Total posts: 407
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Would be a statement or principle that is not necessarily always considered to be true.
No, it has to be considered as true but is a matter of personal perspective. For example to a devout Christian, God’s existence is an unquestionable truth but to an agnostic it is a position of uncertainty and therefore not a truth, and to an atheist it is a falsehood.
Existence is a fact........I think.
I would think so to, “I think therefore I am … I think.”
And time.Well, we can take a word, a concept, and modify them accordingly.So, time can still be a constant and also relative to our point of reference.Or our point of reference relative to the inevitability/constant of time.We can also similarly, propose the same of space.Such is freedom of thought.One doesn't have to be buggered by Albert Einstein.
I just realised, for anyone who may be confused,“buggered up” is a British colloquialism, it simply means “ruined” and is nothing to do with Einstein’s sexual preference
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything is real within it's own context, within the context of the Universe.Does that mean everything is true.Objective and subjective are just words coined to propose subtle differences in the understanding of data input..I think therefore I am.I am therefore I think.
What is truth, to avoid equivocation, two basic definitions.
1. A statement or principle that is generally considered to be true:
2. That which exists as a fact:
The first is down to perception and a good example would be “time.”Time was believed to be a constant; this was seen as a fact and one that conformed to our rational, common sense way of looking at things. Then Albert Einstein came along and buggered that up and we now see time as being relative to our point of reference, basically where we are. There are still plenty of people who don’t accept that, as to them it still seems irrational.
The second is that which exists as a fact but may be beyond our ability to perceive it.
As you say:
“I think therefore I am.
I am therefore I think.”
This is perhaps the only reality we are capable of perceiving to be a fact. For all we know we may exist as something akin to a self-aware computer program and all we perceive as existing is just part of that program.
The problem with humans is we evolved to hunt animals and in doing so it seems to have boosted our intelligence to what we see as a very high level but it may not be sufficient for us to comprehend what is the truth of that which exists as a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
Truth is objective, whatever reality is that is truth, however our perception of what is truth is probably subjective. Will we ever know what is the truth … maybe not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I beg to differ I questioned covid science and was labeled a science denier by most of the top leaders of this country. That is exactly is how science works
To rectify my original comment, “there are no absolute rights and wrongs.” I was in error, while there are no absolute facts, things can be proven wrong.
As I don’t know what evidence you based your questioning of covid science, I can’t really comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Wait, I thought this was settled science. Never question covid science, not ever. Don't ever question any science. Science never lies and is never wrong. Well until it is shown that they lied and were wrong.
That’s not how science works, there are no absolute rights and wrongs. Science is driven by enquiry and if you have a proven fact then you have the answer and having the answer would mean you need look no further, this would limit enquiry. That is why science only has provision for hypotheses and theories rather than proven facts. Science has to keep an open mind that even the most accepted theory may be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The problem with your point about empathy is that others so-called empathy vanishes once they’ve forced the girl/woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Once the child is born, those people wash their hands of that empathy and don’t give a second thought towards the life-long well-being or suffering of that child. Therein lies the hypocrisy of their “empathy.”
I think that is a valid point and I wouldn’t dispute it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The fetus has no rights, legal or otherwise.Empathy has no basis in this argument. It is quashed by the woman’s personal Liberty rights, as outlined in #42. As such, the rest of your comment is rendered moot.
If rights are made in law, then if the law says it has rights it does,but if the law says it doesn’t then it doesn’t.
If empathy isn’t a factor then what drives people support the rights of the fetus or alternatively the rights of the woman’
Created:
Posted in:
If a woman chose to have sex, then it is not against her will.
Has nothing to do with forcing a woman to carry a child against her will or her choice not to do so.
This argument doesn't hold any standing ground, because for all of history, and today, some races and cultures are not allowed the right to life in those country's, even though they are already born humans. So the law isn't a good base for this argument, because the law can change, and peoples standards, can use this claim to take over and do a lot of things.The whole point of America, isn't to follow the law blindly. The people make the law based on what they think is morally right or wrong so they argue it in court.So this argument wouldn't work.
That different countries may have different laws doesn’t contradict my point that rights are founded in law.
Both. The mother won't die and wont be pregnant forever, and she won't even have to keep the child after. She can give it up for adoption.The decision that she made she has to live with.You don't get to kill something just because of convenience.
That forcing a woman to carry a child against her will isn’t a mater of life a death is irrelevant as to whether there are any intrinsic or basic rights regarding the right to life.
My point is that whether you are either pro-choice or anti-abortion is down to whether you empathise with the fetus or the woman forced to carry a child against her will.
Your comments don’t really seem to relate to my post. In that I’m not taking sides just putting forward what I see as an objective assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
I think the abortion argument is a difficult one. Basically, it is the right of the fetus to life versus forcing a woman to carry a child against her will.
Firstly does the fetus have a right to life? I would say that rights only exist in law. So if the law decrees that a fetus has a right to life then it does, but if the law decrees that it has no right to life then it doesn’t. The right to life in law is simply a requirement used so that society can function.
Is there any evidence of intrinsic or basic rights that exist independently to any laws? Regarding the right to life, this like many moral principles is based on empathy, an inherent trait that enables you to identify with other people and produces a desire to help and protect them; although these feelings may very in intensity depending on person and circumstances.
So if it is down to empathy, then who does one empathise with, is it the fetus or is it the woman forced to carry a child against her will? To me there seems to be no right or wrong on this and it is down to sentiment and opinion.
There are those who for religious reasons oppose abortion because they claim it conflicts with their belief in the sanctity of human life, unfortunately that belief seems rarely consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So would I. But how would you go about it?Have you ever heard this BBC pinup boy, Medhi Hasan? Has was the "go _ to" Muslim when ever the issue of Islam /Muslims hit the head lines. he is always referred to as a ' moderate Muslim'. I think it was Dr David Starkey that put him back in his box and exposed him for what he really is on BBC's Question Time. I believe Hasan works for Al-Jazeera now?On non Muslims living like animals
Firstly there should be a policy that insures all schools are inclusive and open to students of all faiths. Getting children from different beliefs, faiths and ethnic backgrounds to mix would go a long way to encouraging integration. Then introduce a secular national curriculum where religion is only taught within the context of history.
Regarding the video and Medhi Hasan, we all know these extremists exist, they are a menace and they are the ones that get all the media attention. The majority of Muslims in this country who simply get on with their lives and cause no problems are not newsworthy.
Created:
Posted in:
So you would abolish Islamic Madrasa's - Faith Schools?
I would like to see all faith schools abolished, religion should be kept out of mainstream education, it should be reserved to the churches, mosques, synagogues etc or at home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you would abolish Islamic Madrasa's - Faith Schools?I remember in around 2015 there were around 2,000 Madrassa's - Faith Schools in the UK with between 350-500 children being instructed in Islamic Shariah .And I think I remember that after a damming under cover documentary (it may have been Dispatches called Lessons in Hatred and Violence?) exposing that children as young as 5 being taught to hate the west ,the unbeliever, Indians and Jews, that government plans to "regulate" these schools didn't go down too well, although the documentary did lead to one or two of the 2,000 being closed.This may have been it.
Thanks, that is interesting. The Dispatches documentary mentioned in the article appears not to be available on Channel 4 but I managed to track it down online, it is pretty appalling stuff. Apparently the headmaster was jailed, he got 10 weeks, it should have been 10 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So how would you go about implementing "total" secularist education on Muslims that refuse to accept it ?
By the fact that it is secular there is nothing to impose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What would be the goals?
Create a more harmonious relationship within society and reduce the inclination propensity towards Islamophobia, which should mean “fear of Muslims,” the hate comes later, and to reduce the possibility of more Muslims being drawn into radicalisation.
And I do hope you are not accuse me of vilifying "all Muslims".
And “no,” I try to avoid personal attacks when debating and concentrate on the actual arguments.
What about what the Muslims want?
They probably wouldn’t like it, but then neither would the Catholics or CofE schools. Slightly off topic but I would also like to see the removal of all private schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Regarding these links:
The second link is a pamphlet produced by the Fraser Institute, which is a right-wing think tank that promotes climate change denial and is funded by Exxon Mobil amongst others … hopefully I need say no more.
The first link is from the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) so possibly a bit more dependable. Most of what it says is in keeping with the present scientific consensus. The article is written by journalist and they do sometimes resort to emotive language for example “save the planet” does suggest total annihilation of all life forms but as I said “I don’t think any scientists have actually predicted the end of the world.” What is worth looking at is the report mentioned in the article that is the source of its information, referred to as “a chilling report,” as I said, emotive language.
Here is a link to that report:
It is from the IPPC and I would recommend Chapter 3 section 3.4 “Observed Impacts and Projected Risks in Natural and Human Systems.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If the world Bank Accepts the fate of Climate Change, then why are they giving out loans, that surpass the time the world will inevitably end
I don’t think any scientists have actually predicted the end of the world and I just checked your previous post.
The "professionals" claim that in acouple of decades, Icecaps will melt and that will raise ocean levels, to about5 ft higher or such. If that really was a threat, you wouldn't beable to get a loan, because the banks would basically be throwing away money ifthey did. The banks know this is BS, because otherwisethey would be giving out loans.
I was so busy refuting the 5ft level if the ice capes melt, I overlooked that you were using it to validate your theory abut the banks, my mistake. The 5ft level within the two decade time period is wrong.
This is from NASA:
“By 2050, sea level along contiguous U.S. coastlines could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) above today’s waterline, according to researchers who analyzed nearly three decades of satellite observations.”
So considering the time period and that a twelve inch rise would only really effect low lying regions there probably wouldn’t be anything in the immediate future to prevent the banks from offering loans.
Good article from Scientific American it doesn’t refute the predictions regarding climate change just the over the top doomsday prophecies that are mainly media driven.
Created:
Posted in:
I agree. Then grow a thicker skin.
Not sure why I would need a thicker skin against irrelevancies, that really make no sense at all.
Encouraged by whom?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Government policies, local communities, the media and from within the Muslim community itself. The first step would to stop vilifying all Muslims and attacking their faith, integration works two ways.
I don’t know if you have Islamic schools in the US but one thing we need here in the UK is totally secular education.
As to the Didsbury Mosque, here is a comment from the chair of trustees at that mosque. So perhaps they are not all radicals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Elliot, stop being a total idiot
Please don’t waste your time trying to insult me; your opinion of me is irrelevant.
As to not facing the facts, the fact that I face and my main contention and it isn’t that I have a fondness for Islam, it is as I have said previously that all this anti-Islam rhetoric can only help promote a vicious circle of hate that can only encourage further radicalisation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But if the climate crisis was a real threat, then why wouldn't the banks be freaking out?The banks are smart, and if they did see a real threat to their money, then they would be stopping loans.But they know it's all BS, because if it wasn't they would be doing something about it.
Why aren’t the banks freaking out.
Because climate change is outside their field of expertise.
Because banks are notoriously short-termist and they see the negative effects of climate change as being a distant future prospect that can be ignored.
Perhaps some of them are stupid and they refuse to accept all the scientific evidence.
However, The World Bank seems to accept the reality of climate change.
Also lets not forget that these so called "climate scientists" said that the world was going to end in ten years about 15 years ago. So I wouldn't trust them either.
As far as I am aware they have said nothing of the sort. Most climate models have been remarkably accurate in their predictions even those dating back to the 1970s, but climate deniers only like to focus on the few that haven’t and then spread the myth that they don’t work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
From the BBC "A suspect was identified, who was also a child, and they were given words of advice by an officer." So not hordes of radical Islamists out to get him.
Then we have the “Daily Mail.” A comic for right-wing morons, so I will disregard that one.
And next we have the National Secular Society, and one local councillor, Usman Ali who is having a bit of a rant to try and exploit the situation.
There are plenty of examples of radical Islam, there are authoritarian theocracies, the Taliban and the Islamic State etc, without people, mainly the media making mountains out of molehills.
Maybe that councillor should be suspended though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Another reason why I know this global warming crisis isn't really a crisis, is because take a look at our banks.The "professionals" claim that in a couple of decades, Icecaps will melt and that will raise ocean levels, to about 5 ft higher or such.If that really was a threat, you wouldn't be able to get a loan, because the banks would basically be throwing away money if they did.The banks know this is BS, because otherwise they would be giving out loans.
Bankers are not climate scientists and Banks still have still have vast financial interests in the promotion of fossil fuels.
Again, the banks and companies would be acting very differently if this was the case.
As to the article from “Investor’s Business Daily” as soon as it mentioned “ Real Climate Science” and Tony Heller, who also isn’t a climate scientist, it lost any credibility.
