Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8204207.stm



Mind you, allowing husbands to starve their wives is the revised, more progressive version of the law.

Boo hoo? Other countriess have different laws and customs, that's life really.

Of course, I ain't feelin' this law.


However, they should put out more. Seems they had such a huge problem with the wives, they had to bring it to the LAW, dude.

Okay, I'll say it. The wonders of Islam, behold. Bunch of ****ing savages.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, I'll say it. The wonders of Islam, behold. Bunch of ****ing savages.
That is complete shit. Afghanistan is the worst place in the world and in absolutely no way can this be used as an example to condemn islam as a whole. I can find examples of most big religions doing things just as horrifying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is complete shit. Afghanistan is the worst place in the world and in absolutely no way can this be used as an example to condemn islam as a whole. I can find examples of most big religions doing things just as horrifying.

It's not complete shit.

"They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election."

Take a look at other Islamic countries, women being treated very poorly is a common theme in many of them.

Pass a law allowing starving women to pour drops of fresh spring water into their husbands' noses when they sleep.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is complete shit. Afghanistan is the worst place in the world and in absolutely no way can this be used as an example to condemn islam as a whole. I can find examples of most big religions doing things just as horrifying.

no you really cant. oppressing women is much more common in predominantly muslim nations then predominantly christian or other nations. not trying to say that one religion is better then the other nor am i saying that all muslims are that radical but it is a fact that islam tends to support this kind of stuff more often than Christianity or others do otherwise the guy wouldnt be passing this law to get the support of his people.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not complete shit.

"They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election."

Take a look at other Islamic countries, women being treated very poorly is a common theme in many of them.
Look at muslims in western countries (cept Holland), it is not nearly as predominant. It is the fact that a theocracy has been allowed to form that gives way to this issue.

Let's look at Turkey. Nearly everyone in muslim. This sort of thing is not being enshrined in law (in fact the opposite has happened). Let's look at Islam prior to western influence. Women were treated well. It is the theocracies that cause this, not Islam.

in case anyone doesn't see the threat in my comment-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
no you really cant. oppressing women is much more common in predominantly muslim nations then predominantly christian or other nations. not trying to say that one religion is better then the other nor am i saying that all muslims are that radical but it is a fact that islam tends to support this kind of stuff more often than Christianity or others do otherwise the guy wouldnt be passing this law to get the support of his people.
That is what happens when Theocracies form. Bad stuff happens. Excessive western influence has caused reactionary fundamentalist policies there.

Before the soviet invasion and Mujahadine, afghanistan was just is muslim but much more feminist. It is fundies that cause all the problems not something inherent in islam.

why should we feel sorry for them starving they could careless if everyone in the US dropped dead tomorrow

actually the catalysts were British and French Imperialism, Sayyid Qutb's education in the US and imprisonment in Egypt, and most of all, the foolish installation of the Shah to power by the CIA at the behest of what is now British Petroleum.

Originally posted by chomperx9
why should we feel sorry for them starving they could careless if everyone in the US dropped dead tomorrow
Er because we actually did things to cause this whereas they have done nothing to us?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Er because we actually did things to cause this whereas they have done nothing to us? You are very mal-informed. Troops invading Iraq caused Afghanistan to create a law that treats women like property? Also, the muslim nation, afghanistan included, is in jiihad with us. they are the ones who blew up the world trade center, not iraq.

So yea... you keep thinking that the radical muslim nation would be civilized and would have equal rights and a democratic republic if we had never made contact with them.

before the "war on terror" Iraq was taking wives who had disobeyed and bringing them into the middle of a soccer field with a huge assembly and sawing their heads off. Saudi Arabia, which we have not touched except to pass our money over, recently sentenced a woman to death by the whip because she was raped.

Now another iraqi nation, afghanistan, decides to starve their wives for sex, and its OUR fault. its a twisted anti-American de-patrotized stand you take.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Er because we actually did things to cause this whereas they have done nothing to us? yeah we caused things to have the world trade center and many lives lost uh hu. they are the ones that want to go to war everyday and threaten us.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
You are very mal-informed. Troops invading Iraq caused Afghanistan to create a law that treats women like property?
You DO know we are at war with afghanistan as well as Iraq, right? Yes that is what helped cause it (though to be honest the greatest blame here probably lies at the feats of the soviet union.)

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Also, the muslim nation, afghanistan included, is in jiihad with us.
You're saying EVERY muslim nation is at jihad with us... including the ones we are allied with? Every single one? What about Turkey? U.A.E.? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
they are the ones who blew up the world trade center, not iraq.
So somehow EVERY muslim country blew up the WTCs... Uhuh and here I thought the fact that every single terrorist involved there was saudi might somehow imply that it was saudis who were responsible rather than EVERY muslim country put together.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
So yea... you keep thinking that the radical muslim nation would be civilized and would have equal rights and a democratic republic if we had never made contact with them.
It wasn't a radical muslim nation before the soviets invaded, though. That's the thing.

Originally posted by chomperx9
yeah we caused things to have the world trade center and many lives lost uh hu. they are the ones that want to go to war everyday and threaten us.
Dude it was SAUDIS who blew up WTC, not the afghan government.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Before the soviet invasion and Mujahadine, afghanistan was just is muslim but much more feminist. It is fundies that cause all the problems not something inherent in islam. Yes, all the fundamentalist christian westerners went right on over there and told them how to have their heads in their asses.

And women were NOT treated well before the soviets invaders. they have been property in the middle east since the dawn of time.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
before the "war on terror" Iraq was taking wives who had disobeyed and bringing them into the middle of a soccer field with a huge assembly and sawing their heads off.
That was afghanistan not iraq you retard.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Saudi Arabia, which we have not touched except to pass our money over, recently sentenced a woman to death by the whip because she was raped.
The people in power in saudi arabia draw their fanances from the US.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Now another iraqi nation, afghanistan, decides to starve their wives for sex, and its OUR fault. its a twisted anti-American de-patrotized stand you take.
I think you mean a MUSLIM nation, not and IRAQI nation... if you cannot tell the difference then you cannot call me ignorant on this issue. Hell earlier you couldn't even tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Yes, all the fundamentalist christian westerners went right on over there and told them how to have their heads in their asses.

And women were NOT treated well before the soviets invaders. they have been property in the middle east since the dawn of time.
No it was fundy muslims who got in power because the soviets destroyed the existing government.

Dude in afghanistan pre-soviet invasion (republic of afghanistan) women had voting rights. You can look it up.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
You are very mal-informed. Troops invading Iraq caused Afghanistan to create a law that treats women like property? Also, the muslim nation, afghanistan included, is in jiihad with us. they are the ones who blew up the world trade center, not iraq.

So yea... you keep thinking that the radical muslim nation would be civilized and would have equal rights and a democratic republic if we had never made contact with them.

before the "war on terror" Iraq was taking wives who had disobeyed and bringing them into the middle of a soccer field with a huge assembly and sawing their heads off. Saudi Arabia, which we have not touched except to pass our money over, recently sentenced a woman to death by the whip because she was raped.

Now another iraqi nation, afghanistan, decides to starve their wives for sex, and its OUR fault. its a twisted anti-American de-patrotized stand you take.

