Redefining theism/atheism?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Well, it looks like Sam has roped in a newbie to follow her down her maze of ratholes. Good luck LogicTech, don't say we didn't warn you.
I've advised you to use the ignore button yourself, but apparently thats too much of an effort for you.
You advise a great many things, as an attention whore. You are so vain and swept up with yourself, you thought that last post was for you. Hilarious. :roflmao:
Most scriptures preach inequality and injustice. Don't think I haven't read the Quran, I know it front and back. Regardless, doing something just because "scriptures say so" is an appeal to authority fallacy.
If you are talking about whether or not I believe in equality, I believe in social equality and social justice. Whether or not things are equal in general, naturally, is subjective.
If you know the Quran back to front, you should know what it says about equality.
So why do you believe in "social equality and social justice"? What is the evidence based reasoning for it?
Yes, phrases such as
"But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein." --2:39
and
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." -- 4:34
Really speak to me about equality and justice.
First of all, humans are by nature a social species. They need each other in order to survive. But that is just a drop in the vast bucket of water on why social equality and social justice are necessary.
Groups yield advantages that individuals can never hope to obtain (e.g. increased wealth, knowledge, living standards, etc). But in order for a group or a society to function properly, all members need to be conscience of each other. Selfishness is in this case very detrimental.
That is just the basics though There are, quite literally, hundreds and hundreds of scientific and philosophical volumes on why we care about others, and why we need to have a society based on social equality and justice. Scriptures are not necessary.
It is important to note that all ethics are just human constructs, they make no sense beyond their application to human conduct. It makes sense, then, that your ethics should be humanistic, rather than religious (which holds that worship to supernatural deities are more important than the well being of human beings).
Only this ensures the well being of not only the group, but also the individual.
Anyone who deviates from Justice and Truth is punished in every society. Criminals are accountable everywhere.
But equality under God is absolute, no person is better because of colour, race or geographical location [or sundry things like wealth and power]
I still do not see any evidence for the idea of social justice, just a post facto analysis of what you think an ideal justice system should envisage. But why do you believe there should be an ideal social justice system? It does not exist a priori.
Yes, of course, but the society as portrayed in the Quran dictates that belief without evidence is better, and that one specific gender is better, and punishes people for skepticism or holding beliefs different from your own. Racism is also cited, as is geographical location; the above were just two quotes.
All of these actions that don't harm anybody. Justice is not defined by how many people you can force to your narrow mindset. And Truth is very subjective, especially if it isn't grounded on facts. Deviation is not a justification for punishment. This is why in the U.S. we have what is called the First Amendment, and that in humanistic ethics moral relativism plays a huge part.
It doesn't exist a priori, but that was the whole point if you read my previous post. I was not posting what the ideal justice system was. But why it should exist, and why it does. You agree that humans are social creatures and that being part of a group does yield a great deal of survival advantages, right? Especially now, as the world is being overpopulated.
And read up on Hume, or Locke, or Nietzsche, or existentialism, or Carl Sagan. They're all good reads for why we should have social equality.
I thought you'd read the Quran. Or perhaps you just read what other people have said about the Quran. The Quran emphasises empirical learning and warns against believing in what you do not see. It abjures miracles, defines that social equality does not deny responsibility to those who are weaker and does not accept those notions of "religion" that worship superstition [Christianity] and racism [Judaism], while regarding that all people should be free to follow their own religion as long as they reject these socially damaging notions. Its pretty straightforward.
Oh really now? So, where did Osama Bin Laden get his justification for killing innocent civilians from? Or where does Saudi Arabia get it's justification for oppressing women and religious minorities? How about the Ottoman Empire and their various slaves? Or why not look into Iran and Afghanistan, and notice all of the grievances.
And apparently Muhammad is a hypocrite. You can't see God, and yet you have faith in Him?
You are not in the least bit skeptical with all the claims made in the scripture? Of course not! You will go to hell (whose existence is imaginary BTW) if you think about such things.... Of course, since you are a woman you will go to hell anyway, unless you are one of the 72 virgins to be enjoyed and raped by "righteous men".
I pointed out problems with it, and you amuse me by saying I've not read it. Go on, tell us all about social equality in those Islamic paradises listed above...
I love it how you ignore quotes that clearly contradict that statement.
And you contradict yourself, you do agree then that religion is not necessary to justify social equality and justice then? That it can be figured out by logic and reason, and not by an authority figure?