A final point, if all the ice caps melt the sea level is expected to rise not 5 feet but somewhere between 60 and 70 meters that is up to around 200 to 230 feet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She also addressed those misgivings in her video.But it does debunk the idea that the heating effect could have a "runaway" aspect as it is not the same process of a greenhouse at all.In a sane world, both deniers, and doomsayers should be debunked in equal measure.
I didn’t really get that she debunked runaway effect from watching the video.
I found this; it is worth watching where Sabine Hossenfelder addresses and acknowledges the prospect of tipping points which could cause such a runaway effect.
"Path Dependence and Tipping Points." A video with accompanying text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I saw a really cool video (no pun intended) explaining that rising CO2 concentrations do not technically prevent heat from escaping; it just forces heat to escape at a higher altitude which rebalances thermodynamic equations to cause surface temperatures to rise. So the actual physics are technically not like a greenhouse at all.Fascinating stuff.You can skip ahead to the 10 minute mark (the PhD breakdown) depending on your knowledge.
Interesting stuff, I watched the whole thing, thanks. Possibly a bit heavy going in places but she is an excellent teacher.
I had one misgiving as I watched it and that is her research could probably be used by those people and organisations who deny or try to dismiss the importance of global warming, which is not what she was saying, she is not contesting that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to warming, she is simply explaining her theory on the mechanism involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I halfway agree. The amount of CO2 that we emit to the atmosphere doesn't really make an impact on our planet's ozone layer.It does make an impact but won't have any dire consequences until about maybe a couple decades.
Co2 isn’t like the CFC’s and has no direct impact on the ozone layer. Co2 is a greenhouse gas which prevents heat from escaping. This link explains it better:
A couple of decades isn’t a very long time and we are already seeing the effects of global warming on the climate.
I would disagree with that. I think it's just bad timing with our fossil fuels and the earth naturally heating up.But even if that were to be true, if we were to stop all carbon emissions right now, it wouldn't help with the problem at all. It wouldn't make a difference, so having natural resources, that still require carbon emissions, wouldn't help either.
I have come across the argument that it’s all part of a natural cycle by way of explanation many times, but natural cycles have a cause and unless you identify that cause it explains nothing. So what is causing the earth to naturally heat up, and as we are entering a period known as a “solar minimum”things should be cooling but they aren’t. Also, although we have had past periods of global warming, not regional ones, they occur over long periods of time, thousands of years but what is taking place now with global warming is happening very quickly.
As our use of fossil flues to provide energy has been identified as the main cause for the rise in Co2 and global warming, then reducing and eventually eliminating their use should most definitely help alleviate that problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Wind energy isn't a reliable source of energy, and the parts it takes to make them are not environmentally friendly.Wind energy just itself causes bird migration problems, only works when it's a windy day, and the materials used to make the wind turbines cause a lot of detrimental pollution to our sky's.
Wind energy isn’t the total solution; one thing we are not short of in the UK is wind. I have no objection to nuclear even Greta Thunberg has no objection to that and if we ever develop fusion reactors, that will alleviate the energy problem, but we do need an alternative to fossil fuels.
As for bird deaths, wind turbines do kill birds but domestic cats and fossil-fuel powered plants have resulted in far more bird deaths.
Yes.Global Warming does indeed exist no doubt, but it has always existed no matterwhat we did to it. Us as humans have really only contributed like not even 1%to Global Warming. It's all natures doing.I say we should let nature take its course,and do things to be healthier, but we shouldn't try to push an agenda or forcepeople to change how they live, because of a lie that the world is ending soon.
That the climate has always changed is a fact but there is always a cause and the consensus of well over 90% of climate scientists accept that the main cause is human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Renewable energy is not clean at all. Although while in use, renewable doesn’t emit anything, they do emit during development. Ed Ireland, PhD at Texas Christian University, said,“The reality is that wind and solar are dependent on fossil fuels. They cannot exist without oil and natural gas."Renewable Energy that they are promising are actually more dirty than fossil fuels.The Apocalyptic Claims about how we are all going to die unless we switch to clean energy is also a lie.Climate change has always been happening, its just a way to control how people live their lives, to gain more control over the people.
