Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@old man
you answered that when you also said in the same previous post you would not accept any state, as an example,” Not true. I said today, there is no such Islamic state.
“I also answered that under the two main schools of Islamic law that the death penalty and or beatings would apply.” Yes, but my question was to point out when they actually occurred not what the law says. There are plenty of laws there to scare people from committing such acts. You still did not point when the penalty was actually carried out.
“That is my point, and one you have demonstrated repeatedly in this conversation. YOU DON'T. Or, you don't know Islamic traditions and laws...” Really? How so?
“I have. I have come to the conclusion it is lies.” Honestly, the only conclusion anyone reading this will come to is that you lied.
“I read this book (Qu'ran) and decided that, and everyone else (Sufi, Shia, Sunni), are wrong, My interpretation is the right one” You are even lying with your paraphrasing but, I don’t care rather, just pointing it out
“With your attitude be careful what you say in public in many Islamic areas, you won't survive long.” LOL thanks
“When you get around to actually researching your own religion you might find that deep seated dissonance already within you will get a bit stronger.” Trust me, I have done far more research then you ever will, which is why I speak and answer with confidence.
“But I am not wasting my time with a person who cannot even give answers to simple questions” False, I have given some answers while telling you to research others. You not accepting them as answers or valid is not my problem nor concern
“it is obvious to anyone reading this exchange I have researched and discussed Islam at a greater depth, and with more learned scholars of all Islamic stripes than you imagined.” Bro, all you have done was demonstrate the same lazy approach shelly boy has.
In any case, I knew from the start we would not see eye to eye on almost everything and that is fine. I would like to take the time to thank you for at least a productive conversation, far more productive then I thought it would be lol (given our short history and your “kind” posts to me in the past). Simple suggestion from man to man (not theist to atheist), try seeing things from the other point of view prior, to assuming everything is negative, you might be surprised. The only reason I say that is, since I tried it, I found the world a lot less unpleasant.
Ah, can't remember the last time I laughed so hard... *wipes tears*
@ Breezy: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/transgender-deulusion?...
You should consider becoming a stand up comedian. That attachment alone can bring you in millions, presented properly. The line about the usage of 'relics'... *bursts out in another fit*
@SfT
Sorry mate, but you couldn't have picked a worse environment for claiming to have 'researched' Islamic history. Especially if you couple it with lines like "Trust me, I have done far more research then you ever will, which is why I speak and answer with confidence." Have you used any historical source not acknowledged by your interpretation's scholars? Have you considered to use folk stories and literal works of Islamic nations, as a reference to their common perceptions of the religious law and it's enforcers? (And yes, stories CAN be used as historical sources, as they convey any author's hidden perceptions about his environment) Do you even know the little trivia about what tool did Muslim scholars use to erase mistakes from the books?
Lets make just one thing clear. Yes, I haven't read the Koran. The reason being I had already done all of the above and more before I finally got my hands on a hard print copy. You, on the other hand *giggles* are the one who has only ever pursued a single line of thinking, and has the guts to accuse others of doing it. Ah, how very human like... seeing one's own incompetence in others...
Cognitive dissonance at it's best, thank you both for the enjoyable read!
How many non-extremists are extreme? No true Scotsman.
Now then, let's get a bit serious here and dissect the attachment Breezy so generously provided. Much appreciated!
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/H...
1) Analysis can not be objective, only subjective. It CAN, however, be logically sound. I'll just leave it as a possibility of a poor choice of words right there.
2) "Rationality is only..." yes, that is a reasonable statement, no problem there
3) "A student's ability to distinguish... may be in itself a marker of intelligence" eeeh, it most certainly IS, no reason for the vague assertion of "may be". Though this doesn't alleviate the fact that curiosity and pursuing of interesting subjects is by far the most common trait among highly intelligent people.
4) "I'm not sure many adults..." Wait, what? Not sure? About a most obvious truth?
5) Not sure what "instrument analysis" refers to. Neither what "KB's" or "artifacts and measurements". To the best of my knowledge, the only artifacts in the human brain are remnants of evolution, both physical and social. The so called Reptilian Brain being one example, (hate that word and part) as well as the most common social responses. Knowing you deny evolution, "artifacts" must mean something else. Much intrigued!
6) "...not sure what you could've done better" (o.o ) An actual professor saying that?.. Much less to a student below himself?..
Summary:
It would appear your professor is only feeding your ego. Either that, or he is genuinely insecure about his own knowledge and judgment abilities. Especially concerning is the inability of evaluating his student's mind, which so obviously fails to apply one's own statements to himself. Must not be aware of you denying evolution, I guess.
