Islam and Cardiovascular Science

[S.A.M.]

Nope. I think you kind of misunderstand the religion-bashers in one way, though. No one is suggesting that religion is the sole source of misdeed. Just that it is one source. And that removing it would therefore be removing one less source of misdeed.

I don't really agree with this line of reasoning, but you often mischaracterize it and create the strawman of "some other evil X can exist without religion, therefore religion is not the source of evil."

Atheists spend all of their time religion bashing. Sometimes its necessary to point out that the same things happen even in a non-religious context, since they completely ignore those occurences and pretend as if theists are the root of all evil.

See the OP for example. How many girls are willing to unbutton their shirts in class and have an ECG done on them? I for one would not and its not because I'm religious.

You have a very good point, but it's not particularly relevant to the debate between you and I. My suggestion was that he was wrong for breaking a contract.

What you're arguing is that the law or contract maybe ought to be changed. I think that's a separate, more difficult and also interesting question.

I did not see any contract. Also I presume that if he is unwilling to transport dogs, he will leave the job or find another one. This is normal and happens in all kinds of circumstances for all people.i.e. job is not what you thought it was, so protest or leave. Its only a Big Noise when a Muslim does it.

 

[Tyler]

Atheists spend all of their time religion bashing. Sometimes its necessary to point out that the same things happen even in a non-religious context, since they completely ignore those occurences and pretend as if theists are the root of all evil.

That's a gross generalization. And I kind of take offense to it. Contrary to what you seem to think, many of us do not spend our entire waking day on sciforums. Many of us have jobs, teach, read, publish, do charity, help our neighbors and drink coffee. We are not all spending our time screaming at you.

Though I agree that an awful lot of folk on here could do well to remember all the evil done by those who have identified as atheists.

Its only a Big Noise when a Muslim does it.

I don't think that's true at all. I've read multiple stories about Christians doing the same in newspapers, personally witnessed hooplah caused by Jewish groups demanding changes in education curriculum, as well as problems with vegetarians in classrooms dissecting animals. It happens to all sorts of people and often makes the news.

 

[S.A.M.]

Does it get generalised like this?

It used to be that we had an Advanced Physiology class where each student performed an ECG on one another. This was real hands on work. Then one day a Muslim girl complained and complained and then complained some more .. because her religion says she can't be touched by an infidel and also it's not fair she should miss out on a class activity. Obviously the only solution is that everyone else stop doing ECG and instead one volunteer will stand in front of the whole class and it will be done by a professional where everyone will just sit there and f*cking watch.

hence IMO we take one more step into backwardness.
People need to pull their heads out of their arses.


Yeah, probably the USA's fault.
M

I can imagine this southern bell, poor little white girl, lived her whole live on dad's estate, probably those people who barked loudest that slavery and the idea of white's being superior was wrong and bigoted, all must have seemed rather mean and targeted to the southern white peasantry. What's wrong with teaching your children to be proud of their heritage, must have been what they thought.

I've heard modern day WASPs talk about how they are unfairly targeted for their beliefs.

Poor them.
/sarcasm

 

[Tyler]

In the first one I would say the generalization is strongly implied, though not overtly stated. (At no point does he say "and all Muslims are like this." Though he implies it is a problem of Islam rather than a problem of the girl.)

The second message I just don't understand. Is he being sarcastic? If so, to prove what point?

 

[S.A.M.]

That believing in God is racist because it creates a class of people who don't believe in God, ie people outside the group.

Ironically, Michael spends all his time confirming his bigotry against theists.

 

[Tyler]

Well, I'm not going to defend Michael!

 

[S.A.M.]

Its not a singular occurence and he is not a lone offender.

There is the example of the American who beheaded his wife. This was somehow transformed into an honour killing because he is of Pakistani origin and the fact that he is an American citizen who was in the middle of a bitter divorce was inconsequential and secondary to his being a Muslim man with violent beliefs.

The same month a Texas guy butchered, cooked and ate his girlfriend and barely warranted a paragraph in the local newspaper.

The high and increasing incidence of domestic violence in American society is a fact that Muslim bashing atheists like to ignore.

 

[Tyler]

I didn't pay too much attention to that story, but I believe the New Yorker was big in the media because (a) he did in fact do it in a "traditional" way (b) he taunted the police (c) he specifically set out to be a role model of exactly the opposite. If, for instance, the guy who ate his girlfriend was also a devout Evangelical priest, you'd probably have heard a lot more news about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

What traditional way? Was the Chinese man who beheaded the tourist in the Canadian bus doing it in a traditional way?

How many Pakistani wives were traditionally beheaded last year? Is cooking and eating your girlfriend the American way?

This is what I mean by blinded Muslim bashing.

 

[Tyler]

I don't know if it was really 'traditional' in any sense. As I said, I didn't pay much attention.

 

[Bells]

Why religious grounds? Is it okay to leave them standing on non-religious grounds?

Well yes. Of course.

Should a cab driver be forced to take in an animal he considers as dangerous?

Guide dogs are dangerous now days?

Oh dear, they might kill us with their deadly gaze..

Or maybe they might shoot bees out of their mouths..

Sometimes its necessary to point out that the same things happen even in a non-religious context, since they completely ignore those occurences and pretend as if theists are the root of all evil.

And no one would deny it. However, what was being discussed was religious grounds used as an excuse to not take disabled people into one's cab.

Though I agree that an awful lot of folk on here could do well to remember all the evil done by those who have identified as atheists.

Oh God. You know about how we beat our old ladies when they talk to unrelated men? Oops..



Yes, we're all evil. Why I beat small children and animals on a daily basis.

It's what atheists do because we're "evil".

Atheists spend all of their time religion bashing.

Wrong. I also spend time reading, writing, playing with my children, feeding my children, spending time with children and husband, playing with my husband. I tend to only allocate an hour or so a day to religion bashing now. It's taken a back seat to real life.

See the OP for example. How many girls are willing to unbutton their shirts in class and have an ECG done on them? I for one would not and its not because I'm religious.

I don't know about the OP, but I remember going to see a Muslim GP (who my parents used to rave about) many years ago about a girly problem and he quite literally pushed me out the door and told me to go and see a "woman doctor" and recommended his wife because he wasn't comfortable discussing it. I was quite mortified to be honest, and embarrassed to the point of tears and went to another practice and saw another doctor, who was also male (was new to the State and didn't know of any doctors aside from the one my folks recommended who turned out to be the one to ask me to leave because he wasn't comfortable discussion those issues) and who promptly sent me off for tests and the like. You know.. he acted like a doctor should have acted instead of quite literally recoiling in horror when I started talking about what was wrong, standing up, opening the door and pushing me out the door and telling me to see a woman doctor like his wife.. As I said, it was very very embarrassing and I ended up in tears on the way home.

Its only a Big Noise when a Muslim does it.

Nope. It's a big noise when a Muslim does it and specifically sites religious reasons for leaving a blind person on the roadside. Had an atheist done it and sited his atheistic reasons for doing so, the hoopla would be just as big.

 

[S.A.M.]

Had an atheist done it and sited his atheistic reasons for doing so, the hoopla would be just as big.

Not at all, since atheism has no moral code. But many atheists now discriminate against Muslims quite openly [including on this forum] while protecting atheists from "flames" and there is absolutely no hoopla about it.

I don't know about the OP, but I remember going to see a Muslim GP (who my parents used to rave about) many years ago about a girly problem and he quite literally pushed me out the door and told me to go and see a "woman doctor" and recommended his wife because he wasn't comfortable discussing it.

And you see this as a problem? Wouldn't you rather he not see you if he was uncomfortable than see you anyway because he had to?

Oh God. You know about how we beat our old ladies when they talk to unrelated men? Oops..

Or, simply send your troops to do it.

Guide dogs are dangerous now days?

Oh dear, they might kill us with their deadly gaze..

Or maybe they might shoot bees out of their mouths..

Would you allow a strange guide dog into your car if your kids were in it?

Maybe Somalians do not have guide dogs. Maybe they have only wild dogs.

Many Indians associate dogs with rabies and consider them unclean animals.

 

[Tyler]

while protecting atheists from "flames" and there is absolutely no hoopla about it.

If someone is doing so on a personal basis, then I would agree that it is hypocritical.

However, I would suggest that it's perfectly plausible to condemn a religion (it's books, teachings, institutions, laws, or whatever) for being immoral and still not be required to defend other atheists at all. I myself am an atheist and have my own views on morality and ethics. If some other person is an atheist and has some view on morality or ethics distinct from my own (such as the biological-based ethic I mentioned in another thread), I reserve every right to condemn or argue against that ethic.

I wouldn't allow a stray dog into my car with kids. I would allow my friends seeing eye dog though, sure.

Strays often have rabies. Trained and cared for seeing eye dogs usually don't.

 

[S.A.M.]

What about a chimpanzee?

 

[Bells]

Not at all, since atheism has no moral code.

Of course not. That's why we think it's wrong to kill and torture people and to whip old ladies. No moral code there. I guess we don't need to be told or given a moral code by a religion to tell us the difference between right and wrong. Others obviously do.

But many atheists now discriminate against Muslims quite openly [including on this forum] while protecting atheists from "flames" and there is absolutely no hoopla about it.

Just as Muslims discriminate against atheists constantly on this site and elsewhere. I mean look at you as one prime example. You classify all atheists as being the same. Do I think all Muslim cab drivers or doctors are the same? No. God my first obstetrician was a Muslim and I absolutely adore him. He was kind, understanding and a damn fine doctor.. the best to be honest and I have recommended him to every woman I know who plans on having a child or is pregnant. I don't classify all Muslims as being the same. You seem to classify all atheists as being the same "evil" people who murder and torture people. Granted, I do that as a hobby on the side but still.. Not all partake in that kind of recreation.

And you see this as a problem? Wouldn't you rather he not see you if he was uncomfortable than see you anyway because he had to?

Err ya it's a problem. He's a doctor for goodness sake and I was quite distressed to begin with because I was so ill. To shove me out the door and tell me to see a woman doctor because he can't talk about stuff like that with another woman.. it was humiliating, embarrassing, stressful and I literally felt ashamed for daring to go to a doctor about it. As it was, I managed to get an appointment for that afternoon at a different and completely unknown practice and blood tests revealed that I had to be admitted immediately for blood transfusions. He failed in his duty as a doctor and should make clear that he can't talk about women's issues before he takes on female patients.

 

[Bells]

Replying to the edit.

Or, simply send your troops to do it.

Yep. We share because we care.

Would you allow a strange guide dog into your car if your kids were in it?

Of course. Is there a reason why I shouldn't?

Maybe Somalians do not have guide dogs. Maybe they have only wild dogs.

Yes, because a guide dog looks so much like a wild dog that it is quite impossible to tell them apart.

Many Indians associate dogs with rabies and consider them unclean animals.

And?

If the guide dog had rabies, I doubt it would be as tame, docile and obedient and helpful as guide dogs are. It would instead be rabid.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats because you are comfortable around dogs the way some Indians are comfortable around snakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkYmD-Krmo

 

[Michael]

This isn't made up-

Ali Reza Roshanmoniri was working for Cable Cars when he was called to a school where Mr Christopher Odell, who is blind and has an “assistance dog” had been working. But when he arrived at the school, Mr Roshanmoniri refused to take Mr Odell and his dog. This broke the conditions of the licence he was granted by Broxtowe Borough Council, who this week prosecuted Roshanmoniri for failing to carry a disabled person with a dog, an offence under the Disability Discrimination Act.

John Cunliffe, representing the council, told Nottingham Magistrates Court: "Most of the operators are aware that Mr Odell is blind and accompanied by his guide dog. On seeing Mr Odell’s guide dog he said it was against his religion to carry dogs in his vehicle. It was explained to him that the dog was a working dog and could not be refused carriage.”
http://www.secularism.org.uk/103543.html

I have no more sympathy for this idiot than I do for Christian pharmacy workers who balk at filling prescriptions for Plan B or other forms of birth control. If your nonsensical dogma prohibits you from performing your job, get a different job. Don't expect the rest of us to accommodate you.

Ali Reza Roshanmonir's family should be given free life-time birth control.

 

[Michael]

RE: The seeing eye dog.

We're a democratic society. We've voted that taxi cab drivers must take seeing eye dogs. If one does not want to take a seeing eye dog, then get into a god damn different line of work.


RE: monotheists.

#1) Yeah, teaching children not to associate with or touch non-Muslims is the same as teaching them not to associate with or touch non-whites.
#2) Teaching children that atheists, polytheists, Scientology and the like will burn in hell leads to the the type of thinking in #1.

SAM is all for teaching children no to accept seeing eye dogs, because this fit with her religion, she is not for teaching children that atheism is equally as valid a belief as Islam, because this goes again her religion.

For SAM and DH, when the 2500 year old Buddhist statues were blown to bits, this was the fault of the "West" for not using every last dollar for food aid to children. Even though the West gives 100000x more food aid then so-called Muslim countries. Hell, most of the times we're giving it to them.


RE: Quote
Read it many time and it's great.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Michael, again you refuse to debate the issue. The issue is a women revealing herself in front of strange men, not a Muslim vs. Non-Muslim issue.

Muslims don't teach their children not to associate with Non-Muslims, here you go making up things against to justify your xenophobic hatred of Muslims.

You are crying over stone statues, yet you ignore completely the massacre of 1 million innocent civilians in Afghan and Iraq. Are statues more important than human beings?

Granted the Taliban may not be representative of worldwide Muslim opinion, but you continue to ignore the real issue. Scandinavian archaeologists came to Bamiyan to fix the statues and restore them using millions of dollars. When the Taliban governor (the actual leadership had nothing to with this, as it is a decentralized form of gov) heard about this issue, he asked the archaeologists to instead use this money to help the orphans of this region and help build schools for Afghans. When the Westerners mocked the Taliban governor proposal, he get angry and thus ordered the statues to be destroyed. A decision made in anger, but used by the Western press to further demonize the Taliban.

Anyway, destroying statues isn't the problem. We are talking about women being asked to reveal themselves in front of strange men, and whether this is acceptable. Naturally as you can imagine, few women, esp modest Muslim women, would be comfortable with that scenario.

Using it as an excuse to call us Nazis and KKK is ridiculous, and shows your lack of honesty.

[Trolling Removed]