We can discuss Islam in another thread if you like. In short:
Osama is a rebel who follows the teachings of Ibn Tamiyya, an Islamic scholar who advocated that all Muslims, clerics included, should show independent judgement against kings and kingmakers. Tamiyya lived in the age when the Mongols invaded and destroyed Baghdad and he was strongly opposed to the traditional Islamic practice of separation of religion and state.
Saudi Arabia's customs are about 100 years old and trace back to another Islamic reformer, Abdul Wahab, who believed that traditional Islam was personified with veils and social restrictions. Perhaps he was unaware that the face veil originated in Byzantine or that the Prophets wife led the Sunni "democrats" against the Shia "nepotists" in battle. The fact that he was funded and allied to Saud, who destroyed all Islamic historical structures and took over all the tribes in Arabia [naming the country after his family, kinda like a Bushistan America] would not have hurt.
As for the Ottomans, they were secularists, but pragmatists. Slavery was something they inherited, and it was good business.
Iran and Afghanistan too were very different countries in the 1950s, with their current rules and regulations dating post Shah [1980] in Iran and post mujahideen [1989] in Afghanistan.
But your propensity for sites like "islam-watch" tells me much. Do you also frequent $tormfront and jew-watch?
Not at all. You have to travel and investigate and find out for yourself.
If you reject truth and justice, it would be unreasonable to expect paradise.
What quotes? I read the Quran in Arabic and I can tell when people get their information from hate sites.
I don't see any society that has existed without religion yet. And all with religion have a social system based on the religion.
Except you leave out the fact that all Islamic states (in fact, most empires and states, not just them) prior to the 20th century never, ever practiced separation of religion and state. They all drew inspirations for their actions directly from their scriptures. Separation of religion and state originated with the humanistic philosophies of Western Europe, during the Enlightenment and Romantic periods. Sharia law was considered by them to be the basis for which all governments should be founded on, and quite frankly there are very serious issues with it.
That's true, but it still begs the question on where they get their justification. It certainly didn't come out of thin air.
Oh wow, I do have reason to doubt your knowledge of history then. The Ottomans were certainly not secularists. Their religious "tolerance" only extended as far as not killing anybody who was a theist. And even then, they only allowed Muslims into their highest ranks. The Ottomans made all Muslims pay what was called jizya, which was a tax to continue practicing their religion. Otherwise, they were slaves, or were killed. As well, they kidnapped Christian boys in order to form the Janissarys. The millet system, which was a hierarchy system in place in the Ottoman Empire, was based entirely on religion. The only time they didn't discriminate was when someone did convert, so in effect they forced people to convert, just like any other religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, etc.
Justification for slavery in their society was indeed religious, and stemmed directly from the Quran.
But that doesn't alleviate any of the problems, does it?
I have visited a vast number of sites, both that were pro-religion and against religion. This is how one stays well informed. By looking at all sides and seeing the flaws in all view points, one does not have to ignore counter-points or revert to irrationality to justify their beliefs. I don't hold onto any one belief, they change with time and knowledge. Unlike all religious beliefs out there.
Oh wow, read above.
Yes, it would, wouldn't it? But I don't reject either of them. So, I don't care what happens in the so-called "afterlife"
What quotes? I read the Quran in Arabic and I can tell when people get their information from hate sites.
The ones I listed. The ones from the Quran itself. I don't see why you keep ignoring them, they are listed in the book. The translations aren't that far off from what is actually written, and I have a couple of friends who are fluent in Arabic, who can read right off what it says. Making the translations and inferring their meaning is not difficult at all, and the translators don't use Babelfish to do the job for them (it's a computer algorithm, so it will provide some outlandish translations when you try to switch back and forth between languages).
Or perhaps it is you who did not read the Quran?
Religion is only about a few tens of thousands years old. Just because a given society is based on religion doesn't make it right. Indeed, it has been responsible for every kind of injustice imaginable. Religion has also failed to provide a plausible explanation for anything, instead relying on superstition, dogma, and ad hoc hypothesis. It has produced no useful explanations for anything, and makes no predictions (the ones that it does make are just wishful thinking).
There have been plenty of societies, human and non-human, that have and do exist without religion. And have lasted a great deal longer.....
You're kidding right? The Ottomans practised the Millet system for 800 years, before that the Mongols had their own system, which they also practised in India. You obviously know very little about the history of Muslim countries.
The rest of your post is too filled with such obvious fallacies for me to bother with.
Pot, meet kettle
. If you certainly are willing to deny known facts, then there is no reason to continue. I joined this site in order to LEARN something, not to listen to someone promote an ideology.
Good day now!