I accept that renewable energy isn’t totally environmentally friendly but it is preferable to the alternative. Here in the UK wind power contributed 26.1% of the UK’s total electricity generation in 2021, so things are moving in the right direction.
Good article, I know that the media will over hype the effects of global warming as doom and gloom is good for business.
From your initial comment “But the accurate facts show that the world isn't actually in jeopardy,” I thought your position was of global warming denial but from these links you posted it seems that is not the case. And as main theme of this topic seems to be the endorsement of Mein Kampf, I will move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What they are saying is basically, if you give me all this control, then I will help save the world.But the accurate facts show that the world isn't actually in jeopardy. They know this so they are using this as a visor to get control.So they know they aren't going to save the world from anything, so what do you think that they are going to do with that power.
When you say “accurate facts show that the world isn't actually in jeopardy” what are these facts?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
When I said “I will concede that you may be right” that was actually a position of agreement.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well capitalist oligarchy is very different from the capitalist society that we have here in America.Even if it was similar, it doesn't reflect the Hunger Games, because like I said, the government system in the Hunger Games is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Within a totalitarian society all members would usually be oppressed including those within the Capital but they seem free to live their lives as they please. The fact that Snow is called “President” suggests someone who is elected, but as I don’t think there is any mention of elections in the books and it is unknown if he was elected to the position democratically, so I will concede that you may be right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Hitler promised his people that if they let him rule, that he would:Save the forests.Save the trees.Fix the climate.Make life better for everyone.Bring world peace.Save the world.Sound like someone you know on the WEF (World Economic Forum)?
Of course that’s what he said, because promising to exterminate millions of innocent people, men women and children, isn’t a vote winner.
I don’t think there is any evidence that the WEF (World Economic Forum) has similar plans for mass extermination.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, it's quite the opposite in fact.The workforce that you see has no opportunity to raise up in society whatsoever.The actual government used in the films is a totalitarian dictatorship.
When I said capitalist I meant a capitalist oligarchy, which is something I think we may be moving towards. And that is a system that would seek to stifle equal opportunity as those in power would have no wish to share that power for fear of weakening it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think religion is the inspired mainly by the need for answers explanations and to find things out and god or gods provided an acceptable explanation for many things, it should have been superseded by science but it hasn’t.
There is also the question as to the purpose of life and our existence, the answer that there isn’t any, is something some people can’t accept. Religion seems to fulfil that purpose.
Then there is death, non-existence is something many see as an unpleasant even frightening prospect, so an afterlife in some happyland is a big incentive to believe in a god or gods that offer this alternative.
Created:
From the books and films I always saw the Hunger Games as a criticism of capitalism. The world is controlled by a wealthy elite who live an unrestricted hedonistic lifestyle and are supported by an oppressed workforce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked you:They believed he (Rushdie) has disrespected and insulted Islam i.e had committed blasphemy.What do you believe had caused them to believe this?#27
I don’t know, I give up, you tell me. Show me the Islamic teachings that specifically order the death penalty for blasphemy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I’m not xenophobic, nationalist or even patriotic, tribalism is however somewhat intrinsic to our nature.
Thanks for the link to Discover the Truth, interesting.
Your quote:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin. I think people need a measure of both liberty and safety, or as I would put it security and freedom and we need to find a workable balance between the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then you would be wrong from the Islamic stand point. They believed he has disrespected and insulted Islam i.e had committed blasphemy.What do you believe had caused them to believe this?
I did a quick search on this. I had assumed that the law against blasphemy was in the Hadith as it is the basis for much of Sharia Law but apparently the idea of blasphemy may have occurred much later, as I found this and it may answer your question:
“The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts supporting laws against those who blaspheme and vilify their religions.