Now, for the big question - who benefits from such a bond, whichever case it may be?
PS: relics... *another fit of laughter"
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
And why the pseudonym? Are you that afraid something you write will get poopooed? I have never used a pseudonym. Everything I wrote, I took like a real man and faced the errors along with the rest. In fact, I learned more from my errors.
Pseudonym? Wishy-washy pansy cop-out.
rmfr
Some men (for instance) are born with very low testosterone levels, lower than average. This can make them feel more like a woman than a man. In my opinion, I think both science and the mind have a role to play in whether someone is transgender. I could be wrong though, I'm quite ignorant on this topic.
I'd say I'm neither for or against it. I think if someone feels comfortable as identifying themselves as trans than sure go for it. It does not have any effect on the well-being of others or themselves. Science seems to be indicating that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a binary (male or female) option.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Good stance for the first post :) Kind of curious of your stance towards other topics as well, +the nick is kinda nice :D
So - welcome to the outside of the bubble, known as the event horizon of religion!
...and yes, I just now came up with the analogy of religion being a black hole, that imprisons people's minds :D "The light shall not escape!.." Unless you give at least some credit to Hawking, of course.
This echoes my feelings on the subject,
As a woman I feel we are nearing true equality of the sexes, but this particular topic has muddied the waters somewhat.
I feel that being a woman is privilege (can be a burden at times too) and I do get somewhat protective of my sex when gender is brought into the equation.
Sure, be who you want to be and I fully support all those on their journey, but we need to be clear on sex vs gender.
As long as that is the status quo I am not overly bothered either way.
Very good question gender dysphoria is a real mental illness. But some who is transgender present in different ways and caused by different things. When we look at a transgender brain it is the one of the gender they idenify as not the sex they were born with. Gender dysphoria is to do with delution that can be treated with antipsychotic medication and/or C.B.T. The way we treat the problem of transgender needs more research for sure. 40% suicide rate! post and after operation .Cleary shows what we are doing now is not working. So that does bring in the argument of a mental illness. There is so much i don't understand about this topic. Science please explain? . Also does the amount of genders apply to this discussion? Again because some says they feel a certain way that is not a valid argument, unless we are talking about who is the best pornstar!
Perhaps you should compare transgender suicide rates in the US verse locations where transgenders are less likely to be repudiated by society (maybe Thailand?). I have no idea what the results would be, but it might yield a clue.
@xomenx13x
Suicide rates, especially in United States, is a big problem, even before one talks about the high transgender suicide rates.
I think it is pretty easy to draw parallels on societal acceptance and culture for transgenders to the high suicide rates transgenders have. If society was more accepting of differences from the dictated ideal of the time I imagine the suicide rate of transgenders will drop, a worthwhile goal. Societal pressure can be immense, just look at the incredible lengths some girls/women go through to stay thin, turning bulimic, or turning to drugs and misusing them etc.
Treating transgender as a delusion and using antipsychotic meds and/or CBT is likely to make the problem worse, not better. Although if there was a study done on this I would be very curious on the results.Doping people up on so many meds they turn to walking zombies that do not feel much of anything does not count as a success.
I certainly agree more research should be done. Amount of genders does not apply to the conversation, that is a different one.
Anyone is allowed to feel which ever way they want so long as they are not harming others.
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." - quran (2:216)
"And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." - quran (4:104) -
"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " - quran (4:95)
"Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." - quran (9:20)
"Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." - quran (47:3-4)
@Saporo
I said this on 7/21, thank you for only further strengthen and proving my point. “Islamic haters either willfully ignore or just never stopped to consider the “common sense element” Islam really has.”
I also said this “Bro, all you have done was demonstrate the same lazy approach shelly boy has.”
I also said this “if you do find something please make sure you provide the full context”
Once you have provided all of the above, then we can talk. Stop being lazy, I honestly did not think you would still be this willfully arrogant and ignorant with your posts.
I quoted straight from the central text of Islam, the qur'an, one of the most hateful texts ever written, to show that you are wrong when you say that Islam does not encourage the "easiest path" for Muslims. It says the whole life of the Muslim is designed to be a test where the Muslim is expected to fight the unbelievers with all their lives, to kill and be killed. It says that those who do not follow the path of the Muslim will be tortured. How is it possible to take that out of context?
I hate Islam primarily because it promotes torture, which I hate.
Do you believe that I should be tortured for hating Islam because it promotes torture? Stop being lazy, and answer this question.