Iran wasn't a liberal democracy before 1953? Afghanistan wasn't before the Soviet invasion? Bosnia and Herzegovina isn't modernizing?

Were the Seljuks and the Ottomans oppressive and genocidal relative to the European kings and lords? What about the early Muslim kingdoms which built upon and preserved the science and philosophy of the ancient world and provided a safe haven for Jews and commissioned their philosophers to be biblical interpreters of holy law?

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Huh? islam didn't exist before western influence.
It was developed in the middle east, not in the west. This is gibberish.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Thus: you are wrong. Islam teaches women are objects. End of story. Radical Islamic countries tend to follow this custom.
I would love to see you quote a passage in the quran that says women are objects. I bet you can't.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Islam is very young.
About 300 years younger than the christian bible. Yeah that sure is young.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
You are obviously misinformed and biased by todays "multicultural" propaganda.
YOU couldn't tell the difference between iraq and afghanistan and somehow i'm the misinformed one?

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Muslims are not harmless, they are not pursuing the American dream, they are at an open jihad with the USA. They treat their women poorly because it is their religion.
Come on, prove the quran explicitly supports abusing women. Bring it.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Any muslims you meet who are peaceful and DONT wear burkhas and try to kill the recievers of said Jiihad are not muslims as they do not follow the teachings of Muhammad.
I did not realize that mohammad taught people to where burkhas given that they were invented after his death. That seems odd. I suppose we can add time traveling to his list of miracles. Wow he really must be a prophet of god. Let's all convert to islam. After all even christ never travelled through time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You DO know we are at war with afghanistan as well as Iraq, right? Yes that is what helped cause it (though to be honest the greatest blame here probably lies at the feats of the soviet union.)

Ok, explain to me this logic, uh, if you can call it that, works out. We wage fare warfare on a hostile nation because it houses the al-qaeda and so as result of our war with a legitimate threat to the safety of our civilians, (Iraq is a different matter, i'm talking about Afghanistan) they decide to starve their women for sex?

that's not really a fair or logical statement. And don't yell strawman, i can't create a strawman of an argument that hasn't been elaborated on. Also, the soviets are dead or out of power now, so don't blame the USA.

The above statement also doesn't give credit to the Afghanistan nation. They are humans with morals. Lets give an example.

Germany, in world war I and II, was a legitimate threat to america, and had waged war upon the entire known world. Granted, they had a better war machine, but they still did. We waged war on them.... Twice. oh, and the soviets invaded them. Did they make a law for the starving of women for sex? No. Did they make any such laws? no.

Afghanistan is a nation consisting of human beings that can think for themselves, and are in a situation similar, but less drastic than post ww2 germany. To say that they are a mindless beast that will do evil things when prodded would be racism against their people.


the muslim nation announced Jiihad. According to the qur'an all muslims must conform and go to hell. Those who are not conforming will go to hell, according to their religion. They can't believe in something that they don't fear like that.

Everyone knows al-qaeda was housed in Afghanistan, and they are the ones who put it together. Even though its an international organization, who can draw members from as far as saudi-arabia, their base of operations was in Afghanistan.
elaborate.

So what is your suggested solution, Mr. Anderson?

http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/top-10-quran-quotes-every-woman-must-see/

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So what is your suggested solution, Mr. Anderson? uh, don't give a shit. There are women elsewhere who are dying because of things they can't help.

For one: If the girls that hungry...

For two: We aren't going to do anything to help anyone, we are just going to act like the wuss nation we have become and wonder if we could have possibly caused that with our little temper tantrum, and bite our nails.

Little wuss nation?

Im quite patriotic, but i'm also sick of the thing where the instant we do something remotely militarized like making a minor campaign (congress didn't even declare war) on an enemy who killed 11,000 citizens in one attack and threatens to kill more, have the nation bites their nails and tries desperately to stop us before we actually fix anything. (war on iraq was a mistake, i'm not talking about that). And then the instant anything bad happens, we blame ourselves. We aren't the red cross, we are a strong world power, and it seems whenever someone provokes us we do more help then harm.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Ok, explain to me this logic, uh, if you can call it that, works out. We wage fare warfare on a hostile nation because it houses the al-qaeda and so as result of our war with a legitimate threat to the safety of our civilians, (Iraq is a different matter, i'm talking about Afghanistan) they decide to starve their women for sex?
No the logic is that their legit government was destroyed by the soviets. Ever since then it was been lunatics, first Mujaheddin, then Taliban, now this. Now the US should not get the majority of the blame here (that honor goes to the soviets) but rather the problem in the US is the poor follow up... the taliban got dumped which is good (they are the ones who performed the public execution you talked about btw, not iraq), but the US should have built up infrastructure like schools, new govt, etc but we moved on to iraq instead.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
that's not really a fair or logical statement. And don't yell strawman, i can't create a strawman of an argument that hasn't been elaborated on. Also, the soviets are dead or out of power now, so don't blame the USA.
The soviets are gone but the effects of what they did are still in full swing... afghanistan would never recover from them if it was not aided... which we have made no effort to do despite our countries safety depending on the stability of the area.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
The above statement also doesn't give credit to the Afghanistan nation. They are humans with morals. Lets give an example.

Germany, in world war I and II, was a legitimate threat to america, and had waged war upon the entire known world. Granted, they had a better war machine, but they still did. We waged war on them.... Twice. oh, and the soviets invaded them. Did they make a law for the starving of women for sex? No. Did they make any such laws? no.
The thing is, the rest of the world FORCED GERMANY TO RECONSTRUCT. If they had been left with nothing who knows what would have happened... the soviets withdrew as well whereas in afghanistan they would not leave until the mujaheddin forced them to. If the soviets had been left in germany to do whatever they pleased then Germany would be a hellhole comparable to afghanistan.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Afghanistan is a nation consisting of human beings that can think for themselves, and are in a situation similar, but less drastic than post ww2 germany. To say that they are a mindless beast that will do evil things when prodded would be racism against their people.
The thing in germany is that other countries were active in it's redevelopment... afghanistan was left to the mercy of warlords and the USSR. If the USSR had had to fight guerilla wars in germany like in afghanistan with not help given to reconstruct germany germany would be just as bad if not worse than under the nazis or afghanistan under the taliban or mujaheddin.


Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
the muslim nation announced Jiihad. According to the qur'an all muslims must conform and go to hell. Those who are not conforming will go to hell, according to their religion. They can't believe in something that they don't fear like that.
What muslim nation? There is no universally recognized authority that has the power to issue jihad in the muslim world. For instance Jihads declared by the iran Ayatollah Khamenei are followed mostly in iran... those issued by the taliban were followed only in afghanistan. Jihad is not universal because there is no agreement on who has authority over it. There is scripture as well that says only individuals can declare jihad, not nations. It is not the uncontested issue you think it is.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Everyone knows al-qaeda was housed in Afghanistan,
This is true...

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
and they are the ones who put it together.
...however this is not. the taliban offered no aid to the WTC operation. al qaeda did that all on their own.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Even though its an international organization, who can draw members from as far as saudi-arabia, their base of operations was in Afghanistan.
Their base of operations was in afghanistan in the same sense the KKK is based in the US... it's true but it does not mean that the government was behind the lynchings. And you say saudi arabia like it's the exception: al qaeda is an organization of saudis.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
elaborate.
I'm not sure what kind of elaboration you're expecting... it simply wasn't. It was a democratic republic (it was corrupt sure but that was not because of islam), not an islamic theocracy. Most muslim nations only became theocracies after outside forces removed their existing governments.

I was wondering if your location was a reference to those lame ass matrix movies or if you actually lived in Israel.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I was wondering if your location was a reference to those lame ass matrix movies or if you actually lived in Israel.


Take your best guess.


And the Matrix movies are the best.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Im quite patriotic, but i'm also sick of the thing where the instant we do something remotely militarized like making a minor campaign (congress didn't even declare war) on an enemy who killed 11,000 citizens in one attack and threatens to kill more, have the nation bites their nails and tries desperately to stop us before we actually fix anything. (war on iraq was a mistake, i'm not talking about that). And then the instant anything bad happens, we blame ourselves. We aren't the red cross, we are a strong world power, and it seems whenever someone provokes us we do more help then harm.
The US made absolutely no legit effort to repair afghanistan. We did not fix a thing and had no intention to.

i'd think twice before i speak, if i were you. the west isn't as civilized as it likes to pretend it is. now this whole afghani thing is horrible and an affront to women and men alike but lets not forget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/throwing-stones-at-afghan_b_188646.html

not to mention that just because afghanis are doing it, it doesn't mean islam condones such actions. to suggest so is stupidity.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
i'd think twice before i speak, if i were you. the west isn't as civilized as it likes to pretend it is. now this whole afghani thing is horrible and an affront to women and men alike but lets not forget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/throwing-stones-at-afghan_b_188646.html

not to mention that just because afghanis are doing it, it doesn't mean islam condones such actions. to suggest so is stupidity.
I am not sure what he is saying. Does he mean that 10 - 14% of women in marriages get raped and it is because of the laws never punish the rapist. Or is it that 10-14% of women get raped, and never report it, which seems more likely, and is still sad, but the government can do little about it, no?

Either way, comparing the situation of the US to that in some Muslim countries, is ridiculous in scale, of course there are still things wrong in the US, with many different minorities involved, but this law goes much, much further.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Look at muslims in western countries (cept Holland), it is not nearly as predominant. It is the fact that a theocracy has been allowed to form that gives way to this issue.

Let's look at Turkey. Nearly everyone in muslim. This sort of thing is not being enshrined in law (in fact the opposite has happened). Let's look at Islam prior to western influence. Women were treated well. It is the theocracies that cause this, not Islam.

this is ridiculous.

the figures on honour killings among south Asian immigrants is astounding.

not to mention, many women in immigrant communities are oppressed by their lack of access to institutions and society by over baring husbands and basic fiscal/linguistic concerns.

I'd agree, the problem isn't Islam, however, Islam is a HIGHLY patriarchal system, which is the problem, and those who want to keep power, need only pull the gender strings, and they are able to keep power. The use of women's bodies as political symbology in Iran is a really good example of this.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, who cares if other people are oppressed and raped and killed, as long as there is a law justifying it in their country.



That's such a weird generalization. Not only presumes it that everyone in that country thinks the same (while disregarding the rather valid reasons why one might hate the US in those regions), it also extends that hate to an oppressed minority who has little to do with terrorism if at all. Wouldn't your dumbass "patriotism" bullshit rather want to support the women that are oppressed by the people who fight your beloved soldiers, enemy of my enemy kinda thing.

Though I think your line of thought is just "eww they are brown I hope they die"

This post was filled with pwn.


Sorgo can eat his heart out. 313

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure what he is saying. Does he mean that 10 - 14% of women in marriages get raped and it is because of the laws never punish the rapist. Or is it that 10-14% of women get raped, and never report it, which seems more likely, and is still sad, but the government can do little about it, no?

Either way, comparing the situation of the US to that in some Muslim countries, is ridiculous in scale, of course there are still things wrong in the US, with many different minorities involved, but this law goes much, much further.


Also the fact that he/she snidely remarks at 16 being a shitty age to allow women to get married. Pfffft. I guess he/she doesn't realize that early man's life expectancy was 18. Guess when the "women" made babies?


This also doesn't change the fact that lots of people are making the sex before 16 in the US, making his/her comparison to marriage at 16 retarded.

Edit - Read the name and looked at the picture on the article. It's a dude.

Mr Anderson - I'm very interested to know what print edition of the Koran you actually read? All those quotes in the Koran in your link are very different in the Koran edition we have in the house.

For example, the quote about 'slaves as sexual property', in my Koran has the following:

'And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free believing women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens as have fallen into your hands as slaves; God well knoweth your faith. Ye are sprung the one from the other. Marry them, then, with the leave of their masters, and give them a fair dower: but let them be chaste and free from fornication, and not entertainers of lovers.'

Likely the edition where Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson coauthor the forward

It seems like a trade off....Lots of sex or a skinny wife. Why can't they have both?.

Originally posted by jaden101
It seems like a trade off....Lots of sex or a skinny wife. Why can't they have both?.

+2, sir. Pure win.

lol, mandatory starvation AND rape laws

It's not rape, if it's the law. Maybe call it forced-consensuality?

I had to google those names. Urgh, so basically the edition ignoramus?

Oh and this!

http://darkentriesdjd.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/tinky-winky.jpg

I nearly put one up with it wearing a tutu, but thought that would be too offensive...

Originally posted by MildPossession
I had to google those names. Urgh, so basically the edition ignoramus?

Oh and this!

http://darkentriesdjd.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/tinky-winky.jpg

I nearly put one up with it wearing a tutu, but thought that would be too offensive... Wait, you don't keep up with hateful, ignorant evangelists?

Originally posted by MildPossession
I had to google those names. Urgh, so basically the edition ignoramus?

my apologies then man

Its like Santa, it sucks to be the one to spoil the magic for you.

Originally posted by jaden101
It seems like a trade off....Lots of sex or a skinny wife. Why can't they have both?.

I like my women with meat on their bones so that, during hanky panky, their boobies bounce all of the place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like my women with meat on their bones so that, during hanky panky, their boobies bounce all of the place.

The money they save not feeding their sexual property, they can spend on breast implants. Problem solved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like my women with meat on their bones so that, during hanky panky, their boobies bounce all of the place.

I like my women like I like my coffee...Ground up and in the freezer.

Originally posted by jaden101
I like my women like I like my coffee...Ground up and in the freezer.


The cold chunks take toooo damn long to thaw out when I have my way with them...and nuking them causes them to cook and turn rubbery.


You're gross.

I know I know, really should keep my eye on those people. I'm not good with names to be honest. I remember the Tinky Winky thing in the news but not who brought it up.




Why spoilt? is there something wrong with him, I mean I will get my presents this year?

Originally posted by dadudemon


You're gross.

Guilty as charged.

I like my women like I like my whiskey. 12 years old and mixed up with coke.

Originally posted by MildPossession
I know I know, really should keep my eye on those people. I'm not good with names to be honest. I remember the Tinky Winky thing in the news but not who brought it up.




Why spoilt? is there something wrong with him, I mean I will get my presents this year?

Dude, here's santa: Fast forward to 2:58 (but I recommend the whole video. The music's great, as well as the animations.)


-3JCESdFNyw

Originally posted by MildPossession
Why spoilt? is there something wrong with him, I mean I will get my presents this year?

cSs3FyeThM0

mines better than dadudemon's







































(indeed, all possible meanings)

Originally posted by inimalist
cSs3FyeThM0

mines better than dadudemon's

B-b-but. Mine has british celebs being mutilated! She's from the UK, so she'll appreciate it.

RESPECT weird al

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was developed in the middle east, not in the west. This is gibberish.

no, early sixth century was when it was founded. The middle east had in contact with the west.

i did.

The christian bible doesn't endorse the treatment of women as property.

slight typ-o. I was tired last night.
done and done.

Could you please answer my question at the top of page 3, Mr. Anderson.

Germany was held by three different countries after the Soviets invaded it.

Hell, there was basically a political war between three world powers in the middle of Germany until the walls were brought down and the armies came out of Germany.

You don't see Germany starving their wives, though, no?

Not to mention the fact that if you would visit Germany now it's in excellent shape. Something I can't really say for Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Germany was held by three different countries after the Soviets invaded it.

Hell, there was basically a political war between three world powers in the middle of Germany until the walls were brought down and the armies came out of Germany.

You don't see Germany starving their wives, though, no?

Not to mention the fact that if you would visit Germany now it's in excellent shape. Something I can't really say for Afghanistan. We got some pretty good reconstructionary help though. And our previous "badness" wasn't based in some deep founded and continued spiritual belief.



Germany is pretty awesome though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And our previous "badness" wasn't based in some deep founded and continued spiritual belief.

Atheist sentiment pwnage, right there.



I'll say it again:


If all religions disappeared right now, the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
no, early sixth century was when it was founded. The middle east had in contact with the west.
I suppose that is technically true since it used to be controlled by Rome, but in no way does that give the west credit for Islam. At the time when Mohammed created Islam the Bedouin clans he was part of were quite isolated from europe.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
i did.
No you didn't. You posted a page that used it's own translation that was proven to be invalid by others in this thread. In the future I would like you to use the following service that allows you to easily search through multiple accepted translations and compare them.

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
The christian bible doesn't endorse the treatment of women as property.
Coolio. Neither does the quran and at any rate this has zero to do with you claiming the quran is young and is just a pathetic attempt to escape the fact that you were wrong when you claimed it was very young.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
slight typ-o. I was tired last night.
How about when you said afghanistan was an "Iraqi nation"? Or when you said the "Muslim nation" is at jihad with us when there isn't even a recognized one.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
done and done.
Yeah you can pick and choose from weird translations, but i'd rather you search through the numerous ones I provide a service for.

Originally posted by dadudemon

If all religions disappeared right now, the world would be a better place.

B-but, b-but where would morals come from!!11??

Secular Humanism?

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Germany was held by three different countries after the Soviets invaded it.

Hell, there was basically a political war between three world powers in the middle of Germany until the walls were brought down and the armies came out of Germany.

You don't see Germany starving their wives, though, no?

Not to mention the fact that if you would visit Germany now it's in excellent shape. Something I can't really say for Afghanistan.

Germany was also one of the most industrialized nations on the planet post ww2

After ww1 might be a better example, as the currency tanked and gross militarization and racism seemed the only solution.

Afghanistan has never had anyone spend the money necessary to even build the initial infrastructure, as it has been a victim of "The Great Game" for centuries, where its land has been a battleground for major powers who want it for various reasons, most recently an oil pipe line (this is all pre-911 though).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Secular Humanism?

but where do they get their morals from?

Originally posted by inimalist
but where do they get their morals from?

Would you please re-ask that in multiple choice form?

Originally posted by Robtard
Would you please re-ask that in multiple choice form?

lol, thats a lot of choices...

Originally posted by Robtard
B-but, b-but where would morals come from!!11??

You mean the thing we evolved to become a more successful species?

BAH!

I flop my genitals at you. I fart in your general direction.

Originally posted by inimalist
but where do they get their morals from?

The exact same place religion gets them . . .

Originally posted by King Kandy
I suppose that is technically true since it used to be controlled by Rome, but in no way does that give the west credit for Islam. At the time when Mohammed created Islam the Bedouin clans he was part of were quite isolated from europe.

that's not the point. The point is, you said that muslims treated women well before western influence. they didn't exist before western influence.

from your source:

oh, heres one saying that a woman who has done something immoral will be locked in her house until she starves to death! isn't that nice?

oh, and heres one (from your source) that describes the way men should take care of women who's ill will YOU HAVE REASON TO FEAR.
from this source: http://quranicteachings.co.uk/women.htm
the burkha:


it is young, very young. sixth century as opposed to 0AD

The first one was a slip because i was quite tired. The muslim nation is at jiihad with us, unless they ended it.
done. they are still rather incriminating.

Originally posted by dadudemon

If all religions disappeared right now, the world would be a better place. I sincerely doubt that. The charities that take care of the poor would be abandoned for one.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
I sincerely doubt that. The charities that take care of the poor would be abandoned for one.


Altruism would not cease to exist.

I think you missed the point of my post, bro.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The exact same place religion gets them . . . the fear of something bigger damning them for unselfish acts?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Altruism would not cease to exist.

I think you missed the point of my post, bro. maybe. I'm not sure. Altruism, of course, would not entirely cease to exist, but undoubtedly christians are the founders of most of the largest charities. Goodwill, salvation army, and red cross were all formed by christians. America also has a large part of its creation thanks to the christian people.

I wonder if any good things would disappear if the muslims ceased to exist, however. I can't think of any.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
that's not the point. The point is, you said that muslims treated women well before western influence. they didn't exist before western influence.
I meant modern western influence in any case, like the US or USSR.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
from your source:

oh, heres one saying that a woman who has done something immoral will be locked in her house until she starves to death! isn't that nice?
Or did you miss the part saying to let up if she repents? As in, do that until she apologizes.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
oh, and heres one (from your source) that describes the way men should take care of women who's ill will YOU HAVE REASON TO FEAR.
It says you should punish them and then NOT harm them. Yeah that is not in any way saying women are objects especially when it says men are to PROTECT women.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
from this source: http://quranicteachings.co.uk/women.htm
the burkha:
My friend, I don't think you have a right to call me misinformed anymore.

This is what that passage describes (a head scarf). And this is a rather large version at that:

http://jimfairthorne.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hijab.jpg

THIS is a Burka:

http://weblog.javazen.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/burka.jpg

They are not the same thing at all. Burkas were not invented when Mohammod was around and most muslims agree they are not quranic dress.


Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
it is young, very young. sixth century as opposed to 0AD
I didn't realize that the modern form a christianity was around in 0AD given christ was a baby then... I seem to recall the bible being finalized in the 4th century... oh yeah that's because it was. Before then every christian sect had it's own canon of books. As opposed to the Quran which was finalized only a few years after Mohammod's death.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
The first one was a slip because i was quite tired. The muslim nation is at jiihad with us, unless they ended it.
WTF is "The Muslim Nation"? There is no such authority. BTW I suppose you not knowing what a Burqa is is another slip? You are just full of mistakes.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
done. they are still rather incriminating.
Not really because you seriously exagerrated what they were saying. At best they're mildly bothersome (I could find far worse stuff in the bible).

This seems pointless, it's really hard rationally debating an obvious cattle car enthusiast.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
I wonder if any good things would disappear if the muslims ceased to exist, however. I can't think of any.
If they had disappeared in the middle ages we wouldn't have modern science...

Proves my point, cattle car enthusiast.

What?

it's a metaphor for a genocidal racist that i've been trying out lately. I wasn't referring to you.

most random metaphor ever.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This seems pointless, it's really hard rationally debating an obvious cattle car enthusiast.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If they had disappeared in the middle ages we wouldn't have modern science...

or any of western civilization as we know it, as the Christians of this time were busy burning it from every corner of Europe they could manage

That was more the Catholic church (ie The Popes) than all of Christianity, as there certainly where monks and religious whatnots who studied the sciences yet where men of faith.

I was glossing over stuff, but ya, it was the Holy Roman Empire too, especially with the destruction of Greece.

There are interesting issues with, say, the Library of Alexandria, which, iirc, was destroyed more by angry mobs than by a Christian institution. But fair enough. At the height of the Islamic civilizations, many monks came to Baghdad or Iberia to study, for sure.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
the fear of something bigger damning them for unselfish acts?

No, out of the limited experiences of flawed human beings.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
maybe. I'm not sure. Altruism, of course, would not entirely cease to exist, but undoubtedly christians are the founders of most of the largest charities. Goodwill, salvation army, and red cross were all formed by christians. America also has a large part of its creation thanks to the christian people.

Altruism would actually increase.


Yes, I'm serious.


No more "us" and "them" when it came to religion.




Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
I wonder if any good things would disappear if the muslims ceased to exist, however. I can't think of any.

Actually, I agree with you here. Islam is no exception to my distaste for religion.

immigrant countries?
racist....
lol. anyway,


true to some degrees. however, people are misusing it to opress women. islam never said anything remotely close to starving your wife for pvssy, beating them, opressing them, preventing them from educaton, or refusing them the right to choose who they want to marry.
heck there is a hadith where the prophet very clearly said that a woman can work and support her family. this is 1400 years before western feminists came in and not only convinced men that they could work but forced fat lazy women to actually work.
whch is the bit that i find very strange. everyone's quick to nitpick over political correctness of the quran (a concept i find beyond retarded), bring up some misinformed hadiths, quote one out of context, try to pass total shit as quranic versus (as we see with this Mr. Anderson dude)....and totally ignore the postive aspects about islam that favor women. aspects that out ratio the bad. more so when you consider the cultural situation at the time.

people using islam as an excuse to carry out such atrocities actually points at two things:
1) blatant lies on their part
2) EXTREME ignorance on the count of the tw@ts who actually buy it

Originally posted by BackinBlack
immigrant countries?
racist....
lol. anyway,

immigrant communities, reread please


Originally posted by BackinBlack
true to some degrees. however, people are misusing it to opress women. islam never said anything remotely close to starving your wife for pvssy, beating them, opressing them, preventing them from educaton, or refusing them the right to choose who they want to marry.
heck there is a hadith where the prophet very clearly said that a woman can work and support her family. this is 1400 years before western feminists came in and not only convinced men that they could work but forced fat lazy women to actually work.

I don't see how this is relevant to what I said. My claim was that the patriarchy within Islam is the problem, not Islam itself. The fact that there is any gender specific regulations, compound with the fact that men have given themselves the power and will use oppression along gendered lines to keep it, is the issue, and this issue is seen in many other communities, not just the Islamic ones.

Most south asian nations have issues with this. India and the Hindus there, for example, also have a very strict patriarchal system, and there are huge oppressions of women. Bride death, for instance.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
whch is the bit that i find very strange. everyone's quick to nitpick over political correctness of the quran (a concept i find beyond retarded), bring up some misinformed hadiths, quote one out of context, try to pass total shit as quranic versus (as we see with this Mr. Anderson dude)....and totally ignore the postive aspects about islam that favor women. aspects that out ratio the bad. more so when you consider the cultural situation at the time.

I wasn't speaking about the negative aspects of Islam, I was speaking of the negative aspects of patriarchal systems, which would apply equally across all patriarchal systems

Originally posted by BackinBlack
people using islam as an excuse to carry out such atrocities actually points at two things:
1) blatant lies on their part

Unless you are a scholar of Islam or a Muslim yourself, I'd hardly think you, or I for that matter, qualify as someone who gets to declare what is or is not part of Islam. All religions are different than their holy text, and even the most fundementalist don't ever follow strict interepretations of them. They try, but the books are self contradictatory in many parts.

I certainly don't feel I have the right to tell people what is or is not their religion

Originally posted by BackinBlack
2) EXTREME ignorance on the count of the tw@ts who actually buy it

see, this is prejudiced toward Muslims

Originally posted by Darth Jello
it's a metaphor for a genocidal racist that i've been trying out lately. I wasn't referring to you. Muslims are a race?

you otherwise agree though?

I believe that the muslim religion is malignant. I do not believe in genocide though.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
I believe that the muslim religion is malignant. I do not believe in genocide though.

What else do you do with a malignant tumor, if not destroy it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Altruism would actually increase.


Yes, I'm serious.


No more "us" and "them" when it came to religion.

In the short term I agree entirely but people have always had things to fight about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I agree with you here. Islam is no exception to my distaste for religion.

Personally I think dislike toward religion could be better targeted at other things in the same area. You're simply not going to take down religion, it's impractical and largely runs counter to belief in freedom.

Much better to make religion irrelevant and unneeded. Bill Nye probably did more to take down religion than Dawkins ever could.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Personally I think dislike toward religion could be better targeted at other things in the same area. You're simply not going to take down religion, it's impractical and largely runs counter to belief in freedom.

Much better to make religion irrelevant and unneeded. Bill Nye probably did more to take down religion than Dawkins ever could.


Woah woah woah. WTF?


That's not what I said at all. I don't aim to take down religion at all. I just said that the world would be better off with it.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
I believe that the muslim religion is malignant. I do not believe in genocide though.

the funny thing about this is, well, you are empowering the people within the muslim faith who want to oppress women just by adopting this stance

The muslim community is hugely diverse, and there are muslim movements for democracy constantly struggling against oppressive regimes from North Africa to South East Asia.

By defining the faith as you do, you basically are saying people like the Iranian theocratic leaders and Al Qaeda have it right, when that is the equivalent of saying that the Army of God is the authority on christian dogma.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bill Nye probably did more to take down religion than Dawkins ever could.

AND HOW!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just said that the world would be better off with it.

if by better world, you mean one where there is less personal freedom

Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah woah woah. WTF?


That's not what I said at all. I don't aim to take down religion at all. I just said that the world would be better off with it.

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

If you dislike religion it's not very productive to do things that are against religion (in fact that tends to make people cling to their beliefs all the more). Instead you should focus on building up science.

Like, if you have a cold the runny nose might be what bothers you but it isn't the actual problem.

if by better world, you mean one where there is less personal freedom

Am I the only one that has failed to grasp the path from 'better off without it' to 'oppreshun'?

Originally posted by inimalist
if by better world, you mean one where there is less personal freedom

Uh. No.



Some thought on my point would have revealed greater personal freedom. Trade one freedom for a bajillion others. Seems like a grand deal, to me.

More thoughts would have revealed my cynicism towards religion, in general. There are some religions out there that are just fine and harmless...great. But I can't be a hypocrit and only pick and choose.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

If you dislike religion it's not very productive to do things that are against religion (in fact that tends to make people cling to their beliefs all the more). Instead you should focus on building up science.

Like, if you have a cold the runny nose might be what bothers you but it isn't the actual problem.


And, no, I don't plan on, nor do I want religion to disappear. I was just being cynical.






As someone else said, if religion didn't exist, we'd find other reasons to fight and oppress. Religion is just an excuse.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Am I the only one that has failed to grasp the path from 'better off without it' to 'oppreshun'?

No. You actually understood what I meant.

i was kidding. sorry.


no, you're right. i was just making a reference to what i'm seeing in this thread and other threads where one hadith or quranic verse is taken and used to highlight women's suffering in islam all the while ignoring several others that are positive.


true.

I wasn't speaking about the negative aspects of Islam, I was speaking of the negative aspects of patriarchal systems, which would apply equally across all patriarchal systems

i disagree. there is a matter of interpretation and then there is lies. passing a "fatwa" that says you can starve your women for pvssy and that its allowed in islam is blatant lies. saying you are allowed to beat your wife is blatant lies. saying a woman can't work is blatant lies. using "religious texts" to carry out terrorist activities is a blatant lies.on the other hand, aspects like hijab is a matter of interpretation: some very religious women don't wear hijab but wear normal clothes. THAT is a matter of interpretation.
the fact that people are even buying into this is what i said points towards ignorance.


like i said above.


once again, not really. very few people are aware of the cultural and social aspects of a quranic verse or a hadith, and also why the quran is arranged in its particular form (an aspect of quranic studies that no scholar to date has been able to decode). then there's the issue of where that hadith came (mekkah or medinah) the former which was more basic and the latter more liberal and expansive. the prophet was in mecca for 10 years and the migrated to medinah and stayed there for his remaining 13 years. obviously lot of things changed in that gap.

simple example: iconoclasm was strictly forbidden in mecca but was there is a hadith in medinah, 13 years later, which allowed drawing of even live forms as long as it was not on your body or the walls of your house. yet many people still uphold the iconoclastic stance in the muslim community BECAUSE they are not doing a comparative study of hadith...which points to superficial knowlege of the religion.

i don't see why we can't point out the elephant in the room. there IS a lot of religious ignorance in the muslim community, which is why you have terrorism, discrimination and misogyny going on in a community whose religion openly opposes these.

when you say there is religious ignorance, it means you have an interpretation of the religion that you know is right as opposed to the way other people interpret the religion.

The only difference is that you call them ignorant whereas they blow you up.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Am I the only one that has failed to grasp the path from 'better off without it' to 'oppreshun'?

well...

for starters, many laws which oppress people are not, in their original intent, set up to oppress

essentially though: no religion; no freedom of belief; no diversity of thought; no ability for individuals to come to their own decisions about the universe. Wanting no religion essentially forces people not to be religious. There are some people to whom religion is important, even just the idea of being religious. I'd think they are entitled to that, and the world is a better place because of it.

see my sig.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh. No.

sure it is

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some thought on my point would have revealed greater personal freedom. Trade one freedom for a bajillion others. Seems like a grand deal, to me.

really? which of your freedoms would you be willing to give up, so that someone else can have their perfect world?

Originally posted by dadudemon
More thoughts would have revealed my cynicism towards religion, in general. There are some religions out there that are just fine and harmless...great. But I can't be a hypocrit and only pick and choose.

ya, I'm speaking of religion in general

wanting a world without religion is, imho, fairly naive.

dude, with all due respect, i think you're missing the point. i'm not talking about the interpretation but the knowledge of the religion itself. lotta religious people today rely on a superficial, second hand and spoonfed "knowledge" of their religion. that's the problem. interpretation only occurs if you're reading the text yourself, which most people aren't.
that's the point i'm making.


no. i'm calling them ignorant and they are proving my point by blowing me up.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
dude, with all due respect,

with all due respect, dont patronize me

Originally posted by BackinBlack
i think you're missing the point. i'm not talking about the interpretation but the knowledge of the religion itself.

what constitutes knowledge of a religion is based upon interpretation

what you are proposing is that there is a "true" way to interpret scripture, or even "be a Muslim". You are then saying others are not truly interpreting scripture, or that they aren't following true Islam, for whatever reason.

No offense, but that is the same as Qutb declaring Jahiliya on Muslims who didn't engage in Jihad against the Egyptian government, only you aren't calling for violence.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
lotta religious people today rely on a superficial, second hand and spoonfed "knowledge" of their religion.

a) that is their right
b) so? that the knowledge is second hand says nothing of its truth
c) why is your way right and theirs wrong?

Originally posted by BackinBlack
that's the problem. interpretation only occurs if you're reading the text yourself, which most people aren't.
that's the point i'm making.

ok, so move the criticism back one level. You are now saying there is a proper way to be religious, in fact, one true way to be religious.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
no. i'm calling them ignorant and they are proving my point by blowing me up.

I think you might be a little ignorant of Jihadi theocratic philosophy.

for instance, what do catapults and suicide bombers have in common?

...err


to reiterate: interpretation is only possible from first hand knowledge. if you don't read the scriptures and the hadiths YOURSELF what are you even going to interpret?

and i'm not criticizing the interpretation but the fact that people are relying on the interpretation of others instead of having one of their own. this has become the bane of islam and other religions because the knowledge that is passed on is subject to manupilation. the teachers can easily censor out bits that don't suit their taste or agendas.
and pair that up with the fact that there is no intellectual criteria to being a so-called scholar and perhaps you'll understand why i'm so adamant against spoonfed religious teachings.


i see where you're coming from. reading over my posts i do realize that i appear suspiciously close to making these claims. but i'm not. my main point as i said before is that spoonfed religion is wrong because it leads to easy manupilation on the part of "scholars", who are far from ineffable themselves and certainly on an agenda themselves.


DONT PATRONIZE ME!!!

spoonfed religion may be undesirable in your mind, but you certainly don't have the authority to call it wrong

i have the authority to call it wrong based on what dangers it exposes not only the people to but also the religion itself to. its like going to a school where you're not allowed to read a book but have to take your teacher's word for everything. the risk is too great. and, frankly, the fact that one deliberately goes to such a school sheds a light on his/her intellectual side as well.

that isn't proof of it being wrong

no, it isn't. but its saying something about religious ignorance on people's part if they are looking for a superficial knowledge instead of doing it themselves.

ok, but up until this point, you have said, and I'm paraphrasing, "people who are spoonfed religion are not following the true religion".

my only point is that this is impossible to prove

I'd go further and comment about how such feelings lead to entrenched, polarized sides to debates that quickly deteriorate, and do more harm in solving the problems with extremists than good, but my big point was that you couldn't know for sure they are wrong.

And now you've moved it out of the original realm of discussion:

Nothing here suggests the implementation of restrictions. Not even the fine text of which the period is made. He is not (in my mind) advocating any sort of prohibition upon religion. I do not think there are many foolish enough to do that.

All I've seen from DDM is the idea that (organized?) religion has a negative net value for humanity. Ergo: the world would be a better place without any form or idea of religion. Prohibited religion is still a form of religion.



He isn't infringing freedom of belief: he is daydreaming that people would simply not believe it, not that they would be prevented from believing it.

@DDM: Rite?

inimalist, I normally would not respond, as this is not my argument. I just think that you are reading way too much into this. He's not suggested a proactive pursuit of the goal. So unless you can explain your path from 'it'd be nice if there was no organized religion' to 'I want to eliminate freedom of religion' I'm gonna have to say you lost me on this.

more like people who are spoofed religion do not have the proper UNDERSTANDING of the true religion.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't infringing freedom of belief: he is daydreaming that people would simply not believe it, not that they would be prevented from believing it.

LOL

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

so he has the A and the C, but, god no, we can't be critical of the B.

the world would be a better place without black people































































what? that isn't oppressive

Originally posted by BackinBlack
more like people who are spoofed religion do not have the proper UNDERSTANDING of the true religion.

same deal

unless you claim to have the proper understanding of the true religion?

claiming they dont really understand their religion is different from saying they are not following the true religion. big difference, mate. you can gobble up before exams but that's not really understanding the material. same thing.


why do you think that i think that. you seem to always suggest this?

Originally posted by BackinBlack
claiming they dont really understand their religion is different from saying they are not following the true religion. big difference, mate. you can gobble up before exams but that's not really understanding the material. same thing.

why do you think that i think that. you seem to always suggest this?

to know someone isn't following the true religion, you need to know the true religion

you don't know what they are being spoonfed isn't the truth

lol, like what, do you need me to agree with you? I'm an anarchist, the idea of someone telling me what is true is abhorrent. However, you don't have privilege to supernatural truth.

Post-modernism is still relevant in this type of debate.

i'm not talking about the interpretaton, mate. i'm talking about the level of understanding really. a teacher can walk into class and tell the kids everything there is to know about a play or poem etc and she might be right about everything and the kids walking out of that class will be parroting all the right things. but do they really understand it? in religion, the spoonfed guys can go around parroting a verse or hadith but without the required understanding of cultural context, social context etc they have not really understood what they are saying. not talking about right and wrong but the very idea of understanding what you're saying.
that's the point i'm trying to make.


i'm not claming to either. i think the moment you read "true religion" you went into the old anarchist knee-jerk reaction of trying to knock me down a peg


post-modernism is ALWAYS relevant.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
i'm not talking about the interpretaton, mate. i'm talking about the level of understanding really. a teacher can walk into class and tell the kids everything there is to know about a play or poem etc and she might be right about everything and the kids walking out of that class will be parroting all the right things. but do they really understand it? in religion, the spoonfed guys can go around parroting a verse or hadith but without the required understanding of cultural context, social context etc they have not really understood what they are saying. not talking about right and wrong but the very idea of understanding what you're saying.
that's the point i'm trying to make.

ok, but you don't know that isn't what God wants

thats sort of it

you have what you think is right, they have theirs, end of the day, the only thing you might have is probability on your side.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
post-modernism is ALWAYS relevant.

lol, unless we are talking about something important

yeah, HE always wants the weird stuff doesn't he?


or nothing at all. that works too

Originally posted by BackinBlack
yeah, HE always wants the weird stuff doesn't he?

I've stopped questioning the motives of God, not for the inability to ever know, but just for my own personal sanity

Originally posted by BackinBlack
or nothing at all. that works too

lol, just like my anthropology courses

Unless I missed it, I'm still waiting to find out what print edition of the Koran you read MR. ANDERSON...

I would like to call that a strawman. Sadly, it is not. It is a run of the mill faulty analogy.

1. Religion is, in this instance, used to denote the conglomerations that constitute 'organized religion.'
2. Black people are not an organization.
3. Because dislike of a people and of a hierarchy are very different things, your analogy fails to mesh the two concepts.

4. The dislike of black people is arrived at (generally) through a combination of ignorance and hate.
5. DDM's dislike of religion is, most likely, derived from an examination of the results it achieves.
6. The racist comment, then, is not analogous to the irreligious one because it has been generated (presumably) rationally.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I would like to call that a strawman. Sadly, it is not. It is a run of the mill faulty analogy.

oh boy...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
1. Religion is, in this instance, used to denote the conglomerations that constitute 'organized religion.'

/post

cool, we can stop right here. This was never the implication of DDMs comment, nor of the comment made by Mr.Anderson which he replied to, nor, iirc, any of the follow-up comments.

Further, it is an absolutely absurd argument that claims it is religious institutions that are the cause of oppression in people's lives. Terrorism is more a grass-roots phenomenon, and the oppression of women starts in the home. Look at a nation like Jordan, where the mainstream political and religious institutions are attempting to modernize and eliminate gender based honor killings and other oppression, but it still occurs, even in urbanized areas.

Oppression is not, by default, a quality of institutions. Oppression begins in the home.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
2. Black people are not an organization.

you are the first person to use the term organization in this debate. You are needlessly segregating the two concepts. This would be a false dichotomy fallacy

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
3. Because dislike of a people and of a hierarchy are very different things, your analogy fails to mesh the two concepts.

the analogy was not aimed at making two dissimilar groups appear the same. It was aimed at showing how "daydreaming" about a type of person no longer existing is oppressive, or, leads to oppressive consequences. Like I said, the A and the C.

A) world with religious people and world with black people

C) world without religious people and without black people

that being black and being religious aren't the same is moot, as it is the restriction of people based on them being a "type" of people (religious or black) that I am putting forward as being oppressive.

A better criticism would be that there could be an infinite number of types of people, some which we would all agree deserve some form of oppression, such as "violent people" etc. However, the justification for the removing of their rights comes not from the logic of daydreaming of a world without them, but from the real damage they do to society (notice, not potential damage).

In both cases presented, it is NOT an argument about harm to society. The best you have is that some people are oppressed as a consequence of their religion, but honestly, looking at statistics, oppression has FAR stronger causes than religion. Religion is a mechanism for oppression, so is race. Also, what appears to be deemed as oppression in many conversations about Muslim women, is, in fact, choice. We should daydream of a world where women are free to express their modesty, sluttiness, religion and sin in whichever way they feel is appropriate.

It is the desire to move from A to C that is oppressive. Even if we assume there is no forced persuasion or removal of those "types" of people, there is, at least, some point where we go from a world where they exist to one where they don't. That moment is oppression.

"God, I wish there were no more Jews around" need not be accompanied by a specific plan for their removal. It shows implicit intolerance toward a type of people, even if you don't want to violently stop them from being who they are.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
4. The dislike of black people is arrived at (generally) through a combination of ignorance and hate.

irrelevant

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
5. DDM's dislike of religion is, most likely, derived from an examination of the results it achieves.

also irrelevant

or, if you don't like irrelevant, wrong

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
6. The racist comment, then, is not analogous to the irreligious one because it has been generated (presumably) rationally.

ok, so you have shown that logic can be used to oppress people...

oh goodness whatevs.


