Discussion topic for the debate.
Islam is rape culture and absolute hell for women and girls. Case closed.
1 Like
@Carleas lâve just realised you only mentioned the terror groups in the context of slavery. Apologies but it was the umpteenth time in a week lâve had to apologise for them and so l didnât read that sentence properly.
Yes, slavery is condoned in Islam and all Abrahamic faiths and l think probably all other trad religions. At least in Islam though, it is done in preference to killing everyone of the enemy. Modern warfare may talk a sweet game but it kills indiscriminately in huge numbers.
Iâll admit, if it were legal, l would buy a slave. I would not mistreat them though. Sure, be disgusted. But then explain why your people (l assume) traded slaves on a scale larger than was ever done in history. My religion doesnât permit slavery as an economic venture in and of itself. It is a side product of war. Moreover, freeing slaves is a common good deed / act of contrition in my faith. Moreover, in my faith, slaves had upward mobility once freed. I donât want to detract from the debate whilst itâs ongoing but l also note you ommitted answering the q about 5,000 kg of food (more than enough for a few days) with no hope of more food, and the entire world banging on your door asking for food, and you have enough ammo and guns to kill the world - would you kill the world or share what you have left? You may say youâd share but 5,000 kg of food wonât go far with 7 billion+ people. I put it to you you would kill the world, whereas Islam teaches against hoarding and teaches that a person is not Muslim if they have plenty while their neighbour starves. Moreover l do note that your humanist principles fly away and flip to academic discrimination (or whatever a prejudice against religion is called) oh so easy, so, when in Rome, or Ancient Greece, lâm sure youâd give way to whatever the social norm was, be it zoophilia or pederasty - l mean you would not fight against it if it were a societal norm. Iâm not being mean but these are very relevant issues, and l mean that as an Atheist, you have zero absolute reference point for morality and without absolute reference point there are no virtues from which morality would flow, surely? Ethics can be relative, maybe some outer morals too, but not core virtues as they relate to Godâs face. Ethics = the morality of materialism, of money etc. Case in point, Humanists didnât save anybody in WW1 or WW2 did they? Humanists havenât even stopped Avuncular Marriage being legal in the USA (uncle marrying neice and lâm assuming being realistic they can have a relationship without marriage too, all thatâs needed is GSOH?) nor beastiality (though itâs fairly recently been banned in most of the states in which it were legal). There was a time when a guy could marry his neice, then after honeymoon, leave Rhode Island like a bat out of hell, and rape a horse, behead it, and eat it, then er ⌠leave whichever the hell Appalachian-kinda state that would be and return to neice, hell no, divorce her and marry her sis. Whereâs Humanism in all this? Pretty thoughts donât cut the mustard. Humanism wants to work closely with religion, as per the Amsterdam Convention but lâd suggest itâs because Humanism doesnât have a moral leg to stand on by itself!
We learn some morality from our scripture, yes. but the core aspects, i.e. the virtues, are innate, they are inbuilt into the human soul, because they relate to the structure of Godâs face, i.e. his 99 Names for example. So, he is the Generous - bcause he is of infinite resources and cherishing and so this is the death of materialism right at the level of the newbornâs soul albeit in a wordless sense. He is the Gentle - which is the death of depraved unbalanced force, for which there is zero counterargument in materialism. He is the Distressor at the same time, which along with the Gentle and Merciful supports the institution of Justice, and yes, he is The Just. All these things are criteria innate to the souil as they directly flow from the Godhead. You have it, l have it - at least until we efface these qualities with unrepented sins. There is no concept of Justice in materialism beyond ethics i.e. beyond redressing financial and physical loss - at least in British law.
What we take from our books are the outer superficial mores such as prohibition of homosexuality, chastity (in dress for both genders and also restraining stares for both genders), incest etc etc
I could go on but l need to let you take the reins. Peace.
I think this case is hard to make. Particularly here: LAN was arguing for a pretty strictly textual version of Islam, and I donât think the text justifies most of the greatest excesses. A lot of things that get attributed to Islam are just cultural holdovers, and get hung on Islam because of things like respecting your parents or whatever.
On pure text, Islamâs universal chastity is a strong counter to the accusation of being a ârape cultureâ.
Thatâs a good point and something I should have said, not least because I think it supports my point.
It depends what you mean by âmy peopleâ. None of my ancestors owned slaves that I know of, and we were being eradicated by some of the same people running the slave trade at the time it was going on (my ancestors were in Ireland until after the US Civil War).
But Iâve certainly benefited from living in the country that slavery built, and the racial structures that persist.
I think slavery is bad. The past was shitty and Iâm glad I donât live there.
I admit I didnât respond directly to a few of your questions (the one about secular war is another that comes to mind). I tried to ensure that the general points I made about secular morality answer them, and I think I succeeded. That was mostly aesthetic, I didnât want to respond to you line by line, but to offer a general defense of my worldview and critique of yours.
The one question I responded to directly, I did because 1) you asked twice, and since it was your second-to-last post I wanted to give you a response in case you had an important argument related to it, 2) it gave me a chance to criticize using questions about specific issues as a way of exploring a worldview, and 3) it gave me the opportunity to show what Humanist moral reasoning can look like.
To answer this one now: Iâd like to think Iâd share, but I am fallible, and it would not be the first time I have done the wrong thing due to fear and greed.
But Humanism would support sharing.
Many were conscientious objectors and served in non-military roles like medics/ambulance drivers. Others, Iâm sure, were soldiers (Humanist doesnât entail pacifist, though many are).
Iâm not sure why you think Humanism would condone this, it seems to hurt a lot of people and be bad for society.
When we were discussing this debate, I told you I couldnât defend atheism as a worldview, and this is why: there are absolutely atheist worldviews that would have nothing to say about all that. But the first point on the Amsterdam Declaration is a commitment to ethics: human dignity, care of others, and the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility.
I realized too late that I took the definition of Humanism for granted and never laid it out properly, that was a mistake and I think you capitalized on it. It was partly intentional, I didnât want to box myself in, but in retrospect my case would have been stronger if Iâd had some description to point back to in response to some of your attacks.
Thank you for your response.
Quick point (sorry l can barely type, frozen hands): culturally, Muslims do have a lot of negative aspects that go against their faith. Please understand though, the main issue is poverty. The poor reap th whirlwind of societyâs evils, and itâs the same be they British, Canadian, Indian, Croatian, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.
For example, l grew up in poverty and saw very bad things. This isnât religion, or really even culture. Itâs the call of materialism, the desperate insanity of which affects the poor the worst.
Culturally, l can say Muslim cultures seem very caring if you fall, they look after their poor and needy, and l hope lâm not condemning myself when l say Surah 107 (Al Maâun / âSmall Kindnessesâ) is the only part of the Qurâan we did not need to be told, at least 99.999% of us:
107.001 Hast thou observed him who belieth religion ?
107.002 That is he who repelleth the orphan,
107.003 And urgeth not the feeding of the needy.
107.004 Ah, woe unto worshippers
107.005 Who are heedless of their prayer;
107.006 Who would be seen (at worship)
107.007 Yet refuse small kindnesses!
Small kindnesses could be a smile, forgiveness, overlooking faults, making ul;tiple excuses for a person, for once NOT asking a trader for a discount even though you know heâd probably oblige in his desperation, giving a person a bit extra with a sold item etc. etc. etc.
NEXT DEBATE?
I would like to pick up on one aspect, and turn it into an entire new debate (least of all because it went unanswered here and this debate became pretty big):
Proposed New Debate: Why donât you kill yourself immediately?
I need a personal response, hence âYouâ and l need tolerance because whatever your answer is, l will further ask âWhy?â and hopefully in quick time, the underlying philosophical point will emerge.
Iâd like this debate to be with @Carleas
This wasnât meant by way of offence btw - as you know , the question was explained long before but l think it merits its own discussion and l really think it will be a worthwhile debate and anybody that reads it will benefit so please oblige! Iâll be ready in a few weeks. Peace!
I didnât take it as an insult, I understand you to be asking what philosophical justification there is for not killing myself.
But I answered this during the debate:
Often we donât even have a choice about self-preservation: I jump out of the way from the oncoming car or pull my hand away from the fire without any rational reflection to speak of, as would anyone of any faith. Taking other steps that avoid death are similarly supported by a-rational instincts: avoiding spoiled foods, fearing the woods at night, fight-or-flight response to physical threats of all kinds.
Continuing to live is the default position. I would need a reason not to keep living, and I donât have one.
Why isnât that a satisfactory answer?
EDIT: Sorry, I meant to respond to this as well.
I agree with your point. Poverty is the root of many stereotypes.
Although I donât know if theyâre entirely separable. I did some research in grad school on the connection between Islam and economic development, particularly with respect to usury and land use. I canât point to specific Quranic verses, and my recollection is imperfect, so please correct me if Iâm wrong.
Like Christianity, Islam prohibits usury, i.e. charging interest on a loan. Unlike Christianity, that prohibition is still followed in a lot of the Muslim world. That makes it much harder to secure capital for projects, and stifles development. It also leads to wasteful workarounds â Iâve been told (by Americans living in the Middle East) that in some countries building projects often go unfinished because of clauses that require a bonus payment to a lender upon completion.
The question of land use I remember even less well, but it was something to do with the land not being fully owned by the person using it, which leads to extractive uses that pay off in the short term but arenât sustainable, and leave the land less usable for the next person that occupies it.
These kinds of obligations exist in lots of religions, so itâs certainly not unique to Islam. But the prohibition of usury in particular is a severe economic limitation. Iâm not sure exactly what happened in Christianity that made them ignore a similar prohibition, though I believe it was followed for centuries (and is the origin of certain stereotypes about Jews, whose book contains no such prohibition).
Hi there, l never would have thought youâd have studied Islam and economic development, lâm impressed. I think the arrangement you mentioned - short term good, long term grinding exploitation, refers to what we in the UK call âLeaseholdâ. Until recently l thought leasehold was just renting, but l now understand it to be the well known system whereby you can buy a property with a 999-year lease. You own the living space ⌠but not the land. The landowner then starts charging exorbitant and ever-increasing maintenance fees. The UK is set to ban it later this year going forward, but not retrospectively. I was almost drawn into such an arrangement 10 years ago. [EDIT: No, you explained: extractive uses, i.e. land gets stuff extracted from it, then becomes unlivable)
So anyway, l believe Judaism does actually ban usury between people of the Jewish faith, but lâm quite certain this is a lie ascribed to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) in Deuteronomy. Coming to think of it, Deuteronomy is the go-to book of Weird in the OT, and the name indicates fakeness, i.e. Mishna Torah, Deuteronomy, means Repition Torah, i.e. someone going over the original Torah a second time over to explain and ahem ⌠update it.
Now, in Islam, usury can take the form of interest on loans, but it can also mean separating dates (foodstuff) into different qualities i.e. different grades, and charging different amounts for each grade. Thus creating a class of dates for the poor, and a class for the better off. There are about 10 other definitions on Wikipedia and lâm not at all clued up on it.
Yes itâs sad that poverty exists, and exploitation (i.e. usury in some form or the other) is often the cause. However l do feel that poverty has blessed many people, as long as itâs not squalor. The extreme duress of poverty and the temptations of materialist corruption, etc. - this is really living. We are taught that if we did not sin and turn to God in repentance God would destroy us and replace us with a species that did. So, poverty is still a worthy life, as it puts us in moral dilemma after moral dilemma.
OK back to the point: I didnât want to branch the original debate off too much, it was massive from the outset so l let the existential question slumber.
However, l must say lâm both satisfied and not satisfied with the answer. Yes continuing to live is the default position and that is a powerful argument.
However, if we will eventually die then there is an overarching logical line that we should die NOW because we will die anyway so anything between now and death is futile. You call for stasis. So sit there until you starve. Then when you can take no more, buy food via the shortest route? No, maybe walk a bit further to get it cheaper. Then check the ingredients as you want whatever maintains your stasis longest, not ultraprocessed, or not too much. Whoie foods. Cook at home. Not too much meat. Once in a while meat. Create spreadsheet, input calories. All to maintain stasis.
Now l ask you: is this not getting convoluted? Simpler to just end it now. Race off to end it, donât even walk. That is the materialist logic in my view. I donât mind debating it from this point onward and l donât expect it to be a very big debate like the last one.
A life can be worth living, for example, for the love in it. Or the achievement of beauty. Or smaller things. Many atheists are grateful for their lives.
God, or Demiurge, does stand in the way quite a bit, he over-reaches in certain books. Casts a shadow.
1 Like
Interesting, I hadnât heard of this. As with many religious directives, it comes down to interpretation then. So again it seems to be culture rather than religion per se that drives these practices, even where they are justified on religious terms.
I think thatâs a general problem with religion (taken as given, as I do, that they are not literally true): it leads adherents to ask, âIs this the right interpretation of this ancient text?â, instead of asking, âDoes this make sense here and now?â
But again, itâs important to notice that all the Abrahamic religions ban usury (I think you are correct about the prohibition on usury between Jews). Wiki also notes that it was banned for certain castes in 14th century Hindu, and the source it cites on that point notes that it is also discussed in ancient Buddhist texts. That many view it today with similar suspicion suggests an important truth about human nature, and one that should we should pay attention to even if we arenât followers of these religions.
I donât think itâs true. Just because something ends doesnât mean it isnât worth doing. Books, movies, plays, songs, they all end, but we still do them. Theyâre valuable for what we get while weâre doing them, and theyâre valuable for what we carry on from them. So my life will end, but humanity will continue. I value my life while it lasts, and I hope to give something of myself to humanity, while humanity lasts.
Our instinctual drives arenât for stasis. We have innate drives to explore and create: curiosity and play are visible in humans and other animals from a young age, theyâre evolved drives that support a default position that we should learn about the world and manipulate it to solve problems or inspire wonder. We have innate drives to seek the company of others, to build communities and families, to connect, to reproduce.
Nurturing children is an innate drive. Spend time in public with a baby and youâll see total strangers coo and smile and wave and interact with it, just because itâs there. Itâs strongest in children and adults, but a surprising number of teenagers will drop their cool in the presence of an infant.
Itâs hard to separate whatâs innate from whatâs cultural, but my impression is that humans everywhere have innate drives that set a default towards growth and flourishing, rather than stasis. So, like with continuing to live, continuing to strive for things is the default, and I continue to do it because I would need a good reason not to.
This too seems nearly universal, which is interesting. I think the existence of religion can be explained by our desire to understand and the limitation on what we can understand â that we can ask meaningful questions that weâll never be able to answer. Thatâs uncomfortable, and an explanation that answers that kind of question neatly, while letting us chase answers to tractable questions, is useful.
But itâs strange that it gets in the way. Maybe thatâs inevitable: assuming that explanations like that are false, itâs not that surprising that they would inadvertently provide false answers to other questions. But that explanation seems too pat.
Another explanation could be the a certain amount of self-denial is also innate â a superego to check our id â and that too little self-denial can also be uncomfortable.
Hi there. Thereâs no conflict in Usury (Riba) being interpreted as separating dates into different qualities, and it being interpreted as interest on a loan.
The problem may be how l phrased it - apologies. Iâm not an Islamic jurist. I like to discuss my religion because nobody else here is speaking up for it, and it gets attacked a lot here and exponentially more in real life, so lâd like to speak up for my faith. The problem is when l make mistakes. Also Islam promises the worst punishment for hypocrites, rather than outright unbelievers. So itâs quite fraught for an ordinary person to speak up for Islam in case he/she makes mistakes and is inconsitent in their own lifestyle and what they say in defence of Islam.
To continue:
I can at least try to correct myself, quoting from a well written article:
Riba (Usury) is of two major kinds:
Riba An-Nasia - Interest on lent money.
Riba Al-Fadl - Taking a superior thing of the same kind of goods by giving more of the same kind of goods of inferior quality, eg.,dates of superior quality for dates of inferior quality in great amounts.
The definition of Interest, the literal meaning of interest or Al-Riba as it is used in the arabic language means to excess or increase. In the Islamic terminology interest means effortless profit
So, thatâs probably the underlying idea.
Let me further clarify a recurrent theme in our / other peopleâs chats: Some may point to different interpreations of religious texts as the struggle toward protestant reformation, to free onesself from the veil (itâs funny that people donât realise Muslim women have their heads uncovered most of the time, i.e. in the privacy of home), or turban, get into a mini skirt / bermuda shorts, then don a shiny crinkly jumpsuit, zip it up right, then fly to Jupiter in super new advanced mode. Actually, what is it is: When God speaks, his words resonate through time, he is essentially beyond time. His words therefore encompass the sum of all philosophy, all forms that unfold over time, and so forth. Iâm guessing you have a musical background. So, when you look at a musicl instrumentâs waveform on your DAW, you see the harmonics spread out along the x-axis (Time). So too can an idea be made manifest across multiple harmonics all at once.
Admittedly l didnât realise the underlying concept behind Riba: it is money from nothing. and thus akin to sorcery, which is in turn akin to sophistry (a case that is not at all a case - in fact our Prophet taught that sophistry is a branch of sorcery, one more reason to abhor logical fallacies)
⌠and so you then get a wider view as to what is going on.
Similarly, take sorcery / magic. The Qurâan teaches in 2:102:
" ⌠Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind
magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a
temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angels) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife âŚ"
So, maybe we can infer an underlying theme of a dark destructive force working against what God has joined (051.049 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.)(I could infer this to mean, God made everything from joined parts - as many scholars have actually states - with everything ultimately being contingent on, i.e. joined to, himself via Emanations as per Ibn Sina / Suhrawardi / Neoplatonism etc). This dark force separates what was joined by God, or what was joined in God (e.g. marriage).
The dark force - at times manifesting as sorcery, at times manifesting as backbiting, sedition, etc. - in turn thus releases prodigous amounts of energy from thin air, nothingness. So, from an inert lump of metal, we can get nuclear fission, which is the splitting of an atom, splitting of what was once joined. Even nuclear fusion is effectively splitting an atom. Or it may mean: making profits from an inert lump of capital, as per a loan requiring to interest payments. Something effectively from nothing.
So, l hope you can appreciate: there is a consistent idea at work here, and it is very deep, very resonant. Itâs not as disjointed as you have assumed.
Incidentally, when l challenged you to find flaws in the Qurâan, the verse l just cited (051.049 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.) would have been a good one to use against me. Iâll admit l have difficulty with this verse because some organisms replicate asexually, they donât have male / female sexual dimorphism. However, as you can see, one way to interpret âpairsâ is âjoined partsâ - and as you can see this gets very deep and meaningful in the context of the Dark Destroyer, the force aforementioned. I could also say that fundamental particles are all currently believed to have anti-particles.
Wait what was the subject? Oh âŚ
Your response as to why you choose life, is interesting, and l believe l can make a meal of it.
My aim is to melt it down, remove what l can prove to be undesirable matter, and produce an ingot of pure metal to delight all that view it.
Iâd only do it in debate format though as otherwise the long grass will grow across a monster thread and swallow all contributions.
If you want to debate this across, say, 8 rounds (itâs a simple topic, so l think 8 rounds seem doable_), then please say.
Some bluster is fine by me, encouraged in fact, otherwise the exchange may become arid to onlookers and even to ourselves it may feel flat, dimensionless, maybe thatâs why Plato created characters and dialogues.
Apologies for my at times atrocious spelling - l rarely proofread plus my fingers are often frozen so itâs hard to type. Iâll check back in a few weeks (sadly l have used up my free time again) - feel free to decline a debate on âWhy choose life? Why not commit instant suicide?â