As lazy as the no true Scotsman fallacy you keep using? It's been explained, and the consequences of using it have been explained. There are only two possibilities if someone keeps using such fallacies, they're either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. Though I suppose they could be both.
As Sapporo says, you keep denying Islam promotes violence and torture, yet when this is shown unequivocally from the actual text of the Koran you don;t even try to address it, instead you use the same evasive LAZY responses, either you dismiss it out of hand with the moronic Islamic idea that an omniscient deity can only properly communicate as a monoglot, or you trot out the equally moronic and fallacious no true Scotsman fallacy. The only deviation from this is your use of ad hominem fallacies, and glib cliches about an omniscient that is not only a monoglot but also can't communicate clearly and uses incomprehensible metaphors.
Your accusation that Sapporo is arrogant or ignorant however is lazy thinking, and moronic, as anyone can see from his posts he is neither, though ironically your posts suggest you are both. I'm not sure your posts suggest there is a cure for you though, but you could try showing some integrity, giving honest answers instead of regurgitating fallacious religious cliches such as the idea that one has to an expert on the Koran in order to disbelieve in it's deity. Which is like claiming you have to an expert on unicorn husbandry before you can disbelieve in unicorns.
Hating Islam is not he same as hating Muslims, though ironically it is you who is continually resorting to this type of lazy stereotyping.
Since like Breezy you keep dodging my question I'll asking it:
Is it ever morally acceptable to rape a nine year old child?
No trolling
No bullying
No disclosure of someone else's personal info
***No spamming
***No unrelated topics
***No scams
No racism
No homophobic, or sexist comments
No non-English posts
No links to gory pictures or harmful websites
No threats of harm
***No advertising or self-promotion
@ Sapporo
You are still exhibiting laziness and still taking single verses out of context. Until that changes, do not expect my reply to change.
“I quoted straight from the central text of Islam” NO, you quoted 5 out of context verses of over 600+ page book.
“Islam does not encourage the "easiest path" for Muslims.” Yes it does, you are too scared to actually put in the time and do the research, afraid of what you might find?
“It says the whole life of the Muslim is designed to be a test where the Muslim is expected to fight the unbelievers with all their lives, to kill and be killed.” Amazing that you can conclude what a book over 600+ pages says by just taking 5 verses out of context. I should have looked for you when I was too lazy to read and write book summaries during school.
“Because it promotes torture, which I hate.” 100% false but, believe what you want.
“Do you believe that I should be tortured for hating Islam because it promotes torture?” It’s amazing you can conclude what a 600+ page book says out of 5 verses yet, you can’t answer this simple question based off all my posts. Oh, and your question in it of itself is flawed since your conclusion of what Islam is, is false.
Keep trying, you will eventually find an answer if you actually used your time wisely.
Is not the quran supposed to be so divinely written/inspired that nothing could be taken out of context? Why is the quran so prone to misinterpretation? If it was the divine will of an almighty god why is the quran seemingly appear to have all the faults, (and then some!) of human writers and translators and editors?
@Searching for truth
What is the context then?
Killing for your beliefs is wrong in any context. Dying for your beliefs is wrong in any context. Torture is wrong in any context.
The qur'an says that Muslims will laugh on the day of judgement (83:34-36) at the prospect of non-Muslims being tortured in hell.
Will you be laughing hardest at the Christians being tortured, or the atheists?
What a load of glib codswallop. The texts he quoted were unequivocal, hence you refusing to even acknowledge them and having no answer, instead you use the ignorant and lazy excuse that the whole of the book somehow offers a hidden esoteric message that negates what these passages actually say. The claim is as lazy as it is facile.
The A Priori Argument, ( a fallacy in informal logic) is starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, or conclusion and then searching for any argument to rationalize, defend or justify it."
@Sapporo
“Killing for your beliefs is wrong in any context. Dying for your beliefs is wrong in any context. Torture is wrong in any context.” Seeing that you believe morality is subjective, your beliefs and views of right or wrong are irrelevant. So they really hold no weight in this conversation. Hitler thought killing was right. So was did Stalin and many others, why should I believe what you think over them? What can you say or prove that Gandhi or MLK were good people? In an effort for this conversation to (possibly) be somewhat productive, I respectfully ask, you keep your personal and subjective beliefs to yourself.
“Will you be laughing hardest at the Christians being tortured, or the atheists?” surely, by now you can come to a conclusion based off my posts. You came to a conclusion about a 600+ page book using only 5 out of context verses.
Are you saying Mohammad never killed anyone? Or are you using yet another double standard?
"Seeing that you believe morality is subjective, your beliefs and views of right or wrong are irrelevant. "
Your adherence to religious diktat is entirely subjective, you have admitted this repeatedly by calming your deity's message requires subjective interpretation. So your religious "morals" are irrelevant by your own reasoning.
"why should I believe what you think over them? "
Why should we believe what you think over anyone else? Anyone can claim (and many do) that they know what "god" wants. At least atheism has no dogma or doctrine and so no agenda, so all actions are open to scrutiny, and once a basis for morality is stated, they can show objective reasons for a course of action. All you can do is wave an old book around, and claim you know it's from a deity, even though it is demonstrably barbaric and cruel in places, and contains nothing that couldn't haven't been written entirely by humans.
"I respectfully ask, you keep your personal and subjective beliefs to yourself."
This is a public atheist forum, if you don't like it here you're free to leave anytime. I'd far rather read Saporro's posts which are invariable cogent erudite, and refreshingly concise, in stark contrast to yours which mainly consist of overblown verbiage, and sententious unevidenced preaching, and I care for neither of those.
If torture is not universally considered the greatest "bad" or "evil", then I absolutely agree that morality is completely subjective.
But would you rather be a) tortured for eternity or b) killed?
In my view, things that cause unnecessary harm are always bad, and things that cause pleasure without causing harm are always good. But unfortunately, many millions of people disagree with this. For example, in Islam, in the qur'an, Muslims are told to shun pleasure and wage war with all their lives at the expense not just of their own happiness but the happiness of others. They do this because they have the superstition they this life is a test and not meant to be enjoyed (the text specifically says that the Muslim god could have made the world a better place without the help of Muslims, but chose to make them suffer the test...which if they fail, they will be tortured).
Harm and pleasure can be empirically quantified, and thus be used to make informed decisions about improving the world. Sure, improving the world through empirical observation and interaction is a personal philosophy like anything else, but at least it isn't based on pure empty superstition. The world now is infinitely better now than the 7th century by many criteria such as peace, prosperity, health etc. - as a rule, because of discoveries and innovation guided by qualified doubt rather than the certainties of faith.
I note you still haven't said whether you think I should be tortured for hating Islam because it promotes torture. Why is hating an ideology that promotes torture more hateful than laughing at people being tortured, in your view?
I have read the qur'an before, so I rather think you are coming to a conclusion about what I've read based on what I thought best torpedoed your argument at the specific time I posted.
If a text says that your purpose in life is to fight the unbelievers and to kill and be killed, and admonishes you for seeking pleasure and says that those who will be most rewarded will be those who strife hardest, and that if you do not do so, you will be tortured...even though your creator explicitly says it could have done this all itself, but wanted to put you to the test...well, it is impossible to see how passages summing up a person's whole raison d'être could be taken out of context, especially when it says you were preordained to pass or fail based on whether you meet these required actions, and thus be rewarded for eternity or tortured for eternity.
Searching for truth, any chance you will answer any questions?
What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam?
What is the punishment for gay people who have sex with members of their own gender, according to Islam?
Is it ever morally acceptable to have sex with a 9 year old child?
How long are going to go the Breezy route and ignore questions you don't like? As is the case with Breezy you have come to an atheist forum, and it is fair to guess what most atheists here will infer from such dishonest evasion.
@Sapporo
“If torture is not universally considered the greatest "bad" or "evil", then I absolutely agree that morality is completely subjective” Universally, it’s probably is not considered the greatest evil and history has proven this. But, just because some don’t think its bad does not prove morality is subjective, all it proves is that there are some sick and twisted individuals in this world. You always speak in a way that as if people are perfect and no one makes a single mistake. While I do not wish to get in to a debate about morality, I will say this, you can’t have a constructive debate about morality if both think it’s subjective. You might think torture is the greatest evil from your stand point while someone else that also believes morality is subjective might disagree with you. When you think everything is subjective you will never establish an agreed upon standard on which to classify something as right and wrong or good and evil.
“But would you rather be a) tortured for eternity or b) killed?” Irrelevant to anything we are talking about
“In my view…” Keyword in this sentence is “my” therefore, does not mean it’s true or can be applied to the rest of the world. Plus, how do I know your view won’t change tomorrow or next month?
“For example, in Islam, in the qur'an, Muslims are told to shun pleasure and wage war with all their lives at the expense not just of their own happiness but the happiness of others” Partially true, and by partially I mean more around 10-15% true you would easily know that you not take your conclusion out of context.
“the world now is infinitely better now than the 7th century by many criteria such as peace, prosperity, health etc. - as a rule” By peace, No. By prosperity? Depends on your definition but in my opinion, no it is not better today. To prove my point about prosperity, you don’t even have to go as far back to the 7th century, simply look at the US today vs the 60’s and 70’s. Health, yes I would agree to that one.
“I have read the qur'an before,” Sorry, but I must call you a liar on this one as not 1 single thing you has said so far proves this to be true. Especially, the lack of ability to provide context to anything you cite out of context only further proves your statement to be a lie. Had you said “I read random parts of the Quran and did not understand it” then maybe that would be less of a lie
“so I rather think you are coming to a conclusion about what I've read based on what I thought best torpedoed your argument at the specific time I posted.” No, I came to my conclusion through you clear and utter lack of understanding and inability to answer my questions in regards to context.
“If a text says that your purpose in life is to fight the unbelievers and to kill and be killed…” only further proves your statement about reading the Quran was a lie. Even though I know you did not read the Quran let me ask you this, how are Muslims supposed to act today? Should I be going around asking people if they are Muslim or not, and killing the ones that say they are not?
Hell is not universally considered the greatest bad because billions have been indoctrinated in religions that have taught it is the action of a benevolent being. Even facts can be taught to be false, so it is not surprising that two different groups of people can have morals that are contradictory.
I certainly do not believe people are perfect. That is why I think it is best to qualify doubt, and to not stick to the certainties of faith. Terrible things have been done in the name of superstition - it is not so easy to do this with a demonstrable good.
My question is not irrelevant. Both being killed and being tortured for eternity are bad - but some religions have coerced individuals into acting based on superstitions such as fear of being tortured for eternity. If you had to kill some unbelievers for not to submitting to Allah in order to avoid being tortured for eternity, would you do it? Personally, I do not believe I could - if only because I cannot trust a being who carries out something that as described, would be the greatest evil. I would rather die than be tortured for eternity. I'd rather my family be tortured in front of me and then killed before myself also being killed rather than being tortured for eternity. How about you? How can you worship a being that carries out tortures described as even worse than me seeing my family tortured and killed in front of me?
The world is demonstrably more peaceful than the time of 7th century warlords such as Muhammad: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_is_there_peace
People nowadays in the world have disposable income, universal education, universal healthcare, eight or nine hours or less working days, leisure time etc. Poverty (defined as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.") worldwide halved between the years 1990 and 2015: there is a goal to eradicate poverty worldwide by 2030. It wasn't Islam or religion in general that did this.
"And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" - quran (8:39)
Muhammad did NOT say "fight some of the world's population until most of the world is still non-Muslim, Allah is okay with that." He said ""And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah"
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." - quran (9:5)
This makes it clear that Muslims are permitted to go out of their way to wage war against non-Muslims, even those who weren't fighting them.
"And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." - quran (8:59-60)
This does NOT say "Allah cannot get to some places in the universe, therefore only wage war against non-Muslims where Allah can reach. It does NOT say "fight only those who fight you" ...it says fight those who disbelieve. This would be considered a crime against humanity today.
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - quran (9:29) -
This does NOT say "fight only those who fight you", nor does it say "don't fight"...it says "fight people because they believe differently to you, until they think the same as you.
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." - quran (9:111) - and this does NOT say "persuade people to your point of view by peaceful means" ...it says good Muslims "slay and are slain".
"But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." - quran (9:88)
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." - Sahih Bukhari 8:387
If people abided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than texts such as the qur'an, the world would be a better place.
How can people really believe objective morality exists when the world is split into those who think that causing eternal unbearable suffering is wrong, and those who think it is acceptable?
I suspect that @Searching for truth isn't answering whether he thinks I should be tortured or not either because he is ashamed: either to admit that he is in favor of such an action, or because he is ashamed to admit he isn't. There's also a slight possibility that he is remaining silent because he doesn't wanted to get banned for hate speech.
I wonder if he thinks that repeatedly burning people's skin off (and then replacing it) in the especially hot fire of hell isn't torture, despite the fact that all the Islamic texts are very keen to relish on the terrible suffering non-Muslims will endure - infants of Muslim parentage are indoctrinated with these passages in what are supposed to be schools from a very young age. Or maybe he somehow forgot that "yeah, actually, endlessly tormenting beings in ways described as being worse than any earthly pain is sort-of torture".
@SfT
You sound awfully confident that following not the literal God's word, but rather the human interpretation is the safest way out of Hell. Interesting.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Hadiths were written by closet atheists to fix the broken muslim world?
*sips tea*
Pages