You're right, the idea that a world without religion would be superior is absolutely atrocious; only a pathological power hungry tyrant would could possibly have the opinion that the various ills religion has inflicted upon the world would be better left out of history.

You are right. I did not think my position through completely and it shows.

This seems like a ridiculous argument. If a person thinks religion is bad, he has every right to believe that. Oppression is an act.

I think his argument is that wanting to get rid of something generally leads to trying to get rid of it.

I have a cold. It bothers me. I should get rid of it. I drink chicken soup.
I see some Jews. They bother me. I should get rid of them. I become Chancellor of Germany then take over the entire executive branch and force the legislature to give me emergency powers do I can kill some Jews.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
oh goodness whatevs.


You're right, the idea that a world without religion would be superior is absolutely atrocious; only a pathological power hungry tyrant would could possibly have the opinion that the various ills religion has inflicted upon the world would be better left out of history.

You are right. I did not think my position through completely and it shows.

indeed, a world without religion would be atrocious, as it is oppressive to those whom religion is fulfilling to.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This seems like a ridiculous argument. If a person thinks religion is bad, he has every right to believe that. Oppression is an act.

I'd never argue someone doesn't have the right to believe anything

try this:

wanting no religion is no different than wanting one religion

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd never argue someone doesn't have the right to believe anything

try this:

wanting no religion is no different than wanting one religion
And? Plenty of people want one religion. They are entitled to their opinions. The fact that this argument is happening is ridiculous. People are allowed to their own fantasy worlds. Some guys wish they had a harem, sure you could try and argue saying it's sexist, but everyone should recognize it's just a fantasy.

ok, but this is a forum with the expressed purpose of discussing people's opinons

I just don't understand why you've made such a big issue out of this given how you've spoken out so much in favor of free thought in the past. It just seems more like you were looking for something to argue about than actually having a real target.

And BTW I said people were entitled to believe what they want. I never said they were entitled to ACT on what they believe.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I just don't understand why you've made such a big issue out of this given how you've spoken out so much in favor of free thought in the past.

you see those wanting the end of personal religious expression on the side in favor of free thought on this issue?

Originally posted by King Kandy
It just seems more like you were looking for something to argue about than actually having a real target.

fair enough...

Originally posted by King Kandy
And BTW I said people were entitled to believe what they want. I never said they were entitled to ACT on what they believe.

I don't think I've challenged either of those positions

Originally posted by inimalist
you see those wanting the end of personal religious expression on the side in favor of free thought on this issue?
Yeah, because I think everybody should be free to have fantasies. I mean seriously if somebody has some sex fantasy, is the first thing you say going to be "that's degrading to women"? No. Everybody has their own idea of what would make the world better.

I mean, if I told you I wanted universal healthcare, would you be okay with that, or would you start complaining about all the insurance agents who would lose their jobs? I don't think this is the issue you were making it out to be.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, because I think everybody should be free to have fantasies. I mean seriously if somebody has some sex fantasy, is the first thing you say going to be "that's degrading to women"? No. Everybody has their own idea of what would make the world better.

I mean, if I told you I wanted universal healthcare, would you be okay with that, or would you start complaining about all the insurance agents who would lose their jobs? I don't think this is the issue you were making it out to be.

I don't know where you are getting this from. The logical conclusion of the argument I've been making would be that people are allowed whatever fantasies they want, sexual or otherwise. If people are into genocide, I can't really help it, nor would I care to if I could.

I've discussed something brought up in the thread, I wasn't the instigator, nor was I the first person to express the view I have.

And yes, were universal health care going to have major repercussions for the labor force, I would bring it up as a valid criticism of the plan.

I'm sorry I don't think religion is the bane of man's existence. I'm sorry I think there are way more basic socio-economic and psychological reasons for the way people behave aside from the religion they are brought up in. I'm sorry I think it is repressive and insulting to human expression to want to limit how people can interpret their own existence or to even suggest that it would be a better world if they just were able to interpret the world as us secular humanists do. However, it is because free thought is so important to me that I'd make this an issue. This being a discussion forum, and the topic being generally about religion and oppression, I thought it would be relevant, especially given I didn't bring the subject up.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
But it so happens that Islamic countries barbaric middle ages type customs are decremental to human survival, happiness and development.
This is a wrong assumption. You cannot use Afghanistan as a role model nation to represent Islamic values as whole. Islam does not promotes gender oppression.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Thats why they come to the west.
I don't see millions of muslim men and woman dying to come to western nations.

People migrate to other regions in hope for getting better education or job opportunities. Sometimes it is the circumstances that serve as the driving force.

Originally posted by inimalist
really? which of your freedoms would you be willing to give up, so that someone else can have their perfect world?

You do know that I'm a devote Mormon, don't you?

I've also already discussed this same point, already.


I said I would give up my religion, in a heart beat, if it meant that the world would be a better place.

Like I said, I'm not a hypocrite.

It it was tongue in cheek, not some uber philosophical point of social governance.



Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I'm speaking of religion in general

wanting a world without religion is, imho, fairly naive.


Being the sympathetic libtard that I am, I'd rather have the CHOICE to religion than not have religion at all.

Like I said, my comment was tongue in cheek. I was being cynical. Don't look too much into.

Edit- And not seeing the net benefit of a world without religion is also naive. Not seeing the massive harm religion has caused the world and humanity in general, is absurdly naive. However, we both know what the other is saying and the reprocussions of each. Neither is naive in the slightest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not seeing the massive harm religion has caused the world and humanity in general, is absurdly naive.

sell me

Originally posted by inimalist
sell me


X5McSEU48Y8

you're right, Mel Brooks is that terrible























lol, jokes, mel brooks is amazing... what is that from?

History of the World Part I.





















(jokestealer)

Originally posted by Robtard
X5McSEU48Y8
Terrible dancing.

Is this the ONLY thing people know of?

I mean considering that in 300 years span 3, 000 people were executed and 15, 000 reconciled.

How can that be the worst thing ever inflicted upon man by religion? Oooo 3 000 in 300 years...actually 400 years. That's 10 people per year.
America executed half of those in only 36 years.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Is this the ONLY thing people know of?

I mean considering that in 300 years span 3, 000 people were executed and 15, 000 reconciled.

How can that be the worst thing ever inflicted upon man by religion? Oooo 3 000 in 300 years...actually 400 years. That's 10 people per year.
America executed half of those in only 36 years.

Science managed to kill 80000 people in a split second!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science managed to kill 80000 people in a split second!

Weak.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Weak.

But true. Destroying Hiroshima was an action sanctioned and arranged by the International Science League.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But true. Destroying Hiroshima was an action sanctioned and arranged by the International Science League.

Your sarcasm...is...whatever.
Science destroyed nothing, just as religion didn't. People did, and it's not like we need a lot to prompt us to go kill others we don't like/are not the same.

Those things are tools, not causes.

EDIT: And I am sure there are far more devastating death tolls in the name of religion, then a Spanish Inquisition - that was just the famous one.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
People did, and it's not like we need a lot to prompt us to go kill others we don't like/are not the same.



If religion didn't exist, people would need to invent it.

Look at the gang violence in LA.