The Problem of Evil debate – Sami Zaatari vs Farhan Qureshi
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: Debates, MDI, Videos 58 Comments »The public debate on the Problem of Evil debating questions on why it exists, and why God allows it’s existance in the Universe. Welcome to the public debate.
Sami Zaatari – International Speaker and member of Muslim Debate Initiative.
Debates
Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.
————————————–
UPDATE: 11th February 2012
From: Farhan Qureshi
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI
Here is my statement:
In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.
Farhan Qureshi
(Sorry posted my comment in the wrong blog before, this is for Sami)
Zaatari, the problem is Atheists just don’t hold to what your arguing against.
Regarding “Social Darwinism”, a quote from wiki: “In sociology it has been defined as a theory of social evolution which asserts that “There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the ‘survival of the fittest’).””
Next, and most importantly:
“Opponents of Darwinian evolution have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while defenders of evolutionary theory generally maintain that it is rather a perversion of Darwin’s ideas. While most scholars recognize the historical link between Darwin’s theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution” Paul, Diane B. 2003. Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. in The Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0521777305 p.
The first thing therefore you must do is show that if both materialism and evolution are true then logically social Darwinism follows, which I think you failed to show.
I agree with many of your statements refuting Social Darwinism, but you seem to link Social Darwinism with materialism and evolution in general. So I’ll make a few corrections.
Evolution does produce sympathy and empathy. In fact we have a neuron in our brain known as the mirror neuron which directly simulates in our own body the feeling of pain for others. As for the claim that it doesn’t make sense to help poor people if evolution were true, in general charity actually makes us psychologically healthy and happy and hence we will live longer due to emotional and mental contentment, making charity beneficial to survival, in fact beneficial to everyone’s survival, your own, and the one you give charity too, best of both worlds. You also seem to suggest evolution is about “myself, my own survival, my close ones and screw everybody else”. This cannot be the case, many primates even today, who are not of the same lineage but do form tribe/community show clearly that community is compatible with evolution, indeed society is compatible with evolution (even social Darwinist accepted that idea, so I don’t know where you got the idea of “only the family unit” from?)
Next the golden rule. The problem with your explanation that “we help others to get help in return” is simply not true. Many who we help are incapable of returning the favor, think Atheist Bill Gates giving millions to India. Also helping people as a means to an end would not be a concept evolution makes us aware of rather it would be a biological imperative, something our chemical make up is causing us to work towards. Evolution would only produce strong chemical impulses to cause feeling for those who need help, we wouldn’t consciously be thinking “I’m going to get something back”, rather evolution produced chemicals would cause us to feel sympathy. But these are merely mechanistic descriptions of how and why we behave the way we do, these are our set of preferences designed by evolution via genetic mutation, natural selection. You cannot falsify a belief about models of morality based on origins of morality, as that is known as a genetic fallacy. But you also seem to completely fail to comprehend what evolution actually is and says. For example if you feel like giving charity to help the person and not for selfish gain, that is because the chemicals in your body are causing you to experience those genuine feelings. Those genuine feelings may well result in aid to survival, but in many situations they simply don’t (like Bill Gates).
That’s all for now. I honestly recommend you look up objectivist atheists like Michael Martin, as we have alot more to offer.
i hope to get my site as popular as yours someday soon! good luck bud, keep up the good work!
You see, these are more evolutionary ‘Just – So ‘ stories to show that there is some kind of objectively acceptable morality to be derived from the evolutionary model (which there isn’t).
You are trying to show that since altruistic behaviour exists (which you cannot deny) then this must of course be due to evolution and vindicate it as a source of morality. This is a circular and ridiculous argument. You also left out the ‘explanations’ for why this behaviour takes place, offered by evolutionary biologists themselves: stuff like how apes (and humans) help the weaker members of their community because it improves their reproductive fitness by showing potential mates that they have so much strength ‘to spare’ that they can even help the weak i.e. helping the weak or any other altruistic act in evolution is merely a survival/gene propagation strategy independent of moral hierarchies (which don’t exist in evolution, there are, as I said, only survival strategies). The point is that actions in evolution are for the purpose of maximising the survival of one’s or one’s relatives genetic material (same thing anyway), not for their inherent moral utility. If I help a blind guy cross the street so I can get into a girls pants that much more easily, that’s a strategy for getting laid, not an objective basis for defining morality. You need to face facts and accept the evolutionary model for what it is and not artificially make it politically correct like you want it to be.
And the quote from ‘Wikipedia’ does not help your case in the least, since just because something is not a NECESSARY consequence does not mean that it is not a LOGICAL consequence, as Zataari asserted. Besides, they did not refute Social Darwinism, they merely said not everyone agrees. In any case, if moral hierarchies evolved, it was for evolutionary expedients, not anything else, so what is your point? In evolution, ‘bad’ is what reduces reproductive fitness and good is what increases it. The End.
Your argument that charity makes you ‘psychologically healthy’ is just another unscientific ‘just – so’ story and it doesn’t seem to work very well on the ’1%’ of the super rich, who get by just fine without giving much away.
I think Zataari has understood ‘atheism’ and ‘evolution’ for the moral vacuums they are perfectly well. Understandably you don’t like it, so you are trying to muddy the water.
Also one gives a crap about Bill Gates: he does not exonerate atheists for their historic moral inaction (understandable as they lack a basis for any such action apart from ‘just – so’ stories, which eventually people would recognise for what they are) and he’s not an atheist ANYWAY. Further, he initially gave money to pet projects and ideologically biased organisations like ‘Planned Parenthood’, an organisation loved by atheists but regarded as a crypto – eugenics campaign by many others. Further, why don’t you tell us the amount of money he has given as a percentage of his TOTAL wealth…? And last but not least, how did he make that money in the first place? Using the exploitative artificial monopolies of the so – called ‘Free Market’… etc. etc.
Quite apart from your claims about Bill Gates, much of the money for ‘his’ foundation comes from Warren Buffet (and others), who is not an atheist but an agnostic, like Gates himself, so your example was not appropriate anyway.
I see Big Boss is having a small emotional orgasm
But unfortunately despite your response, my response to Zaatari had already corrected every error you have made:
“But these are merely mechanistic descriptions of how and why we behave the way we do, these are our set of preferences designed by evolution via genetic mutation, natural selection. You cannot falsify a belief about models of morality based on origins of morality, as that is known as a genetic fallacy.”
So once again please demonstrate that morality being a side effect of genetic fitness means that means that our world view is false and when you do I’ll once again point out your genetic fallacy. Thanks for wasting my time.
Also like Zaatari you also didn’t show how it was logically necessary that belief in materialism or evolution necessitates belief in social darwinism. In fact you just gave an evolutionary explanation as to why we help people who are weaker than us refuting Zaatari who says Social Darwinism says the opposite. So thank you for correcting your brother.
Try tone down on your climax next time, or I won’t be back to correct your errors. Try to contain your hatred for Atheists, even Zaatari does a pretty good job of that.
Wow, I didn’t know you like to think of me in that way, having boners and orgasms and stuff. Well, if it turns you on, no probs mate! It is a bit sad though that you have to get personal when you can’t hang on an intellectual level, but c’est la vie!
As for ‘hating’ atheists, I really don’t, I just hate dumb people such as yourself.
Since you did not actually read my reply properly, like the prejudiced Fundamentalist Atheist that you seem to be, I won’t bother to repeat it, save to say that you gave a quote that social Darwinism does not ‘necessarily’ follow as a reason for not accepting Social Darwinism. This was manifest dumbness as I explained above.
As for the waffle about models of morality, you draw a false distinction between the origin of the model and the values derived. This is because you are dense. In ‘evolution’ (which you don’t seem to have a good conceptual grasp of), morality is not ‘on the side’ of genetic fitness, genetic fitness is the determinant of morality, morality emerges out of the need for genetic fitness and no other precedent. I never said it shows that your world view is false, nor was I agreeing with your moronic assertions, I was merely highlighting how subjective and morally bankrupt it was. The fact that you agreed with my evolutionary explanation shows how uninformed you are because it is in fact an explanation given by Social Darwinists themselves.
Flop.
I will try and tone down my ‘climax’ though, since it seems that you can’t intellectually ‘get it up’ in the first place…
I see the bankrupt, atheist hating joke has come back after a strikingly poor performance. But since your performance this time is just as bad I’ll quote your performance:
“morality is not ‘on the side’ of genetic fitness, genetic fitness is the determinant of morality, morality emerges out of the need for genetic fitness and no other precedent. ”
And later you conclude:
“I was merely highlighting how subjective and morally bankrupt it was.”
Not even as an informal argument does this pass off as a conclusion that necessarily follows from the premise. In fact a morality that is based in “human genetics” presupposes a common morality predisposed to all human beings.
But due to your irrational, superstitious ignorance the only thing you have managed to show is that you have repeated the same fallacy over and over. Not only have you made a non-sequitor but your whole basis that the foundation of morality “human genetics”, determines the value of morality as subjective is , was and still is a genetic fallacy (no pun intended).
Rather than repeating the same errors, address the errors you have already made. And don’t forget to show that materialism and evolution biology entail social darwinism, and no your original post has no argument for this claim, or maybe you think it does have a coherent argument, but we have seen your thinking abilities are impaired.
Uh…what was the point of all that? To make yourself feel good? Don’t feel the need to keep posting if you’ve got nothing new to say!
You imply that genetic fitness provides a universal ‘basis’ for ‘morality’; ”In fact a morality that is based in “human genetics” presupposes a common morality predisposed to all human beings.” Uh, no it doesn’t, it only presupposes genes, not morality, which would then be some materially determinable function of genetics. I think you need to look up the meanings of ‘non sequitor’ and ‘coherence’ before you use these terms again mate.
This is apart from the fact that it was not what I was addressing anyway: just having a basis, universal or not, does not make it ‘ipso facto’ MORAL. But it’s o.k, I see the problem, like any good atheist, you don’t know what morality IS so you are having trouble explaining it. You see, just because all humans have genes and that is ‘universal’ does not mean that genes now have priority for explaining morality (quite apart from the fact that the explanation derived from this hypotheses is repugnant and is indeed based on ‘survival’ only as Zataari correctly pointed out before your spam fest). I could just as well say that all humans (especially you) have the attribute of ‘stupidity’ and as a universal, this should determine morality.
You see what you REALLY believe, but tried to hide, is in deterministic materialism, that genes fully and exclusively determine ‘behaviour’ and we are all robots (or at best automaton) programmed by our genes which in turn are desperate to pass themselves on and survive. Your ‘morality’ comes out of this. This is exactly what Zataari said and Farhan was intelligent enough to explicitly state. In your model, what is ‘moral’ and good is what helps you pass on your genes (i.e get laid) and what is bad or immoral is what does not or hinders you from getting laid (hence you obsession with my climaxes and orgasms and stuff). The End.
Since you realise that if you say this clearly and openly, most people will realise that your morality is ‘subjective’ (‘subject’ to a personal/group/gene precedent of passing on one’s genes or kin group protection and no higher goal than that and without any ‘objective’ framing) and also noxious to most people (apart from many atheists), you try to frame it in some other way because you know deep down that your model of morality is selfish, subjective, compartmentalised and on a sepculative basis and assumes materialism and results in Social Darwinism (or whatever label you want to give it), two things which you insist on denying. That’s why intellectually honest people who believe this kind of stuff are usually nihilists.
I hope this makes it clear, because trying to correct your stupidity is getting in the way of ME getting laid and according to you it is ‘immoral’. But I know that you STILL won’t get it, since you are dense, and not even good at being offensive, as you poor attempts at insults show.
Oh, I almost forgot..! Why don’t YOU show that Social Darwinism and materialism definitely DOES NOT follow, since you gave an inappropriate quote to try and show that in the FIRST PLACE, instead of putting the burden of proving your idiotic assertions on me? I mean, I’m at a handicap since I’m not as stupid as yourself.
It’s actually really funny, a guy with an Islamophobic ‘blog’ (I use the term loosely) with links to other crypto (and not so ‘crypto’) fascist Islamophobes complaining about ‘hatred of atheists’, clearly a HUGE problem in the world today, since atheists are being persecuted everywhere and countries with a high percentage of atheists are being invaded and bombed. Also, there is a huge bias against them in the media and educational establishments, which are all run according to Islamic lines (NOTE: sarcasm).
Also, atheists are wonderful people who never do anything bad to anyone when THEY get into power, as evidenced by the history of pluralism and tolerance of dissent in the USSR and China amongst others (NOTE: more sarcasm).
You see, I’ve heard of throwing stones in a glass house, but this hater clearly hasn’t.
Also, for an ‘atheist’, he strangely seems to focus only on Islam, while being on excellent terms with the Evangelical Christian fundamentalist lobby (and plagiarising all of his arguments from them, except for evolution, though he does not know much about that anyway). You see, there are a lot of these wannabes on the net who want the poor atheists (often no angels themselves) to take the hit for their Christian – fascism and xenophobic hatred of Muslims and other ‘inferior’ peoples. So they hide behind an atheist mask.
Got Hate bro?
Big Boss as usual I see alot of bark but no byte. I notice that you still are making the same genetic fallacy, and haven’t addressed your non-sequitor. Until you address these simple errors we really have nothing else to discuss further. I believe you are intentionally ignoring these logical fallacies since you have no response. So in your next reply make sure to recant your fallacies.
1) Origins of morality determine the value of morality (this is a genetic fallacy)
2) Moral behavior emerged out of genetic disposition therefore morality is subjective. (this is a non-sequitor)
But lets address your latest blunders, in fact this time it is you vs you:
“You imply that genetic fitness provides a universal ‘basis’ for ‘morality’; ”In fact a morality that is based in “human genetics” presupposes a common morality predisposed to all human beings.” Uh, no it doesn’t, IT ONLY PRESSUPOSES GENES, NOT MORALITY, which would then be some materially determinable function of genetics.”
Vs yourself:
“morality is not ‘on the side’ of genetic fitness, GENETIC FITNESS IS THE DETERMINANT OF MORALITY, morality emerges out of the need for genetic fitness and no other precedent. ”
After humiliating yourself in contradiction, in your ignorance you state: “You see, just because all humans have genes and that is ‘universal’ does not mean that genes now have priority for explaining morality “.
And: “I could just as well say that all humans (especially you) have the attribute of ‘stupidity’ and as a universal, this should determine morality. ”
Aside from again contradicting and refuting yourself, this is just blatantly untrue, read any book on evolutionary psychology. Genes directly relate to behavior and of course moral behavior. In fact we have whole sections of science related to this, one known as Behavioral genetics. However a relationship between stupidity and morality or stupidity giving rise to morality has not been endorsed by scientists and is not a subject of inquiry. One has no basis, one has multitudes of evidence. So rather than con-during up false relationships, deal with actual facts. As usual your pitiful attempts to argue completely incoherent positions fall into the melting lava, none the less you are an entertaining moron.
Later you ask me to show how materialism, or evolutionary biology do not entail social Darwinism, when this was the very the burden of the debater (or the one claiming, belief in evolution necessitates social Darwinism such as yourself). Remember the facts, you are the one making the assertion that human genetics therefore moral relativism and social Darwinism, in fact you have been trying (poorly) argue to these conclusions repeatedly and with complete failure. So once you actually find an argument that works, let me know. Because so far not one claim you have made has shown materialism therefore social Darwinism.
Now apart from an additional non-sequitor “moral is what helps you get laid, and immoral is what prevents you from getting laid”, rather these are some genetic objectives along side a whole range of others. These are long term objectives aswell, not short term.
But as I said earlier, it’s not enough to describe the mechanistic processes behind morality, and say therefore the morality arisen out of these genetic dispositions are false. That is simply a genetic fallacy.
So once again I thank you for showing me, that this is all you have. A mere retarded repetition of debunk, pseudo arguments, that are not only not coherent or sound, but you haven’t even manage to show a logically valid structure. Make sure to address your fallacies this time, as I won’t be responding if you can’t manage to show your arguments are logically valid or logically sound.
In fact let me do the honors of setting up your objectives for you, don’t come back and comment until you sort them out:
First argument:
1) If evolution is true, social darwinism is true
2) Evolution is true
3) Therefore social darwinism is true
Second argument
1) If evolution is true, moral relativism is true
2) Evolution is true
3) Therefore moral relativism is true
So funny! You really are an amusing chap despite first impressions! You’re insults have not improved though.
You see, the problem is that you are nowhere near as intelligent as you think. You arrogance on top of this leads to elementary failures of comprehension and demands that we frame our responses according to your choices of textbook, science and even interrogative questioning. And all this time you sit on the fence.
A simple example of your failure to understand will suffice. Anyone with grade school reading comprehension can apprehend that in no way do the statements:
‘…MORALITY, which would then be some materially determinable function of genetics.”
‘…GENETIC FITNESS IS THE DETERMINANT OF MORALITY, morality emerges out of the need for genetic fitness and no other precedent…’
contradict each other. Both of these statements mean that your THEORY (which you keep treating as an empirical fact despite never defining it, which I had to do for you) of morality is a result of your genes and their need to ensure their continuity. There is no contradiction. I am afraid this conclusively shows that you are galactically stupid. Likewise you have not understood what a ‘genetic fallacy’ is in the first place.
Also, you like to use this idea of a ‘genetic fallacy’ in a unilateral way. This shows your sad epistemological bias. It is also false to say that just because you have genes as a basis, what arises out of them must thus be a VALID morality. Having a basis does not make the rule ipso facto moral. You need to put down the first year biology textbooks and try reading some philosophy, or just get on Wikipedia.
As Hume (another dumb atheist) said, you can’t derive how things SHOULD be from mere facts like ‘human beings have genes’.
Put another way, the ‘fact’ that you evolved to display certain types of behaviour over others does not mean that you now have an basis for which of these behaviours you ought to value. Just because rape and genocide are ‘rare’ amongst humans, their rarity does not mean they are immoral or have no evolutionary utility in your world view. But you don’t have the guts to admit this since of you were honest, you would be a nihilist.
Also, you are on a complete straw – manning fest. I never said Social Darwinism is true , I merely took you to task for trying to show otherwise and using an inappropriate quote to try and achieve this. Further, I showed you how the morality to be derived from your model had nothing of worth EITHER in it’s BASIS or the RULES DERIVED. This is not a genetic fallacy: you cannot prove that genetic determinism is true (and thus behaviour is exclusively or even largely determined by genetics) in either a rational or empirical manner, so you’re basis is speculative in any case. ASSUMING this basis, the moral theory it leads to, weather you call it Social Darwinism or Evolutionary Psychology, Behavioural Genetics or Skinner’s Behaviourism or whatever (they are all essentially the same thing and you are trying to con people not familiar with them) is repugnant. It is crap both in BASIS and MORALITY DERIVED therewith. Further, these are the ‘Just – So’ stories of biased people with ‘Darwin – itis’, such as yourself, and they do not enjoy empirical proof or widespread acceptance, other than by evolutionary fundamentalists themselves.