The word "blasphemy" came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Later Latin blasphemare meaning "Iinjure." Based on this definition, rulers used laws to victimizenon-members of and dissident members of the ruling sect or cult. Countries that had a state religion used it often to serve the interests of the rulers. In Judaism, the third book of Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy shall surely be put to death. The seven laws of Noah seen by Judaism as applicable to all of humankind prohibits blasphemy In Christian theology,”
Hear is the link to the source it also mentions the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Atheist myself,I like the truth, as I see it,I don't like using lies, bad logic, or out of context quotes. (Mostly)
Same here, but the truth can sometimes be hard to identify, as far as possible I like to try and remain objective when debating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Indeed, obvious to us in the West and are non Muslim.But now taking into consideration what I have said about "conflict and houses" and the Quranic verse Quran8:39 above#16, I pose you the same question.Was Salman Rushdie engaged in war or "battle" when in 1989 he had a bounty put on his head for he simply writing a novel that Khomeini declared "blasphemous"? Yes or No?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Of course Islam is not going away, but it can be controlled as in Switzerland, just to mention a case where a nation can decide INTELLIGENTLY who are able to get in so not to do more harm than good to its own country.The problem of the rest of Europe, like in Sweden, which I consider the worst case of how woke culture can spoil a country, is that they cannot help being politically correct. They are so obsessed with woke culture that they are willing to destroy their country just to not offend a fucking religious group.Is it so difficult to kick out the muslims that don't integrate to the western society? Europeans are incapable of realizing that this is going to be the reason of their decadence as an advanced society. France has already realized it and I guess Macron is planning on doing something to mitigate their error.You cannot justify european's mistake saying that fundamentalism is held by a minority. Remember that small groups of fundamentalists have taken over several secular and prosperous muslim countries with almost no resistance. You can't defeat people that are willing to explode themselves in the name of a religion. Can you mention a case of a christian that did so in the past? There you have the difference between Islam and Christianity, and both religions have appeared almost at the same time, there's no much difference. If Islam didnt evolve is because there is an unsavable problem of content -of the qu'ran-.
The trouble is the Muslims who become radicalised are not that easy to identify. One factor is that those who become radicalised and commit acts of terrorism are not always the devout Muslims, they are people have partaken in acts that are considered harem such as gambling drinking alcohol and taking drugs. The ones who seem likely to develop extremist views and are the ones who feel that they don’t fit in and as they search for a sense of identity they are ideal candidates for radicalisation.
An example is the 9/11hijakers who contrary to Islamic law, were known to drink alcohol. This link shows a few more examples:
I totally agree that Muslims should be encouraged to integrate but the hostility towards Muslims, the anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacking their holy book is not really conducive to this and as I said previously it creates a vicious circle of distrust and hate.
The reason Christians didn’t become suicide bombers in the past is pretty obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And you missed my question;Was Salman Rushdie engaged in war or "battle" when in 1989 he had a bounty put on his head for he simply writing a novel that Khomeini declared "blasphemous"? Yes or No?
Okay to answer your question and the answer is obviously “No,”but then the Quran doesn’t prescribe the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Sorry if you thought I was criticizing you. I think TWS is lacking credibility on this topic as well is many others. No more no less.If you and I disagree on the unknown origin of CoVid-2, then my error. I thought we were on same page, for most part. Maybe not. I dunno now.
No need to apologise, I didn’t think you were criticising me,I was simply pointing out that I was unwilling to be drawn into a personal attack against TWS.
I think we are in agreement regarding the origin of CoVid-2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Would you like to show me the words"battle" or war in this verse below?Quran 4:89 - They wish you would disbelieve asthey disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them alliesuntil they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not fromamong them any ally or helper.
Here is the full quote. Again it clearly refers to actual conflict and the meaning of the bit you posted is not to take allies useless they support the cause of Allah and if they turn away, basically becoming traitors,kill them.
"4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given. you a clear authority
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; there fore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Your profile says you're atheist so there is no reason for you to uphold islam. May I ask why you do this?I tell you, with all due respect, islam being an evil religion is really far from being just a mere impression of Western people. I don't need to list all the atrocities that islam's influence is doing in several nations, especially to women. And don't tell me it's a matter of interpretation because the qua'ran is quite clear about it, while Mahoma killed thousands of unbelievers in name of his religion, Jesus -called the Christ- taught and spread love and peace. And I'm not mentioning Mahoma's life because it would provoke us all retch.Muslim is the religion of hate and intolerance, Christianity on the other side is the religion of peace and love. I don't like Christianity but I have to accept it's been a good influence for western values.
Valid question. I am as you say an atheist but not necessarily an antitheist. I don’t particularly like religion, as I find it divisive, particularly the two main monotheist ones Islam and Christianity. Of one thing I am pretty certain of is that religion in some form will always be with us, it goes way back to the origins of humanity and shows no signs of disappearing. There was a time I thought it could be overcome with rational discourse but that was when I was young and naive.
I don’t uphold Islam or any religion but I respect the right of people to hold religious beliefs providing they do no harm, that is the people not necessarily the religion.
My main concern when I see parts of the Quran being cherry picked and taken out of context is the fact that is that this is used not just to attack the religion but those who follow it, the Muslims. By attacking Muslims they see themselves as persecuted and one thing about the both Christianity and Islam is that they can thrive on persecution and oppression.
One concern is that those who preach radical Islam love this form of oppression, they thrive on it, they use it to make themselves stronger and they know they can obtain converts from those who feel oppressed.
The fact that some of those who follow Islam have and still do commit atrocities is indisputable but the majority of Muslims don’t.
That Christianity is a religion of peace and love for me is something of an anomaly. Jesus in the gospels preached exactly that, apart from Matthew10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” that is a weird one and seems totally out of character.The religion of love and peace went on to persecute kill and torture thousands of people and not just unbelievers but other Christians deemed to be heretics. Something went wrong, possibly they should have ditched the Old Testament as they often referred those texts to justify the atrocities.
To return to my main cause for concern when I see the quotes being used it is often to promote intolerance towards Muslims and sometimes to justify nationalistic and racist agendas. By promoting this intolerance you risk creating a vicious circle of intolerance and feeding Islamic radicalisation. Islam isn’t going away, what we need to hope for is that it moves towards a more moderate position as Christianity has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
The Muslims are just following the direct words of their Allah YAHWEH God when performing such drastic measures! Remember, Allah is the SAME GOD as in the Abrahamic religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam! Figure this one out after doing the simple math, LOL!“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an." (Qur'an 8:12)“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them” (Qur’an 47:4)
”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Qur’an 5:51)“Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.” (Qur’an 2:65-66)“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." (Surat chapter 8; verse 8:12)
Quotes from the Qur’an are often taken out of context to malign Muslims. The two relating to the beheading of infidels actually relate to rules of engagement in battle.
(Qur'an 8:12) relates to a very specific time of the battle of Badr.
And (Qur’an 47:4) to give the full quote: “When you meet the unbelievers (in battle), smite their necks until you have crushed them, then bind your captives firmly; thereafter (you are entitled to) set them free,either by an act of grace, or against ransom, until the war ends. That is for you to do.”
There is some unpleasant intolerance towards infidels (unbelievers)but they are down to acts committed by God. But then Christians also have us suffering eternal torments for unbelieving.
Created:
Discredit by who, exactly?Those under the Democratic thumb pressuring them to keep the status quo leftist narrative? Yeah, right!!!
Discredited by the scientific evidence.
I don’t see much evidence of a "leftist narrative" in the US. As I see it you have two right-wing parties, the Democrats who seem similar to our Conservative Party and the other a far-right one.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Elliot, I understand and agree for the most part of the above. TWS doesnt know jackass from mule about origins of the CoVid-2 virus, and his rhetoric is meant to cause hurt towards others without logical, common sense critical thinking. That is the real kinds of politics that are leading humanity to the edge of extinction.
I fully appreciate what you are saying but it has always been a policy of mine to try and avoid resorting to criticism of a personal nature when debating, and as for any personal criticism that might be directed at me, I have no problem simply ignoring it.
I do agree that critical thinking is a rarity.
Created:
Personally I have no objection if someone wants to cast the odd insult about providing it is accompanied by something worth debating, otherwise it is a waste of time.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
The virus obviously exists naturally and could have existed in lab --if not mutated while in lab-- and leaked out. Even the people in lab may never know if that is what happened.
I have never totally discounted the possibility of a lab leak, although I haven’t as yet seen convincing evidence to substantiate it and the scientific consensus seems to be that it originated in the meat markets. What I dispute are the claims that it is the result of genetic manipulation when the evidence from all the scientific research on the virus says it evolved through natural mutation.
Created:
Quite a few studies suggest that women are less competitive than men and as debate is something of a competitive game it could be that. There is also evidence that women may be more socially sensitive and therefore could less willing to indulge in the conflict involved for fear of upsetting or offending their opponent.
Created:
AI simply mimics human intelligence, for it to reflect anything resembling human intelligence it would have to become sentient and I don’t know how far we are from achieving that.
Created: