Total posts: 73
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Would you say you'd be more into WWE (pro wrestling) matches more than MMA then?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
And I admit of that for sure cause nowhere in any Islamic text whether be of divine or historical accounts, Islam doesn't claim itself to be a religion of peace. It's more of a political construct used on different occassions for different purposes- sometimes for the apologetic field of the faith and sometimes to compromise with liberals.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Period. Those who claim otherwise, be they Islamic scholars or orientalists are rather apologetic about the reality and the wide array of aspects of Islam. Having said that, not being of peace doesn't necessarily entail being something of violence lol. And extremism exists on both ends- too far right and too far left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
Not sure if youre confusing the condemnation of apostasy with exploiting different faiths. If your relatives are jailed for simply being non-muslims , then yes, the Iran govt. has to be held responsible for the unfairness there. On the other hand, in case of apostasy, I'm not sure whether jailing is right ruling and even if it is i highly doubt the Iranis would execute that.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So, when the wife roams around flirting despite her husband, showing off her body- which is her matter of will of course- to other men that she barely knows, she's not an object of vision- but if she lives under her husbands supervision, obeys his ruling in his house, she easily becomes one!? lol- Good observation. I don't blame the wife for it tho. There are some basic and fundamental rulings in Islam that either make or oust a person in or out of Islamic fold. By that virtue, she's close to losing that identity in the first place- again, not because she chose her path of freedom from her husband's authority but based on the conversation you had with her, her faith in God edges towards disbelief, Cause well, Islam is all about faith- more so than practice. So, to objectively decide upon a woman's mindset in a strict Islamic society, you'd do better exemplifying a strict Islamic female rather than a liberal wanting to compromise.
Created:
With an objective guidance in place, the rulings dont seem unnatural to me. In fact, I believe youve misrepresented some of them, as all anti-muslim christians have been doing for the past 2 decades or so just to fit your despise against a faith in modern dynamics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually agree. I believe this is a subjective measure seen as an objective one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I actually love ID along with Twenty One Pilots and Coldplay- 3 on a loop in my list all the time. But, I get why ID would be called overrated though they shouldn't be by the general standard of being called overrated. 'Cause just a handful probably 3-4 of their songs are deemed mainstream and are murdered on radio over years. Thus, the impression is natural to arise that "yeah, that's that band that plays the generic shit all the time". But in reality, they got literally a hundred songs I bet the commenters dont have the slightest idea of. They got depth in their lyrics and creativity in their edition and power in their music except probably the last album which sucks- even I as a die hard agree to. But my point is that the radio culture has built this wrong impression on the band and they don't deserve the unnecessary hate due to that.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Well Islam is what brought me to debating in the first place though i might not be very good at it yet but I enjoy engaging with people of different views for a spectrum of reasons; not necessarily involving a religion or so. My point is that your perception of debating to escape a religion or not debating because of religion doesn't quite make sense. Over-generalizing much!?
Created:
Posted in:
To me, its an innate development. I believe in a kind of presupposition of the concept of God from the get-go of life. A certain degree of submission to one true being- that's what I felt growing up. In my opinion, faith develops with time but its origin is right at the beginning when you start getting real. A half of my family is religious, the other half- not so much. I mean by faith, they're all theists but by practice, they have different views. So, in a way, I was free of much pressure to be religious from my family. But at the same time, I started delving and researching and found myself as a theist and practicing anyways. Now, I hold my own views that I feel are more acceptable to my faith than my whole family members. So, faith just strengthens with time- it's upto me how I act- either to suppress it or catalyze.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't disagree with the Hamas narrative and I haven't ever. In fact, many orthodox, conservative Muslims from both Sunni and Shi'a sects condemn Hamas for their somewhat extremist nature. But in this particular case, the recent issue, I don't see how any rational individual can scapegoat on Hamas everytime to either justify the Israeli occupiers and military terrorists or escape on a non-sense two sider note by blaming and victimizing both the parties. The illegal invasion of the Sheikh jarrah neighborhood started way before Hamas was in the picture. Then they started charging on the civilian praying Muslims of Al Aqsa. Check the timeline, first time Hamas threatened Israel army for a possible attack was 2-3 days after the first attack on Al Aqsa. So, how can you justify the attacks 3 days prior? Are the Palestinian victims to be blamed for anything at all? Even that Hamas launched rockets after that, it was a mere conduct of self defense- by the legal authority of Gaza- I don't see a problem with a legal authority (excepting the way they came into power for now) defending their land from incessant military attacks on their people, that's a classic war situation.