And I have never even used the phrase ‘moral relativism’. A lot of your stupidity comes from not bothering to read people’s post and just typing out a reply regardless. Or maybe it’s in your genes…
You also seem confused about atheism and evolution: Evolutionary Psychology (or Social Darwinism) is not the ONLY moral theory that atheists can have, they can try the Categorical Imperative, secular humanism etc. Apart from the fact these others are also crap, it was you who brought up genes and evolution, so I (rightly) addressed that particular theory of morality.
As for ‘getting laid’ being ‘one of a range’ of objectives, this is false and you are delusional. Reproductive fitness (a politically correct way of saying ‘survival’) is the goal of evolution, as a more coherent atheist questioner brought up on the debate. Don’t pretend like there is some higher goal in evolution than preserving and passing on successful genes.
I hope all this is finally clear to you.
As for materialism, I never said anything about it entailing anything. I was merely forced to clarify your position, since you refused/were unable to do it yourself.
And please stop being childish and trying to act like YOU get to define my argument and you are somehow some kind of ‘arbiter’ whose approval of one’s ideas must be sought. I merely wanted to show how dumb you were, and that has become abundantly clear to anyone reading these posts. Relabelling your ideas will avail you nothing.
Also, you keep threatening to not respond. If only I were so lucky! Like I said from the start, you can’t hang on an intellectual level so you keep looking for an ‘out’. Flop.
You see children, this is what happens when you read evolutionary biology books while high on PCP… So just say NO!
Well I see the “little boss” is back to make a further round of blunders and now withdraw his initial support for Zaatari, well done. In your latest defense of yourself, you say I confuse your quotes. After you only quote half of what you actually had said, but hey that must be the cut and paste job your use to from the tradition you are from, right? But even if we take your chopped up job, we can still see your contradictory claims: “morality SOME materially determinable genetic function” versus “the need for genetic fitness and NO OTHER PRECEDENT”.
Aside from failing to do damage control you appeal to Hume’s “you cannot get an ought from an is” but you fail to justify his assertion. In fact his assertion would make no sense given the presuppositions of even your own world view. For example the presupposition of Theism. God is an is, and therefore theists do derive and ought from an is. Although you may try and limit his dilemma to the natural world, the fact is that humans do derive a standard from an “is” so the claim itself is false. Not only is it false in Theism, it is false in secular humanism. Where simply a default standard is the least amount of unnecessary suffering is the greatest good. The greatest good is determined by the least amount of unnecessary pain. And all humans can derive an ought from an is. Now the only way you can argue otherwise is if you argue that humans have no innate value without God, and you also argue that what humans value by default (the least harm) is not valued by humans. On both accounts you will be wasting your time, in fact in your latest humorous response you specifically deny you are even trying to argue that social darwinism or moral subjectivism follow from evolution since you realized Zaatari who you were trying to defend was unable to coherently argue this position, you yourself have no shot.
Now that you have no argument left, and you’ve still failed to show my quotations don’t rebuke Zaatari who argued that belief in materialism, evolution logically follow with social darwinism, please actually come up with something supporting your position. But your attempted lie to pass what I said off as a strawman is directly contradicted by your own claims:
“And the quote from ‘Wikipedia’ does not help your case in the least, since just because something is not a NECESSARY consequence does not mean that it is not a LOGICAL consequence, as Zataari asserted. Besides, they did not refute Social Darwinism, they merely said not everyone agrees. ”
As you and Zaatari (and you admit it yourself) have BOTH failed to show social darwinism is a logically necessary by product. Hey maybe in one hundred years, I mean so far you’ve had, what 5 posts to show this? and you’ve still failed. Repeatdly using the same fallacy is not evidence “boss”.
So once again lets set up your homework.
1) If evolution is true, then social darwinism is true
2) evolution is true
3) Therefore social darwinism is true
Now since you came to defend Zaatari who was arguing a distorted version of Social Darwinism. Make sure you also define Social Darwinism the same way Zaatari had. Meaning, humans are only to help family units and themselves, and humans are to kill everybody else. Make sure to quote the social darwinists who support this view, and also the ones who say argued this was logically entailed by belief in evolution.
Well it’s been fun kid. Not only couldn’t you help Zaatari out, you yourself have no argument to support any of your premises, as you had to admit your genetic fallacy and then falsely accuse me of doing the same thing when you realized the folly of your position. So next time remember when you argue against an Atheist, simply pointing out the evolutionary explanations and advantages of al truism does not entail therefore morality arisen has no value. Explaining why we behave the way we do, or the origin will never overwrite the value of morality. Nice try.
Now we that we are through with your failure to refute evolution produced objective morality, lets then here your explanation for morality and the supporting evidence you have for it. What evidence do you have for your position that 1) Genes do not have a wide variety of functions (something you explictly disagreed with) 2) Genes do not seek to reproduce (showing theism accounts for the real objectives of genes, over evolutioanry biology) 3) Al truistic behaviour does not come from genes but rather is assigned and enforced by heaven (genes and moral behaviour are not related, moral behaviour is purely a function of “choice” and “God”)
Make sure to do your homework and address all your assignments.
Rash thank you for your irrational, irrelevant tangent. Though I must say Atheist/Muslim persecution and my blog and relationships between Christians and Atheists and Muslims are not the topic of this thread.
But due to your own stupid ignorance you hadn’t actually read through my blog otherwise you would have known I have had several heated arguments with Christians. In fact one argument I presented against them, was the problem I had with attacking Muslims for having a God that commands them to fight, while they themselves have a God that has said the same. Also if you bothered to even read my introduction page, I commented on several arguments as a Christian that I used against Islam, that I had to stop using due to inconsistency.
Also in your own irrationality you thought that since Atheists and Christians sometimes have common arguments against Islam, therefore they must be working together in cohorts. And therefore we must have a “wonderful relationship”. My comments have been blocked multiple times on Christian websites, as mentioned on my blog. You can also read my page “arguments not to use against Islam” and you will clearly see I disagree with a mass amount of arguments being used against Islam. These are popular laymen arguments.
Ultimately you have no idea what you are talking about. And my blog is not islamophobe, my blog is shariaphobe. But American Muslims shouldn’t be worried about that, because according to the latest survey (which you can access on my blog), American Muslims do not want Sharia as much as the non-Muslims don’t want it! So yes together we are all shariaphobic, Muslims and non-Muslims.
Now lets discuss your final inconsistency. Is having hate immoral? I mean at least do the honor of reading your book Chapter 60:4-8 and you will see hate is mandated.
And what exactly qualifies as a “hate site” anyway? I mean come up with an arbitrary, random criteria, that ANY website arguing against Islam on religious and political grounds MUST be a hate website. This is the most corrupt, incoherent usage of language I’ve seen in a while.
Does that mean any website theologically arguing against Christianity and pointing out Christian related terrorism or politics is a hate website as well? That must mean mean Muslim-Responses.com is a hate website. Or does that only apply to the special religion of Islam?
Look ultimately Rash, just admit that you think Islam should have special privileges and that Islam is above scrutiny. Before you call anyone a “hater”, define what you mean by “hate”.
Recently a Saudi in Malaysia was arrested by Interpol for saying “there are some things I don’t like about you , I will not pray for you” re: Mohammed. Is that also hateful by your criterion?
You are the usual Islamist propagandist.crying persecution when you don’t even use the term “hate” correctly. You render the usage of the term “hate” meaningless and obsolete by your improper characterization of blogs engaged in religious and political argument. Imagine comparing the word ‘hate’ how you are using it, to what was really happening to the Jews in Germany, your usage is appalling and you should be ashamed. Not one supposed blog you are calling ‘islamophobe’ is advocating the death or hatred of Muslims or even the second rate status of Muslim citizens. All of the content is related to undermine theological tenants of Islam and fiercely assault post-modern political Islamist ideology.
So thanks for insulting every group that actually was ‘hated’ and slandering there name in history. Please don’t come back with any of your appalling usages and deceptions and insult every persecuted group in history again with your careless, slanderous rendering of a word that shouldn’t even be part of every day vernacular.
Oh and by the way. It wouldn’t be plausible to say: “By the way your a hater”. But then not point out all of the news I have reported is false. Or all the information I have provided about the Warfare in the Quran, Tafsir, Sunnah etc is all false.
Or maybe you don’t disagree with any of the posts I’ve made, maybe what disturbs you is alot of it is related to Islamic nations or Islamic terrorism, I am singling out Islam rather than being an ‘equal religion opportune hater’.
Well the truth is most of the Atheists websites do not single out Judaism or Islam, in fact nearly every Atheist website I go to is ranting on Christianity. Do they then those Christians scream “hate site!!!, hate site!!!!”. No they engage in debate, like any normal westerner would. Do then these Christians go round inventing ridiculous words for criticism of their faith? Like “christian hater, christianphobe, jesusphobic!” No they don’t.
I should really dedicate an a post to just how irrational it is to call blogs criticizing Islam as ‘islamophobic and ‘hate blogs’. Not only do you insult very real persecuted groups by being senseless jackasses and desensitizing very serious concept of hate, you have no grounds to be victims whatsoever, except your obvious religious entitlement that your religion should be the only religion above criticism.
Tangent? Do you know what that means? YOU accused Boss of being an ‘atheist hater’ and then claim it is irrelevant when you are outed as a crypto-fascist, crypto-Christian xenophobe.
Cry baby.
When did I say ‘hate’ was immoral? Hating spineless crypto fascists like you is meritorious indeed! Although I must say, it hurt being called immoral by a guy who has no basis for morality, as seen above.
As for Muslims wanting or not wanting Shariah that’s a…what did you call it? Oh that’s right, a ‘tangent’.
Regarding your pathetic ‘blog’, I did read it. It took me five minutes because most of it is plagiarised or simply lifted from other fascists. And you can moan all you like, anyone can head on down there (give the guy some hits, he needs them) and make up their own mind: an almost exclusive focus on Muslims and very little else. With abundant links to hater Christian fundamentalist, evolution – denying websites. It doesn’t matter whether you are atheist or not. Your REAL religion is ignorance and stupidity.
You see, if you really had a problem with violence or hate, your site would not be all about MOOOOOSLEMS, like Geller and Spencer and all those other haters you jerk off to in your bedroom. You would realise that the vast majority of violence and oppression in the world is not due to Muslims but due to other groups and is often carried out by people calling themselves Christians.
For example, the 600,000 people killed in the Iraq war alone, not to mention the Afghan conflict and drone attacks on Pakistan. But that does not bother you at all. If Muslim troops went and killed that many people you would be howling at the moon for a fortnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
But if three thousand people that YOU like die in 9-11 and you’re spassing out, even though they were killed by 19 people of whom 15 were from a monarchy (Saudi) established, sponsored and maintained by the US and UK amongst others. But who gets bombed into the Stone Age? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Somalia? A peep out of you? No, because you are not interested in dead Muslims since you are indeed a fascist and you think it is worse for a Muslim to kill a non – Muslim than the other way round. Hence the hater status I gave you.
You see, if a Muslim kills a girl, it’s an ‘honour killing’ and your all over it like white on rice. But if anyone else does it, it’s a ‘crime of passion’, irrespective of the religion of the perpetrator. Why? Cos you’re a wannabe Nazi without the balls to face up to it.
Let’s have a look at some major incidents of ‘violence’ and see how many times Mooooslems are involved:
- Serbian fascism and Christianity’s role in the Bosnian Genocide (Srebrinicia etc.)
- WWII, a largely Christian affair. The fire – bombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of – Nagasaki and Hiroshima (by Christians)
- US (& Australia’s) war in Vietnam which killed at least 4 – 5 MILLION civilians
- The Philippines war of independence and the massacres by American troops therein
- Killing and forced conversion of Australian Aboriginals
- French Genocide in the Algerian War of Independence/Vietnamese war of independence
- The Lords’ Resistance Army in Africa
- Apartheid in South Africa
- The Rwandan Genocide
- Anders Brevik, a self confessed ‘Crusader’
Hmmmm… when is the last time Muslims killed FOUR MILLION civilians? And since you are such an ‘atheist’ I could add in the excesses of Communists in Cambodia, China, USSR etc. etc. You get the picture Dumbo. And it’s not like that stuff is old and Christian and secular countries have improved their behaviour. But instead of campaigning against the Iraq war or for reparations to be paid to the Vietnamese by your own government, your worried each and every time when a Muslim farts the wrong way.
It’s funny that you are so concerned with Muslims despite the minority role they have played in global destabilisation and violence in recent history. It’s strange that your website does not focus on all those Christian troops deployed in the warzones mentioned above:
http://www.deomi.org/diversitymgmt/documents/AmericasMilitaryPopulation2004.pdf
or all the human rights abuses by secular regimes like France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Singapore and India (treatment of refugees, Romany people evicted in contravention of European Court of Human rights, Sectarian violence, no freedom of dress for women). I think the REAL sticking point here would be your definition of ‘Human’, since you are a Islamophobic nut-job who wants to incite violence against a particular community by highlighting them above all others disproportionately for the purpose of inciting hatred and thus sowing the seeds of violence against them. As much as you are allowed within the remit of the current law. If you made that site about Jewish people for example, everyone could see that you were a not – very – crypto Nazi, but since you can’t get away with that, you have to ride the wave of anti – Mooooslem bias.
Nor do I see you condemning the thousands of attacks on innocent Muslims in the West, motivated by hate speech such as your own: murders, beatings. It’s gotten so bad the government and academics are even complaining and producing reports:
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/emrc/publications/Islamophobia_and_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crime.pdf
But do YOU ever talk about this? No. Cos you are a hate monger who only reports bad things by and about Muslims, at the expense of all else. And the worst thing is you say this to conclusively prove you ARE a xenophobic moron despite your denials:
”Not only do you insult very real persecuted groups by being senseless jackasses and desensitizing very serious concept of hate, you have no grounds to be victims whatsoever, except your obvious religious entitlement that your religion should be the only religion above criticism.”
No grounds to be victims or claim hate?! So 600,000 dead innocents is not enough for you? 200 dead Pakistani children not good enough eh? Course not, you’d kill a lot more if you got your way wouldn’t you, Nazi – boy? We have an ‘entitlement’ mentality? What is a ‘persecuted group’ according to you then? Getting killed and attacked at home and abroad does not make people persecuted according to you. We’re merely ‘PLAYING THE VICTIM’. I’d hate to see what you made of the Holocaust…
This is your bankrupt logic: ”When a Muslim does something bad it MUST be because of his religion. But when a non – Muslim does something bad it is because of politics, the fog of war or poverty or misinformation or insanity or whatever. Even if they say it is because of their religion, like the Serb fascists in Bosnia and Kosovo and Croatia or Anders Brevik, we don’t believe them. We must not, because Muslims are ze problem! Ve vill solve zis problem!”
Hence my calling you a crypto – fascist. Because you are.
Wow, that was harsh.
If I was a teacher I would actually show this post to students to actually study the psyche of a religious fundamentalist and how he rationalities his own stupidity.
“With abundant links to hater Christian fundamentalist, evolution – denying websites. ”
I don’t recall linking to Kent Hovind, ICR, or AiG, I do recall linking to various atheist, Muslim and christian websites (just read websites I frequent). But hey you can spew what ever dribble you want over here (and I’m sure your Muslim readers will believe you). You can also see “Fox News”, “Gates of Vienna” , “New York Times”, “Washington Post” etc, are not anti-evolutionary, edited Christian run websites. This is lie number one, and it won’t work. And if I link to Jihad-Watch, and AnsweringMuslims, I also link to IloveMuhammed, and Muslim-Responses and Call-To-Monotheism, these are also all anti-evolutionary websites. Throwing out random red herrings to make me look like a bigot, nice try.
Now lets get to the crux of the matter. Any person who singles out Islamic violence is a hater and we shouldn’t point out only Islamic violence as this is ‘hateful’ and ‘incitement to violence’. Yet you had the audacity to say I should be doing the same to the people who are the real threat, the people with the title “christian”, singling them out, but no that wouldn’t be considered hate or inciting violence now would it? Only when we apply criticism to Islam does it become hate and inciting violence. Your religion is above criticism, we shouldn’t make single websites attacking Islam but only Christianity. Wait Atheists have already and always do criticize Christianity exclusively, and Christians don’t go round inventing new terms like “SonofGodophobic!” or passing off websites focusing on their religion exclusively as “hate websites”, no they debate or interact or dismiss it like any normal westerner. But not you sir, no you and Islam must deserve a special status that no other Christian ever even demanded. No one should focus exclusively on Islam, those are the rules of the Prophet.
And no, no no! 92% of documented honour killings are NOT performed by Muslims, and cross transnational and trans-cultural boundaries right? No we are bad Infidels we shouldn’t mention this fact. I feel so bad now, thank you.
You then use your made up word ‘Islamophobia’, which is laughable, in America alone there are between 400-600 hate crimes against Muslims or Mosques a year which is beneath that of Jews and one of the lowest hate crime percentages in America.
In your stupidity you attribute countries established as secular democracies as “christian armies” attacking Muslim lands. So what that actually means is when the Americans came to aid Muslims in Afghanistan and Bosnia these were actually “Christians” armies, protecting you from extinction and making sure you kept the land. And now these same “Christian” armies want to take over your land, steal your wealth and annihilate you. This must be the brilliant mind of the Lord Jesus, that these Christians are NOT inciting? Phew, thanks for clearing that up. Hey maybe you can explain Thailand for us where there are no big bad Christian invaders, yet the 4.6% percent of the radical Muslim population are executing over and above 4000 Buddhists since 2004. Your blame Christianity excuse won’t work this time.
Then in your own stupidity you deflate real current phenomena with non-existent Apartheid in South Africa, and Australian subjugation of Aborigines and Vietnam! LOL, What’s next the big bad west wants to fight with communist North Korea? No we shouldn’t mention Iran and Iraq went to war, wait, no that was also the direct result of Christianity! haha
Aside from all the dodges, tangents, side screens, ultimately you think that deflecting the issue from and away from facts will actually cause me to not focus on a very serious problem. And it won’t.
You really must be stupid and retarded enough to think that I’m going to buy your smoke screens in bringing up random wars and buy into your claim that violence committed in the name of Islam, or a Muslim government running itself by aspects of Sharia are actually not Islamic, don’t deserve criticism and are nothing to worry about. No one should be able to make single sites dedicated to exposing Islamic world problems, no all of the websites should be solely dedicated to either Christian or Western errors.
And this will always be the mindset of an extremist jack ass. Nothing further need to be said.
Thanks for giving me more kudos by proving my points Nazi – girl!
Just like your crap attempts with the Darwin stuff, you’re comeback was lame but I’ll slap you down again, cos I like my Nazi scalps!
I never told you to single out anyone, Christian or otherwise, I showed the readers that there is a great deal more violence perpetrated by non – Muslims than Muslims, past and present, so that your inappropriate focus on the Muslims while turning a blind eye to the violence against them, which is in fact the dominant concern, meant that you were hate mongering Nazi loser (I included the Communists but you didn’t get back on that, since they killed more people than ANYONE. EVER. And they happen to be atheists).
You’re so weak that you used the lame comment about honour killings despite the fact that I punked you on this: let me repeat your logic, this time for rape: ”If a Muslim rapes someone it MUST be due to his religious status. If anyone else does it, it has NO relationship to his belief system and we should try and blame a Muslim anyway.” As for the 92%, that happened in your (empty) head.
I shouldn’t talk ’bout rape though, it probably gets a Nazi prick like you hard.
I gave you academic references for attacks on Muslims in Europe by the Metropolitan Police Task Force’s academic and lead, and you talk about unsubstantiated stats from and by hater sites in the U.S. Don’t worry, good Nazis used to deny that Jews were being harassed and victimised too, learn well from your masters, Nazi – girl. Same goes for the lame Buddhist claim, the stats are fake and no references, out of the Nazi Handbook of ‘Shit I just Made up to Victimise Minorities’ available from this guys blog. Anyone who wants to know more can read the Wikipedia page or the report by the United States Institute for Peace, which also confirm that most of the targets of the Thai army and Insurgents were Muslims since you don’t know swat about Thailand, including the fact that many Muslims have been massacred and the South was undemocratically taken over by a constitutionally Buddhist monarchy. All you showed is that you are a wannabe genocidal maniac like your idol Hitler by saying that ALL of the 4.6% of Muslims (so the babies as well right? Cos you wanna kill them too…) were ‘involved in killing Buddhists’. Just like your hero thought about ‘all’ Jews. Thanks for giving me more proof of your fascist ideology.
Any number of fake examples you will bring will pale before the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi Muslims, but we already know, you don’t think those guys are human anyway, since you sit around watching old Leni Riefenstahl movies to get yourself off, like a good Nazi – girl.
Your knowledge of history and current affairs is so pathetic as to beggar refutation, but that is expected from someone who probably thinks that ‘Mein Kampf’ is a good staring point for Jewish studies. Americans ‘helping’ in Afghanistan? In Bosnia? Know your history Goebbels? Where were they when the camps were opened or the massacres happened in Srebrinicia? And if non – Muslims do the killing AND the rescuing that makes it o.k? Well, I guess the same was true of the Holocaust, some Christians were killing and others were rescuing (quite a while later), so at least you are logical and consistent in your anti – Semitism, She – Man of the SS.
And according to you the Massacre of the Aboriginals and Vietnam War are not relevant (though your government STILL has not completed reparations). That’s great logic, and the Holocaust must matter even less to you, since it was even longer ago than ‘Nam. And I never said anything about Muslims not killing Muslims (though I punked you out by giving a long list of examples of your xenophobic butt – buddies persecuting groups OTHER than themselves. Buy a dictionary from whatever far – right bookshop you hang out at to pick up Romper – Stompers and look up the word ‘xenophobia’ before you try to step to me again Nazi – girl.
Nuff said, you got META – PUNKED. I’m not gonna waste time on you like those other guys when you ain’t got jack.
Now go home, get a BIG box of tissues and jerk off to your fantasies of Hitler and Mussolini double teaming Pamela Geller while you watch, Nazi loser.
Don’t really see why I should do my homework when you never bother to do yours…
I see those insults aren’t coming along very well either…
In any case, it is still clear that you have failed to define your moral theory, or to argue that it is a desirable outcome. All you could say is that Social Darwinists don’t say that you should kill everyone not in your family. I never said that they did, I told you repeatedly that any morality depending on genetics and evolution must ‘emerge’ out of the necessity to maximise reproductive fitness (or whatever politically correct name you want to give it). So if altruism and helping the handicapped helps you pass on your genes then it is ‘good’. If it gets in the way of that then these things are now ‘bad’. This really is not very hard to understand, you just don’t want to admit it. I have stated it consistently and clearly and you admitted it previously with some caveat that you failed to substantiate. And you keep asking me to prove Social Darwinism or evolutionary theory. If you don’t like the name ‘Social Darwinism’ call it ‘Derek’s Theory of Love’ or whatever, I don’t care.
”What evidence do you have for your position that 1) Genes do not have a wide variety of functions (something you explictly disagreed with) 2) Genes do not seek to reproduce (showing theism accounts for the real objectives of genes, over evolutioanry biology) 3) Al truistic behaviour does not come from genes but rather is assigned and enforced by heaven (genes and moral behaviour are not related, moral behaviour is purely a function of “choice” and “God”)”
(it’s funny how you can’t even SPELL ‘altruism’ or even ‘evolution’. Wait now I’m correcting YOUR homework! Ooops!)
I’m afraid this shows how random you are. I never made any of the three propositions that you insist I respond to. You merely wish I did. When did I say that genes don’t have a wide variety of functions? I merely argued that you lack any conclusive proof that behaviour is exclusively or even largely determined by genetics. As for that stuff about heaven, that’s going on in your head mate. You want to take the argument away to some other field where you think you can win instead of addressing your basis for morality, proving the basis and telling us how the moral theory follows from that ‘fact’. As for your unsupported assertion that a ‘fact’ makes an ‘ought’, that was, as you love to say, ‘non – sequitor’. I already explained this to you clearly and sadly you just didn’t get it.
Flop.
As for your tragic misunderstanding and subjective representation of theistic morals, since I said none of that, I feel no need to correct you!
”The greatest good is determined by the least amount of unnecessary pain”
And who/what expedient determines what amount of pain is ‘necessary’? And your intellectual handicaps are again manifest from the fact that this does not follow from either genetic determinism or evolution. Oh dear.
So since you think you are in a position to set up homework on questions I never cared for nor asked about in the first place, maybe I should ask you to do some of your own, and perhaps get someone to help you since you are not doing too well on your own:
‘Prove a genetic or evolutionary basis for behaviour and show how this is ‘moral’ objectively or otherwise’.
And you can call it whatever silly name you want ‘Behaviourism’, ‘Evolutionary Psyche’, whatever gets you off.
See? As we say in Russia: ‘Simples!’.
I told you that you are not as smart as you think: By taking the discussion away from the point, pretending I contradicted myself, demanding I answer stuff I never said, you just show yourself to be cheap. Repetition and phraseology like ‘damage control’ does not help you in the least and they are lame tricks used by dumb people when they try to hang with people outside of their league after they have taken a few online lessons in NLP. The point is that this is taking place in a public forum and not in your head, where you are some kind of intellectual superhero. Anyone can, for example read the full quotes I posted and see for themselves if there is a contradiction. Merely repeatedly saying it does not help you. Asking me for explanations of stuff I never said, definitions of terms, without ever once doing the same or even once stating your own position, all the while going on about irrelevancies, is just an attempt to make yourself feel clever. No probs mate, I’m happy to help you out.
After all, according to MY moral theory, it’s good to help the handicapped, even at the expense of getting laid!
Well Big Boss you got one thing correct.
Anyone can scroll up and read your posts. And anyone can see “the sole determinant of morality” vs “some determinable functions” are not the same.
Further more, anyone can see your direct responses to me when you responded to my claim that genes have various functions, long term the objective is to reproduce, short term they have other functions, and they can read for themselves whether you think genes have various functions. The art of ducking seems to go well with you.
Now thanks to your crafty silence, everyone can see that you are not denying any of the facts I had mentioned and see that you are bound by all the same difficulties you accuse me of having. In fact the only difference you can clearly identify was that according to your own fabricated opinion I must have a determinist view of genes, but you didn’t explain how your view of morality provides an exception. Nor did you explain how divinely given “free-will” can “sometimes” or “always” override genes that are directly responsible for behavior. Nor do you offer any scientific evidence that this is indeed the case. Nor did you offer evidence for your assertion that materialists must be determinist by logical necessity , in fact your buddy Mr Andalusi provides contrary evidence to this assertion in his debate with Farhan and he explains why the previous research actually don’t falsify genetic free will.
But ultimately your failure to defend your position and world view when asked is not unsurprising, nor is it unsurprising to see you twist this discussion into me providing a moral basis for my world view, when the discussion since I responded to Zaatari was whether belief in evolution logically entails social darwinism, not only can Zaatari not show his conception of social darwinism is made by pioneers of the theory, he (and you for that matter) are incapable of providing an argument that our genetic objectives therefore undermine the merit of morality, in fact you back slide and realized your fallacy, and now continuously use the same fallacy, every time you mention the genetic objectives. In fact since you don’t deny these genetic objectives it’s plausible to think that despite our genes having these objectives you still think that morality still has merit.
So once again. Either show that genes are not seeking to reproduce. Or admit that they are. And stop making a fallacy that moral value is solely therefore determined by genes.
I will have to wait until you do this. As I said earlier you’ve had 5 posts to give evidence for Zaatari’s claim, and you’ve had about 5 posts to demonstrate that your usage of a genetic fallacy should be taken seriously. All and all you get an F. Now I could leave a paragraph of banter at the end of my commentary, but you know what I’ll leave room so that you can provide evidence for a single assertion you’ve made. Lets cut to the chase. Time to back up or shut up. No more strawmen, no more red herrings, no more non-sequitors, actually provide evidence for even one thing you or Zaatari have said.
Oh dear.
Back to the cheap ‘I’m in control here! You do what I tell you!’ Look, all this stuff you learnt from self help classes about how to ‘control’ a conversation and the third rate NLP is of no use to you here.
We have established that your reading comprehension is not good and nor is your writing, though you love to waffle at length. The root cause of this is that your thinking is inadequate to the task. This is why you keep posing questions and answering them yourself and talking about God and the immortal soul when the discussion was about something completely different. This makes you feel clever, but anyone can see otherwise.
You tried to make a case for your theory of morality then failed to justify or even DESCRIBE it. You have yet to understand what a genetic fallacy is despite my numerous attempts to explain it. You keep insisting on a false distinction between Social Darwinism and other theories derived from the the Evolutionary model, this despite me making it abundantly clear that they all amount to the same thing morally. And telling you to call them whatever you want. I clearly showed you time and time again what I thought was the necessary model emerging from your presumed basis.
But you failed to refute it. You failed to provide empirical evidence that genes largely or completely determine behaviour. You failed to show that genetic determinism is true. You failed to show how morality would arise out if it even if it was. You failed to show how morality would arise out of evolution at all. You failed to show how there were ‘other’ precedents besides reproductive fitness in the evolutionary model. You failed to describe the evolutionary model itself. You failed to show how saying genes determine morality in your model is a contradiction to morality emerges from genes in YOUR model. You failed to provide a single academic reference for your ‘widely held’ theories even from the Behavioural Geneticists. You failed to show a mechanism by which genes would effect behaviour. You even failed to show that Bill Gates was an atheist.
You see, you are the one making unsubstantiated claims, I have claimed very little other than to show that what you SEEM to believe (since you don’t want to come off the fence which by now must be causing you a pain in the arse) seems to be incoherent and repugnant. I have allowed you to show otherwise but you have repeatedly failed. You keep asking about 6 points or 3 points or whatever it is now. I only asked you to answer one very simple one and you could not even do that.
You start talking about Andalusi, which is a different debate entirely, you say he is my friend (but that makes sense, since as rashkilnikov showed, you seem to think all Muslims are the same anyway). You will do absolutely anything to avoid addressing the very straightforward issue, which Farhan and the atheist interloper in the debate already did, more honestly and concisely than you: Reproductive fitness is the ‘goal’ of evolution, and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is defined on this basis. It is not ‘objective’ but they don’t care. The End. The guys in the debate clarified and stated their position in two lines but you still won’t do it despite pages and pages of waffling.
Yet you demand ‘evidence’ from me, when anyone can see, you have brought nothing, from the very start.
You see, you are an embarrassment but you don’t comprehend it because the arrogant person cannot improve, he has no insight. You think waffling and trying to have the last word somehow make you ‘right’. Well you are not ‘right’, nor are you ‘wrong’, since you never made an argument in the first place.
LOL!
You guys need to give this guy some respect, he can take a beating!
Takes a licking and keeps on ticking!
Glad some one finds it entertaining.
The longness…the lack of understanding….the self delusion.
Still funny?
I said Raskolnikov was being harsh, but what he says about this man’s website seems to be true: it’s all about Muslims. That last attempt to bring up Thailand proved it: I have lived there for some time (and all over SE asia) and I have never seen the Muslims make trouble except when there is an underlying cause. Most of them are exceedingly poor, don’t have access to education and are horribly looked down on by the Buddhist Thai majority. Also, they are nearly all Muslim Malays who don’t even speak Thai and did not want to be part of the country anyway since they were unfairly annexed in a deal between the British and Thais. There is a history of denial of religious rights and general provocation and massacres against them, so there has been a reaction. But because Buddhist causes elicit more sympathy than Muslim causes in the West, no one cares about the other side (like the Dalia Lama in China gets a lot of sympathy and attention compared to how no – one cares about the Xinjiang situation or general persecutions of Muslims).
This is another example of him being a ‘Nazi’ and trying to encourage trouble against Muslims without looking into the context of the situation, though Raskolnikov corrected him on it anyway, so he failed even in that.
Also, if he is so worried about Thailand, he should write about his own countrymen (Australians) who along with many other (mainly ‘developed’) countries engage in sex – tourism to Thailand, often making use of underage boys and girls. I have seen a lot of this and any honest person who has been to the tourist areas cannot deny it. The Japanese, who are also seen on this kind of ‘tourism’ made an excellent film about this called ‘Yami no kodomo-tachi’ (meaning ‘Children of the Dark’), which I would recommend to people, though it is difficult to sit through.
I don’t want to stereotype Australians, I know in the main they are good people, but it’s easy to try and pick faults in others. And unfortunately there are a lot of racist Australians around: putting children of immigrants and refugees into detention centres and having lot’s of guys like Adams makes that point clear. And it’s not just about Muslims, they also have a lot of hatred for Asians such as the Vietnamese as well and there are numerous attacks on this community, but again, Adam’s whole site is about Muslims as opposed to his own people who are up to very unsavoury things but he does not mention that.
Maybe we should put the whole of Australia into a detention centre, since nearly everyone is an ‘illegal immigrant’ apart from the Aboriginals. Basically, people like Adams love to pick on and blame the minority, whether it’s in Australia or in Thailand.
You are a hater and a liar and you were beaten on your science and your politics. I hate to say this but you deserved the humiliation you got from Raskolnikov and I am glad he did it. Since you like to give ‘homework’ to others, I would say this to you: ‘Must try harder’.
“- Serbian fascism and Christianity’s role in the Bosnian Genocide (Srebrinicia etc.)
- WWII, a largely Christian affair. The fire – bombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of – Nagasaki and Hiroshima (by Christians)
“- US (& Australia’s) war in Vietnam which killed at least 4 – 5 MILLION civilians
- The Philippines war of independence and the massacres by American troops therein
- Killing and forced conversion of Australian Aboriginals
- French Genocide in the Algerian War of Independence/Vietnamese war of independence
- The Lords’ Resistance Army in Africa
- Apartheid in South Africa
- The Rwandan Genocide
- Anders Brevik, a self confessed ‘Crusader’”
The New Testament teaches against the use of violence and separation of Church and State. All the evils mentioned above are condemned by the Mosaic Law and the Sermon on the Mount and the example of the life of Jesus.
“After all, according to MY moral theory, it’s good to help the handicapped, even at the expense of getting laid!”
It might be your moral theory but on what grounds are you claiming it is also the moral theory of Islam?
When did he say anything about the New Testament or Jesus teaching you should invade Vietnam or kill people?
He merely said that these and numerous other bad acts were carried out by people who claim to be Christians. He didn’t say they were GOOD, Jesus emulating Christians.
I think you need to be less defensive and concede that Muslims have not carried out atrocities of such a nature. You are doing a disservice to Christianity by siding with a fascist atheist merely to get one over on the Muslims. Jesus would not condone that. Be fair.
I never said anything about that list you brought up, you need to take it up with the other guy.
And that’s hateful, saying that Islam does not condone helping the handicapped. Shame on you.
I could say a lot about Christianity, Original Sin, massacres in the Old Testament at the ‘command’ of ‘God’/'Jesus’ but I have respect for Christians and know they don’t act like that, so I won’t accuse them of random stuff. I see good in their religion and try to give credit for it.
Sad that some Christians would rather side with an atheist (without good reason) than have a good word to say about their Muslim brothers.
I guess you think atheists have a great moral basis, since you singled the Muslims out for criticism. You are free to think that. It’s just not very Christian though.
Congratulation to MDI,
MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner…. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.(Qureshi)
To receive an honor from enemy is good thing. To gain respect from opponent is not easy.
Peace
@Big Boss,
I lumped my replies to both comments together assuming it would be clear that I was replying to two different commentators.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe in Allah or that Mohammed was a prophet. I believe Allah in the Koran is Mohammed’s concept of what God is. I agree with Derek Adams on this.
Are you claiming there are no massacres in the Koran? Who massacred the disbelievers and their families after the warners had warned them and they chose not to believe the prophet?
I would still like to know why a Muslm should help an handicapped person according to the Koran.
Very sad. Shameful dislike of Islam bubbling up for no reason. The debate was nothing to do with Allah or Muhammad (pbuh) and adams did not even bring this up.
Very un – Christian.
I’m afraid it isn’t clear at all, so you needed to make the distinction instead of lumping all Muslims together like your friend Mr Adams.
I don’t see what the point is about saying that you don’t believe in Allah or Muhammad (PBUH), that is abundantly clear. What exactly are you addressing by saying this and who said that you did? Recall the discussion between the atheist chap and myself was not about Allah or Muhammad (PBUH), so your agreeing or disagreeing with him vis – a – vis this is of no consequence and it is bizzare that you even mention this.
If you want to know why the Quran says you should help disabled people, you can find out for yourself by reading IT as opposed to missionary sites ABOUT IT, I feel no need to point out something so glaringly obvious.
There are no massacres of innocents (children, innocent men, women etc.) in the Quran whatsoever, since The Quran never specifies that the people of Noah, Lot, Thamud or the others were killed to a person INCLUDING the innocents. It also does not mention anything about the killing of the first born of Egypt etc.
LOL!
That reply from was even more brutal than the first post. You beat that guy like a rented mule!
‘She – Man of the SS’, ‘Nazi girl’!!!! Tooooooo good!
a rented mule? Where can I rent one?
“There are no massacres of innocents (children, innocent men, women etc.) in the Quran whatsoever, since The Quran never specifies that the people of Noah, Lot, Thamud or the others were killed to a person INCLUDING the innocents.”
I see. They were massacred for the thought crime of not being pure monotheists. That was very merciful and just of Allah.
Wow, despite Boss’ attempt to respectfully correct you, your cup overfloweth with hate!
Where does the Quran say it killed the families of the disbelievers or children (who are ALL innocent in Islam, unlike Christianity)?
Let’s have a look at the incidents in question, as a means or demonstrating that you are a lying embarrassment to Christians. I have deliberately selected the most ‘genocidal’ quotes (Asad’s translation mainly):
”Verily, thy Sustainer alone is powerful, almighty! (11:67) And the blast [of God's punishment]
overtook those who had been bent on evildoing: and then they lay lifeless, in their very homes,
on the ground,” (11:68)
‘overtook those who had been bent on evildoing’. Oh dear, no mention of innocent women and children. Especially with Muslims having missed out on that whole Original Sin thing and believing that all children are SINLESS…
11:94 And so, when Our judgment came to pass, by Our grace We saved Shu’ayb and those who shared his faith, whereas the blast [of Our punishment] overtook those who had been bent on evildoing: and then they lay lifeless, in their very homes, on the ground,(11:95) as though they had never lived there.
Ooops, only ‘evildoers’ killed again (i.e. no children according to Islam but not Christianity).
Hmmm…not believing in Original Sin seems to be giving us a bit of a get out clause. It’s a bit unfair I know.
7:64 And yet they gave him the lie! And so We saved him and those who stood by him, in the ark, the while We caused those who had given the lie to Our messages to drown: verily, they were blind folk!
21:76 And [remember] Noah – [how,] when He called out [unto Us], long before [the time of
Abraham and Lot], We responded to him and saved him and his household from that awesome calamity; and [how] We succoured him against the people who had given the lie to
Our messages: verily, they were people lost in evil – and [so] We caused them all to drown.
Hmm, the only people who drowned were those ‘lost in evil’. Why oh why aren’t you mentioning children God?! Why are you so unhelpful?!
7; 71 Said [Hud]: “You are already beset by loathsome evils and by your Sustainer’s
condemnation! Do you argue with me about the [empty] names which you have invented-
you and your forefathers – for which God has bestowed no warrant from on high? Wait, then,
[for what will happen:] verily, I shall wait with you!”And so, by Our grace, We saved him and those who stood by him, the while We wiped out the last remnant of those who gave the lie to Our messages and would not believe.
Ah, finally there it is, wiped out the last remnant!..Oops, sorry! Last remnant only of ‘those who gave a lie to Our messages AND would not believe’. My bad.
Your allusions are a missionary fantasy: the Quran never specifies that the people of Noah,Lot, Thamud or the others were killed to a person, including the innocents. You merely wish this was the case since this is what ‘Jesus’ commanded in the Bible, along with wholesale genocide and rape, although he had a change of heart in the New Testament but it appears he will suffer a relapse according to the book of Revelations when he will start throwing people (children? women?) into lakes of sulphur.
It is notable that you expect us to believe that Jesus is God and he was with God since the beginning. Oh REALLY?!! Then according to you, as ‘Co – equal’ he also commanded the death of the innocent first born children of Pharaoh’s people. Not very merciful is it? It’s strange how when ‘God’ does something violent in the Bible, Christians call him ‘God’ and not ‘Jesus’. Funny that. And here’s me thinking they were one and the same…
There is also another interesting difference between the Bible and the Quran: in the Quran, God does his OWN dirty work, but in the Bible ‘Jesus’ sometimes farms it out to others:
Numbers 31:13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
At least we could argue that Allah has a right to take life, having given it in the first place and being able to restore it. However, the delegation of the killing is a Biblical phenomenon. The bit about the girls is also very un – Jesus like. But then didn’t Jesus say:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”?
Maybe Paul will condemn the OT teachings:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Or not.
You see, the Bible is very keen to mention Children and women and be specific whereas the Quran keeps going on about how God kills ‘evildoers’.
Deuteronomy 20:10–14
… When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
‘Enjoying …CHILDREN’!?
To paraphrase you: That was very merciful and just of ‘Jesus’.
Reading comprehension seems to be a big problem on this post. I already told you that innocents, such as ALL children and any women, or men, who were not evildoers (‘evildoers’ does not mean non – Muslim but simply ‘evildoers’), were NOT killed.
You are lacking in intelligence or integrity or both, since you read what I said and you claim: ‘I see’ and then make the converse point to my own.
The other commonality between yourself and the atheist (who interestingly was accused of being a crypto – Christian…) is that the discussion seems to take place in your head, irrespective of what the other person is saying. You just pretend that they said what you wanted them to and carry on with your nonsense.
But nothing better can be expected of a pseudo – Christian (or maybe you are a crypto – atheist if you prefer) who thinks it’s a good idea to team up with atheists to bash Muslims (and then fails).
Like Tsurugi99 said: very un – Christian.
‘Jesus’ Loves His Enemies and is The Prince of Peace:
Revelations 19;
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in mid-air, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshipped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.”
”He even massacres the poor slaves who were fighting unwillingly. Cold. Brutal. Savage. Horrific. Other cheek not turned on this occasion etc. etc.” That’s what a person like Erasmus would say if he were Muslim, but we Muslims know that Christians are not like that and nor is Jesus (pbuh): Now learn some manners from the Quran erasmus you ignoramus:
”But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of
spite, and in ignorance:” (Quran 6:108)
Back to the subject of this thread. How does Islam solve the problem of evil?
1. Define evil.
Evil is the kafir not believing what he ought to believe and submitting to Allah.
2. Send the prophet to warn the kafir.
If kafir says not today thank you that is not acceptable. Ummah is hungry for booty. No time to wait for the right answer from kafir.
3. Set a deadline for kafir and go in to Jihad modus.
Allah did jihad himself before Mohammed. When Mohammed came along Allah farmed it out to him because he was so good at it. Now it is the Ummah’s job cos there’s no caliph.
Problem of evil solved.
I see you are trying to be ‘cool’ like your atheist boyfriend, who at least had the good sense to run away after being soundly corrected. Also, much like Adams, you are trying to be insulting and are not good at it.
As for keeping to the topic, anyone can see who started talking about Islam for no reason and then was humiliated for his/her/its lack of knowledge. BTW, good defence of Christian doctrine.
Not.
As a member of the ‘Church of Moron and Latter Day Idiots’, you are mistakenly applying Christian definitions of evil to Islam: in Islam, evil is in fact bad deeds such as murder, rape, racism etc. unlike Christianity, in which the only bad deed is the thought crime of not believing in Christ as a substitutive sacrifice atoning for all sin. According to you, anyone who believes this is no longer even CAPABLE of being evil anymore, even if they commit serial rape or genocide. So I am afraid it’s YOU as a representative of Christianity who has the idea that the only ‘evil’ is the thought crime of not believing in Christ’s sacrifice, for which, as the guy rightly pointed out above, Christians are willing to kill anyone who denies it.
Let’s face facts: you don’t even HAVE a moral theory to speak of and you want to talk trash about Islam.
Weak.
I never said your straw-man performance was worth responding to. The post above it, already corrects most of the errors you made. It was entertaining though =) So is your post below.
“Our messages: verily, they were people lost in evil – and [so] We caused them all to drown.
Hmm, the only people who drowned were those ‘lost in evil’. Why oh why aren’t you mentioning children God?! Why are you so unhelpful?!”
Hmm, lost in evil. I wonder what that evil was. Were they rapists, serial killers, paedophiles I wonder? Or did they sacrifice their children? Or did they beat their wives? No of course not. It had nothing to do with their moral behaviour or character. They had the audacity to make their own mind up about whether what Allah’s prophet was telling them was the truth or not. O what evil people. Making a free choice about religion. Like I said they were put to death for the thought crime of not believing Islam. Nothing more evil than this. I agree they deserved to die and go straight to the flames.
Maybe you should ask ‘Jesus’ the same question.
Oh, my bad, you are asking if the dead people in the Quran were rapists or not, and your alleged ‘Jesus’ actually approves and commands rape and mass murder in Numbers. And that business about ‘enjoying’ children…no comeback, all you can do is try to attack Islam again, and badly at that.
And as for being killed for thought crimes, what crime does ‘Jesus’ kill ALL those people (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Zoroastrians…) for in Revelations?
You are a delusional idiot.
Revelations 19;
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war…………….
Why couldn’t the great prophet of Islam give us his apocalyptic vision of the last great day of judgement? No visions of the future, no healings, no predictions. A prophet worth his salt can do better than that.
@Eramus,
You never read book of prophecy in Islam?
Go to Islamic bookstore ask for “book related to judgement day”. You can find book as thick as 2 inches talk about a vision of today, prophecy, Judgement Day.
No healing miracle? You need to read more… Don’t be lazy to read.
Well said hifzan
If i am correct Jesus warns of the false prophets. As for the healing thing try the Bible where it says that Jesus will banish the followers who would come to him wailing ab the wonders they did in his name.
Wonder whether these televangelist like Sweggart nd benny hen do their homework when they jump up and down with all the miracles they did and ask ppl to donate or convert to christianity when in reality they are cheap parlor phony tricks.
True test is the test of result, One man One Book created greatest civilization in the history of mankind that existed till 1924 around 1200 yrs(from its inception). Nd guess what we didnt depend on cosntantine to shuffle our religion as he wish and then integrate as the state religion and create the civilization, nor was our holy scripture written by some one who never saw Jesus (if you are guessing who is it its your dear uncle Paul).
Nd like bro Hifzan said there are ample prophecies in the prophetic sayings(Hadith) and the Holy Quran.
That was some over kill brothers
.
nd i really dont get this PROBLEM of Evil. Y is this a problem?
God created free will. If free will exist there is always a scope for doing things the wrong way.
Ergo we are the perpetrator of Evil Not God.
Thats y we will face the Day of Judgement.
Ofcourse there are the concepts of satan and all but in islamic concepts he(satan) became what he is due to his exercise of free will and not obeying God.
as for chrsitianity its pretty pathetic to see them being the tail of the atheist to bash Islam and then get bashed instead
“Deuteronomy 20:10–14
… When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
‘Enjoying …CHILDREN’!?”
I don’t accept the authority of your translation.
kjv “But the women , and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”
“‘Jesus’ actually approves and commands rape and mass murder in Numbers.”
Where?
“And as for being killed for thought crimes, what crime does ‘Jesus’ kill ALL those people (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Zoroastrians…) for in Revelations?”
Well, at least Jesus has enough patience to wait until the end of the world when he returns. Not like your prophet, and those whose duty it is to emulate him.
“According to you, anyone who believes this is no longer even CAPABLE of being evil anymore, even if they commit serial rape or genocide.”
I did not claim this. All I am saying is that such things are condemned in the Mosaic law. Serial rape is a reward for the mujahadeen in Islam. Whether you like it or not. A divine judgement is the right of God to carry out by human means or without human means. It would be breaking the law to do it without the specific command of God.
@Eramus,
Well, at least Jesus has enough patience to wait until the end of the world when he returns. Not like your prophet, and those whose duty it is to emulate him.
Then, what are your religion doing for 2000 years, just waiting for Jesus to come and save your people for a few years? Then, the purpose of Christianity is wait for their whole life. Is it a loser way of living?
If he don’t come? Yes, of course he will come back, but do you think he will accept a bigoted Gentiles like you? From my observation of your bible, Jesus follower are being channel with “holy spirit” and make people “move” (Acts 4:8). From your words, you are being channel with “evil spirit”. Are you really Jesus follower?
Serial rape is a reward for the mujahadeen in Islam.
Can you give an evidence to support your statement? Or you just ramped like bull?
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
New International Version (NIV)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
NIV is at present the most authoritative translation of the Bible
pulling a wool over our eyes is the best that you can do it seems. KJV has grave defects in translation RSV has this specific phrase”grave defect” when it adjectifies KJV
its not our translation its your authoritative scholars and from your most authoritative version of today
//Well, at least Jesus has enough patience to wait until the end of the world when he returns. Not like your prophet, and those whose duty it is to emulate him.//
some patience indeed, didnt he order Moses and other prophet to plunder cities?
try the 2samuel where even the cattles and oxes are not to be spared
//Numbers 31:17-18
“Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
//
what did the little ones do to deserve this eh?
Rape you say?
//Judge 19
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.//
//Well, at least Jesus has enough patience to wait until the end of the world when he returns. Not like your prophet, and those whose duty it is to emulate him.//
so you are accepting that mass killing by Jesus to come is justified eh?
do you even know the total count of death in all of the wars that prophet (saw) had to go through?
1500 only and that number includes the muslims. most of the wars were defensive and the rest were all provoked by the non muslim tribes.
and by some weird reason that s the fault of the Prophet but the atrocities committed in OT is all justified
some moral epistemology you guys adhere to
problems with the christians are they try to throw stones while they live in Glass house
Excellent reply
HAHAHAHAH!
That’s it, all you can come up with? You ADMIT that ‘Jesus’ is a genocidal maniac? And you keep asking where in Numbers he commands rape, I already showed you but eat it again waster:..:
Numbers again:
31. And Moses and Eleazar did as the LORD commanded Moses
35. And thirty two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man by laying with him.
Learn to read man: The ‘Lord’ commands Moses to divide up the human spoils, most of whom are specified to be attestable virgins as well as the material spoils amongst the people and leave a portion (of virgins?) for God. It tells us again that the division was carried out as the Lord specified. The Lord continues to instruct Moses after the initial (genocide, massacre, misunderstanding?) but at no point censures any of his action, so the communication with the Lord seems to be ongoing and approving throughout.
And WHO is this ‘LORD’? Well, it is the ‘pre – eternal Jesus’ is it not? Thus you accuse Jesus of commanding rape. While contradictorily saying that rape is condemned in the Mosaic law. Idiotic.
And you accuse me of translating the Bible? Are you saying I wrote the New Living Translation? Thanks for the credit! I hope I can get some royalties. You’re so in denial at the genocidal attributes of your ‘Lord Jesus’ that you don’t see that your KJV translation makes it WORSE for you:
”But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”
Hmmm…even take the ‘spoil of the children’, like what, ‘Jesus’ wants you to steal their toys or something?!?!
You see, Muslims have more class than wasters like you, we don’t accuse our teacher Jesus (PBUH) of messed up stuff like that.
As for you retarded assertion that the Mujahiddeen are allowed to rape as a ‘reward’, unlike the Bible, Islam actually makes CONSENT a necessary condition before sex with women:
The Prophet (but not ‘Jesus’) said:
”If the man has had intercourse with the female slave forcibly then the slave is free…but if the slave had agreed to the act then she belongs to him”
Whereas the Bible does not mention consent of slaves (or even free women) EVEN ONCE: in fact you get to marry a girl if you rape her:
Deuteronomy 22:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Good deal…for the rapist. Now you guys know how to get the girl of your dreams…according to Christians you should rape her, and then she will have to marry you!
“Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”
Are you making Jehovah responsible for the cruelty of the Assyrians?
“24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.//”
Again are you making Jehovah responsible for this behaviour? Why don’t you just say that the Christian God of the Bible is the author of all evil that is recorded in the Bible?
“and the rest were all provoked by the non muslim tribes.”
Yes there is always a provocation before every evil act. Without the provocation it would not have occured. The provocation can never be resisted, it is always too powerful, at least for some.
“Serial rape is a reward for the mujahadeen in Islam.
Can you give an evidence to support your statement? Or you just ramped like bull?”
Bukhari vol 7, book 62, number 137:
“Receiving female slaves as shares of spoils of war, we would practice coitus interruptus with them to avoid unwanted pregnancy ( so the price of the slave would not go down ). We asked Mohammed his opinion, and he asked us three times, “Do you really remove yourself?” He then said, “No soul that is not preordained to exist will be created.”
what are you a nut job?
i am asking for a punishment from God for the cruelty committed.
What punishment is offered, is the act encouraged or discouraged?
as for sex with captives its there in the Old testament, according to Jesus every jot of the law should be obeyed, so how come Islam is highlighted here?
If its there in your Book Y are you pointing at Islam and say something is wrong there?
its either you dont know the scriptures or you are a hypocrite
Doesn’t say anything about consent dumbo.
Just because you receive female captives (which you like to translate as slaves but ho – hum) does not mean you automatically rape them like inn the Bible. You need to stop applying Christian standards to your exegesis. You see, Muslims don’t have sex without consent or if any force has to be applied. It doesn’t say ‘we forced ourselves on our female slaves’. You are applying your own sex fantasies to the hadith.
Show me a hadith or any passage where it says you can force yourself on any woman, like what it says in the Bible. Also show me where it says you should only save ‘virgins’ as your slaves, like ‘Jesus’ instructed you inn the Bible.
Consent seems to be a big sticking point for you Erasmus. I hate to think what your date for Senior Prom went through!
@Eramus,
Thank for additional “so the price of the slave would not go down” to Bukhari vol 7, book 62, number 137:
It suppose to be:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.” (Bukhari vol 7, book 62, number 137)
This hadith talking about permission of coitus interruptus.
but there are hadith talking trading slave about, the answer to your statement “Serial rape is a reward for the mujahadeen in Islam.” The answer from The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it.”
Bukhari vol 3, book 34, number 432
that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
For me, to change and manipulate scripture to win debate is unethical. But may be, it already in your blood, so never mind.
Actually, you should learn more, at least get a decent knowledge. I am not good in English, but still I can differentiate between two hadiths is talking about different thing, dont you?
i dont understand why christians started a debate here when the topic is dealing mainly with atheism.
Either he cant read or he is a crypto atheist
“Good deal…for the rapist. Now you guys know how to get the girl of your dreams…according to Christians you should rape her, and then she will have to marry you!”
The verses that you missed out show that a consensual act is described in verse 28.
v 25-26:
“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter”.
The other verses show clearly that there is no rape involved if the woman resists her attacker or screams for help and this must be taken in to account. As verse 28 makes no mention of this it is clearly is not the case of a rape which is described there.
Take and rape are two different words if you didn’t know. Go finish your education.
“The other verses show clearly that there is no rape involved if the woman resists her attacker or screams for help”
Should be “that there is rape involved if the woman resists her attacker or screams for help”