]

So, you blatantly admit the subjectivity of morals, yet are quite preachy in your tone towards the 'right and wrong' morals? Either it's 'wrong and right' ... or 'they do not exist'. Do not bite both sides of the cheery. Individuality and freedom are also man-made concepts. The fact that you cannot use another vocabulary item to define them alone renders the whole thing moot, and your arguments completely worthless.

Precisely. All Morals are 'man-made' concepts. Your admission in your first paragraph is a telling tale in regards to the 'spin' you have given to your arguments. You admit that they do not exist, yet place more value on one system because it suits your notions and ideals, when at its crux, Western morals are just as despicable and self-serving as any other dogmatic set up of ideologies.

False. I created analogies to put down your in-loop, silly argument.

Right, there you go again with your short sightedness and nonsensical trite that western ideology is just better, when it has subjugated, slaughtered and created more conflict in the past hundred years or so. Your simpleminded belief that West progresses in regards to ideology is your own opinion, and is not grounded in actual reality. Not even close. It's a subjective matter of belief systems. Something you seem of incapable of grasping. That 'sure West has treason' and whatnot was a terrible take on shrugging off the rest of the stinking pile of democratic mediocrity you seem to be constantly preaching everyone about.

How have you contributed to this discussion other than slurping western agenda of superior ideology? I basically broke down the whole thing for you at the level a layman might grasp by simply stating facts that all setups run on common agencies. There is nothing spectacular about one mindset or the other. What was so difficult to grasp? Also, where did I even mention that the world isn't a better place without religion? Work on your comprehension; it's kinda hilarious.

And yet, Dawkins' views are far from the battle of ideas that are actually based on real discussions on ideologies? So, how many practice equality? How many are kind to animals? How many practice humanity? I mean, I can go on with this list, but it seems like such an absurd and superficial take on Western progress, when Nationalistic agendas have pretty much turned democracy into a religion in itself.

You have got causes 'worth dying for', people fighting and laying down their lives and killing countless in wars for their Nations and for their 'systems' in a manner religion demands. So, how has West really and truly progressed and moved so far far away from the basic dogma of religion? It's just one sham replaced by another.

There is no value or worth to his quote, when equality is a far-fetched fiction in 21st century given that the class inequality alone is a blight on progress. Do tell me something new, as Dawkins believes democracy to be such a right step ... in a really right direction, and I cannot help but laugh at this. It's as if a man starts from A, walks around in a circle and ends up at A, and starts screaming progression.

So, from morals you have jumed to human nature? I don't get it. I mean what is it; morals or nature? Either things are man-made and subject to change or no ideology is better? Which is it? And I want people who support any ideology to sit themselves down, as they are no better than the people they call out on. All birds of a same feather. Like I said, rational discussion seems beyond you as all you have told me is that, 'west is better ... because I say so'. When it isn't an argument; it's a dime-a-dozen opinion.

I mean that I know there aren't any universal truths about morals. They are just guidelines necessary for our civilisation to progress and evolve to a more peaceful era. I never said they don't exist. People choose to pick on which ever morals they deem right, but it doesn't mean they are actually right. LIke It was said morals should be based on rationality, discussion and argument. I really don't know what else to say about that. It's also a studied fact that religious and conservative people are less rational than average people. This is why I think I can put myself in a position where the morals I support are more right than theirs.

Basically you could say about anything other than natural biological, chemical and physical elements that they are man-made. I don't really get how you can think I say they don't exist? I place more value on the west's system because it works. And the evidence is right there. It's not better just because "I say so". Wars, discrimination, opression, forced marriages, genital mutilations. West doesn't have any of that. East does. Despite how much you may think it sucks but you have to admit it works better than the ones in east. Don't you value those things I listed?
Your problem is purely ideological and philosophical. I'm basing my opinions on what I see, not the supposed problems in system.

You're right that west has had it's share of conflicts. Like I said this is about progession. Now we know better. West used to be shit at some point in time. But now it's societies are on top of the human progress and we have welfare societies. The system is not perfect but if I had the chance I would replace the system in muslim states with this system just to spare innocent lives and to end oppression and conflict. Don't you think that's a good goal? I fail to see how do you see me just pushing an agenda when we have the keyes to make this world a better place.

Also I think you're very wrong on that part where you say we're no better or no ideology is better than the other. We are better. I can't believe how you can say that west and the east are on the same line. Tell me what about me favoring west is so bad? It's a subjective opinion yes, based on subjective morals but it is a clear fact that there is peace in western countries, there are no wars, we are making sure people are all equal, we are not enforcing laws which enables innocent people to be oppressed, beaten, killed, stoned or persecuted in the name of something so irrational as religion. Isn't that progress to you? Those should be good things. You can't brush everything off by saying it's just an ideology same as the other.Like Richard Dawkins said, this modern morality is a recent thing. Last wars we had were 70 years ago.
You got to draw the line somewhere on how you judge societies. What is it to you? I can't really believe that you are actually emphasizing that me promoting "western agenda" is comparable to what the followers of the ideology of Islam do.

A lot of people practice equality. Gay marriages being approved is one example. We have universities with faculty of humanities. People donating money for charity, giving home to immigranst who are searching a better place to live. We have PETA. Animal cruelty is a crime in most of the western countries. Do you need more examples 'cause this list continues? What exactly was your point about this?

What do you mean when you talk about war causes worth dying for? There hasn't been any wars in Europe for over 70 years. If you talk about U.S then you're right with what they've done in the East. But keep in mind that 40% Americans still believe world was created by god 6000 years ago. Isn't there a connection to the most retarded stuff that U.S does? If we narrow this discussion to Europe there's little room for you to accuse our culture of any of that "dogmatic religion".

Why I mentioned human nature was because you come off as a sort of misanthrope, and between the lines you seem to be saying that people have always tended to follow ideologies, and Ideologies are shit --> so are humans. That's what you mean right? I on the other hand tend not to be so cynical as I see hope in the modern people. If all state higher ups were to be like Dawkins and Hitchens we would have a better world for sure.

 

[Avani]

t it is a clear fact that there is peace in western countries, there are no wars, we are making sure people are all equal, we are not enforcing laws which enables innocent people to be oppressed, beaten, killed, stoned or persecuted in the name of something so irrational as religion.....

But the West is doing the same in name of new ideologies and OIl- bombing Afghanistan, arming ISIS.. millions could have lived in peace in my country if USA didn't decide to upset the cart in Afghanistan by aiding war lords and creating Taliban.

West didn't stop war- they just learned to fight it on the land of someone else. The cold wars and fight for Afghanistan etc are examples of that.

 

[Hawker]

But the West is doing the same in name of new ideologies and OIl- bombing Afghanistan, arming ISIS.. millions could have lived in peace in my country if USA didn't decide upset the cart in Afghanistan by aiding war lords and creating Taliban.

West didn't stop war- they just learned to fight it on the land of someone else. The cold wars and fight for Afghanistan etc are examples of that.

I don't fully condone what U.S has done in the east. They do what they do. Europe on the other hand has Nato, UN, EU. We do not share american agenda. That's why I said it's good to realize the difference between two western areas.

Why are americans fighting in the east? They are not fighting in the west. It isn't just the oil. No one can't say that the eastern regimes didn't brought this up on themselves. There have been conflicts there for hundreds of years now, before U.S played a part in it. Afghanistan like most of the middle-eastern countries is 500 years behind in progress. That's why their national security situation is what it is and even lets a group like taleban to exist, no matter who created it.

Europe learned to stop war. America didn't. Still when they are fighting on someone else's soil it doesn't mean there's not a good cause for it or it doesn't mean that we can ignore that we have peaceful welfare states in the west itself. If we pretend all of the world would just consist of Europe and America, do you think we would still have conflicts like the ones in Middle-East or do you think we would have less of them?

 

[Avani]

I don't fully condone what U.S has done in the east. They do what they do. Europe on the other hand has Nato, UN, EU. We do not share american agenda. That's why I said it's good to realize the difference between two western areas.

Why are americans fighting in the east? They are not fighting in the west. It isn't just the oil. No one can't say that the eastern regimes didn't brought this up on themselves. There have been conflicts there for hundreds of years now, before U.S played a part in it. Afghanistan like most of the middle-eastern countries is 500 years behind in progress. That's why their national security situation is what it is and even lets a group like taleban to exist, no matter who created it.

Europe learned to stop war. America didn't. Still when they are fighting on someone else's soil it doesn't mean there's not a good cause for it or it doesn't mean that we can ignore that we have peaceful welfare states in the west itself. If we pretend all of the world would just consist of Europe and America, do you think we would still have conflicts like the ones in Middle-East or do you think we would have less of them?

Afghanistan.. poor country is older than many western civilizations- just being attacked enslaved, killed off being overtaken by middle east...the Gypsey in Europe are probably kins of the slaves taken to that continent.

The war on control on Afghanistan was not started by US but it started between Britain and Russia .....that too has a history going back more than a century...

I blame the imperialist nature of religions that seek converts and try to replace local culture with their own to gain political power by number along with grabbing resources.

 

[shelke]

I mean that I know there aren't any universal truths about morals. They are just guidelines necessary for our civilisation to progress and evolve to a more peaceful era. I never said they don't exist. People choose to pick on which ever morals they deem right, but it doesn't mean they are actually right. LIke It was said morals should be based on rationality, discussion and argument. I really don't know what else to say about that. It's also a studied fact that religious and conservative people are less rational than average people. This is why I think I can put myself in a position where the morals I support are more right than theirs.

Basically you could say about anything other than natural biological, chemical and physical elements that they are man-made. I don't really get how you can think I say they don't exist? I place more value on the west's system because it works. And the evidence is right there. It's not better just because "I say so". Wars, discrimination, opression, forced marriages, genital mutilations. West doesn't have any of that. East does. Despite how much you may think it sucks but you have to admit it works better than the ones in east. Don't you value those things I listed?
Your problem is purely ideological and philosophical. I'm basing my opinions on what I see, not the supposed problems in system.

You're right that west has had it's share of conflicts. Like I said this is about progression. Now we know better. West used to be shit at some point in time. But now it's societies are on top of the human progress and we have welfare societies. The system is not perfect but if I had the chance I would replace the system in muslim states with this system just to spare innocent lives and to end oppression and conflict. Don't you think that's a good goal? I fail to see how do you see me just pushing an agenda when we have the keyes to make this world a better place.

Also I think you're very wrong on that part where you say we're no better or no ideology is better than the other. We are better. I can't believe how you can say that west and the east are on the same line. Tell me what about me favoring west is so bad? It's a subjective opinion yes, based on subjective morals but it is a clear fact that there is peace in western countries, there are no wars, we are making sure people are all equal, we are not enforcing laws which enables innocent people to be oppressed, beaten, killed, stoned or persecuted in the name of something so irrational as religion. Isn't that progress to you? Those should be good things. You can't brush everything off by saying it's just an ideology same as the other.Like Richard Dawkins said, this modern morality is a recent thing. Last wars we had were 70 years ago.

You got to draw the line somewhere on how you judge societies. What is it to you? I can't really believe that you are actually emphasizing that me promoting "western agenda" is comparable to what the followers of the ideology of Islam do.

A lot of people practice equality. Gay marriages being approved is one example. We have universities with faculty of humanities. People donating money for charity, giving home to immigranst who are searching a better place to live. We have PETA. Animal cruelty is a crime in most of the western countries. Do you need more examples 'cause this list continues? What exactly was your point about this?

What do you mean when you talk about war causes worth dying for? There hasn't been any wars in Europe for over 70 years. If you talk about U.S then you're right with what they've done in the East. But keep in mind that 40% Americans still believe world was created by god 6000 years ago. Isn't there a connection to the most retarded stuff that U.S does? If we narrow this discussion to Europe there's little room for you to accuse our culture of any of that "dogmatic religion".

Why I mentioned human nature was because you come off as a sort of misanthrope, and between the lines you seem to be saying that people have always tended to follow ideologies, and Ideologies are shit --> so are humans. That's what you mean right? I on the other hand tend not to be so cynical as I see hope in the modern people. If all state higher ups were to be like Dawkins and Hitchens we would have a better world for sure.

So again, you basically give me your admission that 'right and wrong' are human constructed phenomenon? All the supposed discussions and rationales would spring from the existing perspectives. What makes one so much more refined in your view? FYI, there is research available on the net in spades that is beginning to shape a good footing that people who blindly follow religion AND Nationalistic agendas have low IQs? Now wouldn't that shock your sensibilities? So, let's not look at one side of the argument and claim 'refined perspectives', when you really haven't studied any religion, as you have, repeatedly at that, admitted.

Science and ideology are not the same thing. This isn't even an argument. Confine your discussion to ideologies. Your argument is all over the place now. As for the 'working' part, then it's only mildly working for its 'in-group' agendas. How many has West slaughtered based on this rift in ideologies?

Millions upon millions of innocents have been indiscriminately slain by West in these few decades alone. But they don't practice forced marriage, so, how cool and progressive they truly are when they are still stuck in the same bog of barbaric human need to subjugate, kill and pillage. But they only wear the garb of civility, so, ALL is cool. You don't seem to have much of any trouble brushing aside the despicably heinous foreign political agendas of the West, but forced marriages seem to bother you so? You still seem to be stuck on genital mutilations and marriages, when these are isolated incidents. Islam doesn't promote any of those. But, then again, you haven't read much. Because they all suck ... however, you are right anyway.

And what equality has West truly reached? Class difference and economic inflation is only rising. Capitalism has ruined the world's societal system, where the poor slink further down and the rich benefit endlessly from the power the system grants them. *** and hate crime still persist. Racism is rampant and so is group segregation. I mean, in which utopia do you really live where none of this happens? I would love to see that place as it seems that you have been indoctrinated into eating this nonsense quite aptly. Preaching things on paper and implementing them are not even the same. Your imagination is pretty colourful in this regard.

As for your philosophy and ideology claims, then religion and democracy cannot be dissected under any other heading. As everything in regards to culture, politics and religion starts from a difference in Men's philosophy. That gives rise to a new ideology and people create another socio-political structure to benefit the group. That is all there is to it. There is no 'MAGIC' under any religious or political framework. Try to do your research. As for charity, then you DO realize that charity system was integrated well into Chriatian doctrine and Zakat in Sharia Law? Oh dear. It's just one fumble after another.

I already aptly answered the so-called peace promotion the West has been doing since 9/11 alone. I don't think we need to discuss that any more. No, you aren't any better by any strech of imagination. When morals are subjective, then so are your views. As for Dawkins, then yeah, the biologist trying his hand at philosophy whilst spewing third grade, stupid racist bullshit:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

^ Yeah, that Dawkins. He clearly is in a grand position to talk about morals, and so are you, apparently.

Now this is just a pile of nonsense. Promoting gay marriage is a step in the right direction, but let's overlook the complete destabilization and systematic genocide of people in several regions by these Western political ideologies. Is that what your selective morality is limited to? PETA, Gay marriage and some other humdrum nonsense? All West has been doing is promoting wars, genocides and mindless slaughter of millions via political funding to rebel groups, and at times, jumping in the mess themselves. Which damned, godforsaken good morals are you even prattling on about?

Yeah, that ideology comparison clearly flew over your head. I suggest you go back and give a thorough read. 'Idolatry of Democracy' is a REAL thing. Shocking, I know, as there is plenty of research available on the internet on this front. But, you don't read anything. Because you don't need to. I also adore the fact how you assume that 'religion' requires a God, and democracy can never rise up to the occasion, or that dogma is an exclusive concept. It's hilarious.

Oh dear, that hate-mongering bigot such as Dawkins holds the key to our future. Someone needs to nuke us into oblivion already as the future is already, quite bleak. No, I am a realist and an objective observer, unlike you, who just happens to gloss over Western agendas just for the sake of it. Try to broaden your tiny thinking, as it's just as bigoted as a Sharia Law totting zealot.

 

[Hawker]

About Dawkins:

It baffles me that someone could misinterpreted that tweet. As soon as I read it I got what Darwin meant. His comparison wasn't directed at the kid but the logic of people making kids immune to criticism. Certainly not racist.

"HORRIFIED anyone thinks I could POSSIBLY liken Ahmed to a killer," Dawkins said in a tweet Wednesday. "My ONLY point of comparison was their AGES: kids not immune to criticism."

So you should delete that part of your post and either make up another way to diss him or just admit he is more intelligent than both of us combined.


As for the rest of your post, this is gettin really tiresome. While you argue good points about the systems and ideologies of men as a whole, you are too cynical for your own good. I mean if we had a guy like you in charge we'd never get anything done as you'd just focus on every negative aspect of everything ever. I can't argue against some of your points, but this conversation itself is pointless.

Just answer me this:

Which system as of now do you think is better for humans:

West

or

East?

It's simple really. If you answer west then I don't know why the f*ck we have been having this conversation.

 

[shelke]

Yeah, let's not go there. Trust me, I have a pretty firm grasp on syntax and his back-peddling is not doing him any favours. Not to mention several educated people, not fooled by his poor wordplay, have called him out on it. Philosophy doesn't seem like his game either. He should stick to biology.

As for your question, then neither. But that is a completely different debate altogether; the kind I do not have the time nor patience for.