As for the negotiation issue, I believe I had replied to you my take on this one on one of the other threads.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Don't partake in religious talks. If you must, avoid forums and go one on one inbox. Live like you don't want to have anything to do with religion. I feel like its more on you taking oxygen than the religious people lol.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Reply when you get USRAEL out of the incessant buttering you seem to be so invested in.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Liberalism allows everything subjective. So, you can't exemplify by a moral system too flexible to justify that claim lol, you gotta take care of the technicalities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So much Anti-Semitism because of this. I bet you if the roles were reversed then people would be coming to attack Jewish people. When Muslim people attack Jews nothing is said and is backed by sheeps.
Really? because last I checked, Muslims were being severely criticized for supporting Hamas style retaliation, for actually defending Palestine and its people. More so in the west. US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price refused to acknowledge Palestine even as a state now and said Israel has the right to self defense. What a joke! When asked if they condemn the attack on children killed in Gaza, he hesitated in condemning. lol. The illegal expansion of Israel for the last 50 years along the line and suddenly its anti-semitic to call them on it. Besides, anti-zionism is never anti-semitic- even the dogs do understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Besides I was speaking of the specific context of their firing back as they own Gaza, however that may be. Like, in my country the current government is in its 3rd course through vote-corruption. Now i aint complaining about that everyday, If there was an international invasion in my country which is very much possible in the next few years if the country decides to fight back, won't I support to defend my land?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hamas was never the one to make any deal happen for that matter. 8 months back UAE constructed a deal with Israel while promising a peaceful negotiation between Israel and Palestine- what happened? The UAE ambassador in Israel has set an example by NOT releasing any official update on the current situation- for once. Arab actually tried to play mediator between the two but within political reasons. They've never been the one- despite belonging to the same majority community as the Palestine- to ever help out the ACTUAL victims here. And you expect a deal with Israel- who are actually working towards that Zionist land will magically absolve the problems? Hamas never supported the UAE deal and they're right to not support any Israel deal 'cause that'll just worsen the case for the Palestinians- not just the Muslims but the Christians too. You can badger on Hamas all day- maybe I can too but there's a specific ideology other than the terrorist agenda- that they are quite justified in. Politically.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm surprised at the amount of people diverting the issue to "how much of a terrorist group Hamas is and what they're doing" which is a debate of its own. First off, I don't have to support Hamas to somehow justify their rocket attack to Tel aviv. They own Gaza, that's basically their territory. They evidently warned the Israelians to refrain from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood- which they were forcibly stripping the native original Palestinians of and the attacks on Al-Aqsa. They launched after the warning and yet the Israelians actually managed to prevent some of the rockets from landing- which only means they knew it was coming. Then there was this anti-tank missile attack on one of the patrolling jeeps of Israel military roaming around sheikh jarrah where still no death occured as to my knowledge yet. So, the narrative is pretty skewed on your part when you claim that the Palestinians or Hamas is not doing the right thing by "defending their land from being illegally destroyed and firing back" lol. You kill the women and the children by mass and I can't protect them cause yeah, that's not how diplomatic settlement works!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'll just say that your understanding of Muslim empires and how they operated in terms of dealing with non-muslim inhabitants is quite biased and yellow media-fed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you want to make any claim regarding god's understanding you necessarily must demonstrate that is different from your understanding.
Lol the name "God" by definition demonstrates the difference.
My claim there wasn't that god doesn't exist, though they don't, it was that the god you are talking about exists only in your mind.
Initially, we were talking about how God couldn't save lives from harm and then you're just claiming that he's just an abstract concept- that's why. So, basically, you're reducing God to a minima to nil and then trying to challenge his system. That's not how you disprove a theory. You gotta debunk the theory from within the framework the theory is prevalent in. Otherwise its like saying the earth ain't flat cause its spherical without checking on the evidences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course I would call on American terrorism lol. They are of the highest standard of terrorism one can possibly imagine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
God is not just an idea for sure. If you presume that God doesn't exist outside of an idea and then put forward your claim of God not being all-loving, you have a seriously flawed methodology to argue in terms of free will or determinism. Even if you're an atheist you must disprove God within God's own arsenal by questioning him, not by cancelling him out prior to your opening statements.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, I just called the attacks, the mass-bombing in Palestine a terrorist attack by the Israeli Zionists as opposed to how the world media is attempting to portray it as a "clash" lol. What, terrorism is selectively operated by some disarrayed Muslims only? Define terrorism. Explain why I shouldn't call the Israel and its military nothing but a terrorist group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
lol, "unnecessary harm" in a broader sense leads to point out unnecessary anything in this world. Unnecessary success, unnecessary birth of yours...... Your realization of what's necessary or not is certainly not a match of God's understanding
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, the state doesn't allow me to vote until I'm 21. What if I'm 20 years and 11 months in? How could age- a mere number be included in a protocol of exercising my right? Morally, that doesn't even make sense. The case of consent is just about the same. In France, the minimum age of consensual sex is set to 16. Whatabout someone of 15 or just above 15 or just below 16? How can consent- an "abstract principal of morality", an "inherent right" be so constricted by age limit while being so predominant in my ethical understanding of an act?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Even if, say, the parent is granted the power of all-knowing ability of his son's whereabouts and accordingly he saves him from every turn of bad events of his life- how does the son knowing that he's being controlled at every second of his life feel? Does he ever develop any respect for a life he has no contribution in?
That's why I added the "If" clause. Even what youre saying is included in it. If the parent knew, he would not let any harm come to the boy. So, it's basically a disruption of natural course of one's life. Ironic cause you don't think God can offer free will because he would act obnoxious doing so as mortals would harm or be harmed in anyway but you also expect him to intervene whenever situations stand that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's not exactly a right then. It's just a mental development of understanding as you age. An understanding that can be utilized in your ethical framework in both ways- good or bad. What's good or bad is always pre-existing and therefore consent should neither be called a right or a first principal of morality. It's a medium to experience and decide that good-bad spectrum.
All according to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not indulging in any discussion of contradictions within the Bible even though I know there is, as I studied the scholarly works on Bible. But out of respect to the bible and the fact that I didn't read the whole Bible yet myself, I wouldn't want to take part in such exchanges. However, I don't think death or any calamity for that matter has anything to conflict with the concept of Free Will imposed by God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Weird exemplification. You can't possibly compare a mortal parent with God. Even if, say, the parent is granted the power of all-knowing ability of his son's whereabouts and accordingly he saves him from every turn of bad events of his life- how does the son knowing that he's being controlled at every second of his life feel? Does he ever develop any respect for a life he has no contribution in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not actually a Christian and haven't read the Bible yet although I plan to one day. However, I thought death imposed from God's sentence ain't sitting well with your understanding of free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That still doesn't justify consent to be an inherent right whatsoever. So, a child consenting to a pedophile for an experimental session of intercourse out of curiosity would make it moral for you? Or then you would define consent to be an age-based quality. How could that be an inherent right then? It's just a practice to prevent the badness that is so evidential to define.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - that would be stupid - do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"? No. No, they don't. Please quit the theodicy.
Yet you can't expect them to walk with you, carrying your arse forever or shadowing you even in school. Whatabout learning to take responsibility? Everytime you fall down the street or fail your test- you go on to blame your parents for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Did it ever occur to you that anall-loving God can also want the beings He loves to have the freedom to make their own choices?That has to be the biggest cop-out theist ever come up with. I have heard this BS excuse so many times. Tell me, how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence? Again we see the free will excuse used for gods own failings are utter nonsense.
I don't quite get in what sense you pose the question. Do you mean death or death sentence in general can't be prone to any compatibilist causation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Quite a granted definition of "right". Consent masks from badness according to you but your framework doesn't define badness itself. Who decides a specific form of badness? How do you guarantee that the consent in place will not lead you to achieving that pint of badness?
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I don't get how it's both subjective and objective at the same time. You claim "while the culture says so" its immoral. But cultures themselves differ. What if a nomad-heavy society out in the woods gavels in favor of a normalized practice of having sex with dead animals? Would you say it's still objective? Utilitarians fail in this case- when they say its immoral cause people say so. But howabout the maximized pleasure of the one having sex and the fact that the chicken is no longer harmed in its demised state? According to their intrinsic principles, the act should be regarded as moral but then they contradict themselves by calling it sick and unethical.
My point being, unless you offer pure subjectivity or pure objectivity, this act can't be defended morally. And so any atheist who claims objectivity in his ethics through utilitarianism cannot resort to utilitarianism to prove his position here.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I'm waiting on the same sort of opinions. Also, those advocating for "consent" to be an essential element to demoralize (because it cant) or moralize (because its dead so it cant) the act, howabout a live chicken? How do you retrieve the information which is giving consent in this case from a live chicken?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The factor of consent comes into play when there is a point where you "can" essentially provide consent for. A dead chicken has lost it's value of being a living thing- thus anything done to it's body has no impact on its individuality anymore.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So, what youre saying is that the act of sex with dead chicken is okay- morally (okay as in neutral okay) but the question would rise within the spectrum of reasons the corresponding person might have behind engaging?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
interesting when you say "lacking rational thoughts". Thoughts can be tied to ethics too sometimes in terms of considering the motivation of thoughts turning into realization. So, you would say, rationale of an act can be morally evaluated? So, plain question, moral or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think we all agree how resilient T-Bag really is. But we don't get to see his Panamanian break; just heard from Sucre. Still it sounds like a fine plan and realistic as well; just as you said. However, the Fox River break was legendary as in we got to experience through the full course of Scofield's escape. I think the technical aspect of the process was way too unpredictable for anyone to guess at. Still a couple of things,
1. He took 8 people out including himself. Do you think it'd be possible irl too having 8 of em break away maintaining the subtlety during the course?
2. Do you think he could break out with just his brother without any exterior help (the other 6)?
There were countless occasions where it was shown that luck had nearly bit him in the ass but he got saved by bells. In that case, having no one look out for him would surely fail him in the buds. So, I guess it wouldnt be possible if he did all the work alone.
Created:
Posted in:
Don't know if there are any fans of the show out there. I'd like to recommend this to anyone who never watched the show- at least the first season for a very unorthodox ride of thrill throughout the program.
If there are any fans out there, how have you enjoyed the show? My take is that the first season was a masterpiece. S2 was good. S3 was fine too and S4 while started on a great note, failed to deliver in the middle. S5 and the mobile movie were utter rubbish. My finishing of the story was S4 ending.
And when I'm asking the question in the topic, I'm actually indicating to the S1 break. Do you think the technical aspects of the show were anyhow relatable and could be reproduced in real life?
Created:
Chicken, dead (No harm done to it)
The one having sex with it, happy with himself.
How do you view this specific act? Irrespective of you calling it a disgusting thing to do, do you call it immoral or not?
Created:
Posted in:
I think its important. There is a catch here. When you say "scriptural, cultural, personal experience"- the reality should be that when the scripture or "faith" comes into play, the cultural influence and the experiences go secondary to null. Because when scripture is prioritized, there is a sense of submission to one God. When submission takes place of absolute freedom, any other parameter has to be disowned in terms of ethically considering an act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
that's something I would not want to prove by simply asserting something. Even if I did, literally anyone could disagree in the absence of empirical evidence. And that's something I don't believe in- having to prove everything empirically where I have clear testimonies to support my claim.
However, A recent study in USA revealed that around 90% people regardless of belonging to a religion (practicing or not) believe in a higher power. That's a proven statistics. I can provide with the source, I have the book still with me. I just gotta dig in to find. But that might tell you something.
and I'm impressed you are 16 and trying to know stuff. I wish I started sooner as well- I missed out on a lot. Carry on. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm still a student and I don't pretend to be an expert in theology or philosophy in general. However I attempt to study and learn and I am convinced that God is the ultimate and the one.
Now its not a religion vs religion debate. But I have a cosmological insight that might reflect my particular belief.
So there are two major but contrasting doctrinal schools of thought in my religion. Let's say I belong to one of them and according to that school of thought we (do) have a natural instinct that tells us God exists and therefore the BoP is on atheists. However when questioned, we are actually ENCOURAGED by our scripture to respond respectfully.
Now, it's more of a mix of teleological and cosmological perspective that I use in this case.
So, based on my instincts or anyone's instincts, one should ask WHY do I exist, WHY I am here- right here, at one particular era, and WHERE did I come from and WHERE I am going. That's the instinct or Fitra in Arabic. And that brings me back to the beginning of everything. I start to realize that every single thing and object in the entire universe is contingent rooting back to say, the Big Bang. Now, if I take the approach that the Big Bang is random, it doesn't explain the fine-tuning of the universe. Randomness can't bring out the precise order one might wonder and that brings me to the fruition of the scriptural prophecies. That's another discussion.
Now, when I have realized that every single thing is objectively contingent, then it is obvious that nothing can come out of NOTHING. Therefore, to disprove a non-contingent being, an actual infinite has to be established but that is theoretically implausible. However, even if I say that the universe has no beginning which is not scientifically plausible, that still doesn't explain the actual infinite.
Now with all these contingent beings on the loose, it is easily conceived that at one point nothing ever existed given the abovementioned conditions are fulfilled. And so there must have been a non-contingent ultimate being that CAUSED for every contingent existence that came into being. And we attribute this process to the Almighty God. He, in this case, is the Necessary Being.
To say that He didn't reveal Himself is ignorance. You'll say there are hundreds of scriptures- literally. But the job is upon us to follow the instincts and find the real one. That's all I've to say for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
When it comes to the particular question of "why", I actually present God to be the Creator and then move on to why God is the ULTIMATE and we should bow down to Him. Is it okay if I use my religion as my source?
Created:
Posted in:
48 wpm, 226 cpm, 94% accuracy. not so good yeh!? just checked online the first link that came out. I don't know of any official application or software that tests that.
Created: