Video of Woman and Man Being Stoned To Death
Posted on: January 28, 2011 - 1:48am
Offline
Video of Woman and Man Being Stoned To Death
My anti-islamic stance is fairly well known and I'm sure there are others who disagree with me and call on Articles 18 and 19 of the International Charter of Human Rights to support them.
For my part, I will only respect the rights of those people who subscribe to article 30.
This footage of Sharia Law in action puts Islam into its appropriate context.
A video that's not for the faint-hearted...
If you're wondering, the crime of this pair was falling in love. He is 25 and she is only 19...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Actually, not a single one of your assertions has anything to do with the OP, so the thread is still fine, thanks.
Trolling is sort of pointless, yes. But you did it anyway. So it's more like beating yourself and then complaining to us about how much it hurts.
More trolling ? Oh for joy...
Not conforming to your strawmen is not the same as contradicting yourself.
I'd say nice try, but your "technique" isn't exactly new. (It's sorta like Paisley light)
Yes Chaz, the actual truth is "probable". I just don't understand why you fail to see this. You are the only one expounding the possibility that humans can have absolute knowledge. Look at the human genome. We know there is one, we know how to map one. Do we have any idea how it all works? Not a fucking clue. Knowledge is a work in progress and people base their opinions on models they think are best supported by evidence.
So when people expound on the operation of the genome, it's fair to say they are giving an opinion they are not speaking the inviolate 'truth' about reality, a truth that the ancient greeks believed it was possible for man to know - absolute and overall truth of all things is probably beyond human intellect. In my opinion.
Next time you sit down at the breakfast table, consider that the table is constructed of billions of molecules which at the atomic level (gluons and quarks) are exceedingly mysterious - the latter never having been observed but whose presence seems supported by measurable evidence. In this context too, knowledge is opinion based on what can be known using sense data supplied by colliders - it's not pure philosophical truth.
As for your spiel about an immaterial entity being the only force capable of implementing universal ethics - we know logic can't prove god, nor can it prove itself. And observation suggests ethics and morality are not universal - they vary and they are anthropomorphic. Why our human social values, which adjust for culture, can't be seen for what they are is beyond me.
No, I can't give you a flow chart of the evolution of the human brain. Our knowledge in this area is limited but growing rapidly. Neuroscientists rate our current understanding of the operation of the brain at 2 out of 100. What you are doing here Chaz, is indulging in a fallacious argument of complexity. We don't understand the brain so it must be immaterial. It's an odd position to take. You want scientific proof of the human brain's operation but when you don't get it, you insert woo. That makes sense.
Finally, I posted this muslim thing because draconian religious morality is constantly used to oppress the weak. Muslims are particularly unsavoury and vulnerable in this regard. There are about 1.7 per cent muslims in my country and until they learn how to play with the other children I think that's 1.7 per cent too many. If christians indulged in the same sort of burning at the stake practices they did in 500 years ago (that's worse than stoning in my book) I'd say the same things about them.
And yeah, this is just my subjective opinion not some arbitrary universal law you made up.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Chaz, I don't feel a need for objective purpose or morality to validate my subjective purpose and morality. I just don't see a need. Even a cursory analysis of humanity shows us, factually, that everything we do us subjective, none of us agree on anything, culturally speaking. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about what is 'best' for myself and a society.
I'm disappointed that you're giving up without attempting to show us why we need 'objective' values to avoid blowing our brains out. However, I understand the psychological need to avoid dissonance, so I understand why you don't want to participate.
Quoting a Bible passage that has a supposed deity saying, "People that don't agree with me don't agree with me." isn't helpful.
Besides, all the things you listed: logic, ethics, beauty, propositions, math, etc. are either pragmatic abstractions and models of what we observe or they are simply biological responses to stimuli that we can actually see working in the brain. None of them are immaterial in the way you are implying.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
No.
You lack the ability to communicate effectively in a dialogue due to your poor dialectic skills.
Which doesn't make you useful for dialogue, or making you a good representative for the theories you, and your peers subscribe to.
When the other side has to spend more time with the disambiguation and circular arguments present in your drivel, then it's difficult to move along at a pace that doesn't appear to be going around in circles.
Either you're simply not skilled, perceptive, intelligent enough to distinguish between yourself and your peers who are markedly better at the dialectic process than you are, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.
Or do you want to claim that you are the equal of your peers, and bring it into a more objective arena?
That's drole.
You want to argue about 'morals', yet, you make no disctinction between the different interpretations of what constitutes 'moral' behaviour among humans.
There are 2 distinct types:
1- Societal morals that are the construct of humans
2- Biblical morals, that are the supposed command of a supposed god.
Which ones are you attempting to use in your debating?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Why shouldn't it be? Members can start a topic on whatever they want and/or care about. AtheistExtremist cares about the horrible things that the Muslims are doing and so do I.
Of course. We don't like what they're doing.
No, not "must," because that implies objectivity. We prefer that they meet our criteria of morality.
Downplaying? Hmmm, perhaps. But, it's a very instinctive and convenient thing to do, just making moral assertions without prefacing everything with "I subjectively prefer," and all humans have essentially the same moral preferences. So, as long as everyone understands each other, there won't be any confusion. I mean, the OP was directed to the forum community, not you.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
So, your attempting to end the discussion rather than try defend your position ? Why ? Because strawman arguments are not going to hold water and you realize that ?
Fundamentalist theists, as always, stop discussing and just assure themselves of their smug correctness when they can not defend their illogical positions.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Let me get this straight Chaz, your saying that in order to be outraged about people being stoned to death you need an ok from the invisible force in the sky, otherwise human beings have no way of forming sympathy and compassion and humanitarian traits on their own ?
So if the invisible force in the sky tells you that it is ok for you to kill people and rape children, your just gonna be ok with that since without the invisible force no morals are possible right ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Essentially, ya.
That's what it appears his argument is.
That 'morals' are not for humans to deliberate over. And not for any humans to determine.
That they are the sole purview of a god. They're belonging to such a god, and dictated to humans.
And only for humans to either obey, or disobey.
Which, of course, is not based on reality.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris