Non-Muslim Somalis on youtube

[The_Cosmos]

Wrong. Mr Subhuman.

It's what I would call a rebuttal. Since the main theme of your allegations against Islam always tend to be focused on terrorism, violence, killings, abuse etc. Our response would be let's weigh up the scales. Whose killed more, since that is the premise of your accusations.
Islam isn't monolithic. It's a religion followed by a billion people all over the world. It has been influenced by different cultures, traditions and ethical values that stemmed from those who are adherents of thos great Religion.

The formula is simple. You say Islam.ewuaks violence. I background check your negro sled hating ass, find out what you claim to be and end up exposing you to be far worse at what you allege.

Well clearly you must suffer from some form of retardation because I clearly haven't done any of what you accused me of. Islam isn't terrible because some people blew themselves up, it's terrible because the inherent teachings are terrible. Slavery, massacres of tribes, killing apostates, killing gays, stoning adulterers, jizya in submission and so on. Point is, I use the religious teachings to make a point against the faith. Perhaps it's best to wait rather than make rash presumptions.

Moreover, atheism has no inherent belief system because it isn't a belief system and thus can't play the game of pointing fingers at the actions of dictators as evidence against atheism. If you disagree, I can provide the oxford dictionary into the definition of atheism instead of the cowardly thing that you're doing of changing the position of atheism to suit your own narrative.

 

[The Ash'ari]

Well clearly you must suffer from some form of retardation because I clearly haven't done any of what you accused me of. Islam isn't terrible because some people blew themselves up, it's terrible because the inherent teachings are terrible. Slavery, massacres of tribes, killing apostates, killing gays, stoning adulterers, jizya in submission and so on. Point is, I use the religious teachings to make a point against the faith. Perhaps it's best to wait rather than make rash presumptions.

Moreover, atheism has no inherent belief system because it isn't a belief system and thus can't play the game of pointing fingers at the actions of dictators as evidence against atheism. If you disagree, I can provide the oxford dictionary into the definition of atheism instead of the cowardly thing that you're doing of changing the position of atheism to suit your own narrative.

Slavery was an enterprise in those days. It was considered more of a life imprisonment for high value targets and an effective working scheme for low value types. Not much different than what you'd find in global capitalism today. The only difference is the terminology. Islam is the only religion that called for the abolishment of slavery. There isn't a chapter in Jurisprudence of Law except that they foresee an end to slavery.
As for massacres of tribes, that's too generic. What about Communist atheistic massacres of Tatars, Slavs and gypsies? The cycle will keep going.

About gays, adulterers, and others. There are many Atheistic utopias that consider the aforementioned things as criminal. Russia and China come to mind. Ignore their foreign ministry influenced rhetoric. You'll find atheists in those countries that batter gays to death. I know, because I know people who've lived there. As for, adulterers, many Atheistic and religiously antagonistic people's believe in killing cheaters. Go to France.
In fact, wasn't homosexuality, a criminal act, a few decades ago in every Western country? Are you using a Western charter or criterion to judge non Western cultures or religions? What about Hinduism, are they as barbaric as Islam because they view those issues pretty much the same? Islam doesn't need to identify or conform to a set of ideals that emanate from the West.

The fact that you've said that Atheism isn't a belief system is your Achilles heel. You've opened yourself up to attack. If there isn't a belief system, then how do you judge what is right and wrong? Maybe your wrong is my right? Do you understand, Mr Negro Cosmos?

Your a bit stupid unfortunately, get me the guy who sent you. Or better yet. The website you copy and paste from. You are quite fortunate I have to go. I'll be back to sit with you later.

 

[Keo]

I noticed they all seem to be Christian. That's how you know it's bs and that they are paid to become Christian.

 

[simulacrum]

I noticed they all seem to be Christian. That's how you know it's bs and that they are paid to become Christian.

I don't think they are paid to become Christian. It's just that Christians go out of their ways to help refugees settle in their adopted country. They have a savior complex.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Slavery was an enterprise in those days. It was considered more of a life imprisonment for high value targets and an effective working scheme for low value types. Not much different than what you'd find in global capitalism today. The only difference is the terminology. Islam is the only religion that called for the abolishment of slavery. There isn't a chapter in Jurisprudence of Law except that they foresee an end to slavery.
As for massacres of tribes, that's too generic. What about Communist atheistic massacres of Tatars, Slavs and gypsies? The cycle will keep going.

About gays, adulterers, and others. There are many Atheistic utopias that consider the aforementioned things as criminal. Russia and China come to mind. Ignore their foreign ministry influenced rhetoric. You'll find atheists in those countries that batter gays to death. I know, because I know people who've lived there. As for, adulterers, many Atheistic and religiously antagonistic people's believe in killing cheaters. Go to France.
In fact, wasn't homosexuality, a criminal act, a few decades ago in every Western country? Are you using a Western charter or criterion to judge non Western cultures or religions? What about Hinduism, are they as barbaric as Islam because they view those issues pretty much the same? Islam doesn't need to identify or confirm to a set of ideals that emanate from the West.

The fact that you've said that Atheism isn't a belief system is your Achilles heel. You've opened yourself up to attack. If there isn't a belief system, then how do you judge what is right and wrong? Maybe your wrong is my right? Do you understand, Mr Negro Cosmos?

Your a bit stupid unfortunately, get me the guy who sent you. Or better yet. The website you copy and paste from. You are quite fortunate I have to go. I'll be back to sit with you later.

Slavery was an enterprise in those days. It was considered more of a life imprisonment for high value targets and an effective working scheme for low value types. Not much different than what you'd find in global capitalism today. The only difference is the terminology. Islam is the only religion that called for the abolishment of slavery. There isn't a chapter in Jurisprudence of Law except that they foresee an end to slavery.

This is highly problematic and it sort of backfires in the face of the omnipotence of Allah as well as making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Allah could have ended slavery if he wanted to at an instant but chose not to even in the face of the hypocrisy he displayed to the Egyptians. He demanded they free the Jews they had without taking into consideration the involvement of slavery in their society as he did with the Arabs, using your own logic. Surely, Allah could have intervened, as he already did, in ending slavery instead of sanctioning it and thus expanding the institution. Whether you like to admit it or not, the institution of slavery only expanded exponentially after the death of the prophet. Islam allows slavery on the grounds of buying slaves and taking POWs as slaves. As with the case of Banu Qurayza, the prophet killed all the men and boys over the age of puberty and then enslaved the women and children and even ransomed some of them for weapons and horses. Very humane!

You then make the point about the gradual ending of slavery which is highly nonsensical. Slavery was not even outlawed by Muslims at their own behest, it was outlawed at the pressure put on them by western governments. Muslims resisted ending slavery through out the 19th century on the grounds that it is sanctioned by god hence why no major abolitionist movements movements arose. It is highly nonsensical to claim Islam intended to end slavery. How long did that take?! The majority of Muslim countries ended slavery in the mid 20th century.

As for massacres of tribes, that's too generic. What about Communist atheistic massacres of Tatars, Slavs and gypsies? The cycle will keep going.

Well I think you need to be logically consistent. I am not a communist but I am an atheist and thus you can't hold me accountable for actions I am not accountable for. I gave you that respect so show atheism that respect too. Communism and atheism are mutually exclusive, one is a political and economic and ideology and the other is just a definition. Atheism has no dogma or beliefs that one must follow like in a religion.

About gays, adulterers, and others. There are many Atheistic utopias that consider the aforementioned things as criminal. Russia and China come to mind. Ignore their foreign ministry influenced rhetoric. You'll find atheists in those countries that batter gays to death. I know, because I know people who've lived there. As for, adulterers, many Atheistic and religiously antagonistic people's believe in killing cheaters. Go to France.
In fact, wasn't homosexuality, a criminal act, a few decades ago in every Western country? Are you using a Western charter or criterion to judge non Western cultures or religions? What about Hinduism, are they as barbaric as Islam because they view those issues pretty much the same? Islam doesn't need to identify or confirm to a set of ideals that emanate from the West.

Again, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're entire argument is rested on the paradigm of atheism being like a religion of some sort. What atheists do or believe is not synonymous with atheism because atheism is not a belief system. It's a basic definition for those who lack a belief in god and those who don't believe in god altogether.

Atheists are people and thus will be susceptible to a strict set of ideas set by society meaning that if a society considers something to be wrong, growing up in the society will most likely conform your mindset to hold that belief. It's basically indoctrination. Nonetheless, you keep defining atheism by the actions of atheism when you keep saying, "but what about him, he's an atheist?!" I mean, by that logic then Muslims must answer for Isis. I judge Islam on its merits rather than what Muslims do. Stay logically consistent!

Yes, homosexuality was illegal in the western world in the past but that was due to ignorance and religion, same thing in reality. As the west advanced in science, they began to realise that homosexuality isn't a choice so therefore people realised that persecuting someone for an inherent predisposition is immoral. This is not western standards, it's common sense unless you believe it is a choice?

Furthermore, any religion that thinks it fine to kill people for what is a natural disposition, is terrible.

The fact that you've said that Atheism isn't a belief system is your Achilles heel. You've opened yourself up to attack. If there isn't a belief system, then how do you judge what is right and wrong? Maybe your wrong is my right? Do you understand, Mr Negro Cosmos?

You can argue against me so long as it is done on the basis of merit rather than complete fallacy and insults, as you have done.

I judge what is write and wrong on reason rather than divine command. Killing is wrong for many reasons. Firstly, it creates an unstable society where everyone can take another persons life. This is not good for a coherent society that is built on order. Secondly, it's based on the golden rule. Do unto others what you would like to be done unto you. I don't want to be killed for whatever reason so why should I justify killing anyone? This is just one example but it's built on a logical ground that doesn't require a God and is far more stable.

Now, what you do is called divine command theory which is essentially built on the grounds of whatever god says is law, hence why you defend immoralities like slavery. This raises an important question. Does God sanction something because it is good, or is it good because god said it is good? If something is sanctioned because it is good, then that means morality is separate from god, but if something is good because god said so, then morality is essentially meaningless because killing babies is good if god said so. The latter is what Islam advocates as we see in the Plagues sent down on the Egyptian which punishes all of the Egyptians for the actions of the pharaoh. Muslims will defend this because anything Allah does is justified to them which renders morality as a set of rules set down by god and nothing more.

Your a bit stupid unfortunately, get me the guy who sent you. Or better yet. The website you copy and paste from. You are quite fortunate I have to go. I'll be back to sit with you later.

You can copy some of my extracts and put it on google if you believe I copied and pasted because that's an accusation you have no evidence for, much like your whole religion.

You can call me stupid, I'm not the one who believes in people talking to ants, prophets splitting seas and Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged donkey or whatever it is. I let evidence dictate reason not some ancient words spoken by desert dwelling primitive Bedouins.

 

[MadNomad]

Is that mona walter? Lmao
There's another one called Idil I think. Somali women r brave

The women seem be the only ones who have the balls to put their gaalnimo out there in the open. Here's another one


Where the male gaals at?

 

[Mohamud]

Somalis need to carve out a place for atheists within the scope of Somalinimo lest our culture degenerate further

There I said it

 

[The Ash'ari]

This is highly problematic and it sort of backfires in the face of the omnipotence of Allah as well as making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Allah could have ended slavery if he wanted to at an instant but chose not to even in the face of the hypocrisy he displayed to the Egyptians. He demanded they free the Jews they had without taking into consideration the involvement of slavery in their society as he did with the Arabs, using your own logic. Surely, Allah could have intervened, as he already did, in ending slavery instead of sanctioning it and thus expanding the institution. Whether you like to admit it or not, the institution of slavery only expanded exponentially after the death of the prophet. Islam allows slavery on the grounds of buying slaves and taking POWs as slaves. As with the case of Banu Qurayza, the prophet killed all the men and boys over the age of puberty and then enslaved the women and children and even ransomed some of them for weapons and horses. Very humane!

What does Omnipotence of God have anything to do with it? Are you arguing Theology now? :D. Merit is based on actions and achievements. Surely, there would be no reason to reward goodness or punish evil, if God did it all Himself. Since your not someone who professes belief in a deity. That theological viewpoint might be alien to you. Then again, I'm not debating a theologlical viewpoint anyway. Move on, Negro. As for Banu Qurayzah. You never heard of treason? The whole population of Madinah was about to become extinct. With the collaboration of the Banu Qurayzah, collectively. Sometimes, that's what foolishness does to you. Slavery, which is a bad translation, I would call it fostering. Was that the women and boys were taken care of. They were not put into the plantations like post-enlightenment Europe did to the Negroes.

You then make the point about the gradual ending of slavery which is highly nonsensical. Slavery was not even outlawed by Muslims at their own behest, it was outlawed at the pressure put on them by western governments. Muslims resisted ending slavery through out the 19th century on the grounds that it is sanctioned by god hence why no major abolitionist movements movements arose. It is highly nonsensical to claim Islam intended to end slavery. How long did that take?! The majority of Muslim countries ended slavery in the mid 20th century.

Your changing tracks. Stick to the theme. Slowly. You said previously that this is all sanctioned by the Books. I retorted and said that all major books on Islamic Jurisprudence (which is plentiful in availability) all suggest that emancipation of slavery is a must and gives bonuses for those who do so. You respond now by saying but "look at what Muslims did" when you said earlier, you based your judgements, not on actions but the inherent system of Islam. There is a clear fallacy in your arguments. Very contradictory. So, most of what you wrote in this segment is amplified hyperbole that contradicts your own principles in your earlier statement.

Well I think you need to be logically consistent. I am not a communist but I am an atheist and thus you can't hold me accountable for actions I am not accountable for. I gave you that respect so show atheism that respect too. Communism and atheism are mutually exclusive, one is a political and economic and ideology and the other is just a definition. Atheism has no dogma or beliefs that one must follow like in a religion.

Wrong again. The correlation between the two is evident. To simplify, not all atheists are communist, but almost all communists are atheist. Karl Marx (ask the man himself), said that the pioneer of Communism lies within Atheism. Most social and political scientists have declared 'Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism'. So, to deny Communism as nothing more than a political ideology is stupid. But I'd expect that from you. When Marx and Engels were describing goodness in philosophical terms, they believed goodness is borne not out of morality or intellect. But the needs of the day. Do you think that was Socialism or Atheism? Don't answer that. Leave yourself some sort of credibility, negro.

Again, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're entire argument is rested on the paradigm of atheism being like a religion of some sort. What atheists do or believe is not synonymous with atheism because atheism is not a belief system. It's a basic definition for those who lack a belief in god and those who don't believe in god altogether.

Atheism is an ideology, according to many atheists themselves. Jean Paul Sartre was one of the biggest ideologies of existentialism, he was an Atheist.
They have all the hallmarks of an institution. The only reason why Atheists are apprehensive to that is because they know full well that they will have opened themselves for criticism. That which you are fleeing from right now. You do not want to be held accountable for another Atheists' actions. Yet you wish to attack Muslims by virtue of the actions of Muslims. Your are a hypocrite and a stupid one, at that.

Atheists are people and thus will be susceptible to a strict set of ideas set by society meaning that if a society considers something to be wrong, growing up in the society will most likely conform your mindset to hold that belief. It's basically indoctrination. Nonetheless, you keep defining atheism by the actions of atheism when you keep saying, "but what about him, he's an atheist?!" I mean, by that logic then Muslims must answer for Isis. I judge Islam on its merits rather than what Muslims do. Stay logically consistent!

Contradiction, is your flag. Just prior, you've attacked Muslim communities for not abolishing slavery, and by that your intention was to smite Islam. Yet now you say that your judging Islam through their merits? I didn't define Atheism as an ideology. Many Atheists did themselves. They have many ideologues, call that whatever you want, a set of principles, guidelines, heck, call it a community. Doesn't change the facts.

Yes, homosexuality was illegal in the western world in the past but that was due to ignorance and religion, same thing in reality. As the west advanced in science, they began to realise that homosexuality isn't a choice so therefore people realised that persecuting someone for an inherent predisposition is immoral. This is not western standards, it's common sense unless you believe it is a choice?

Socrates once said that science will never get the last word. 'How can it be truth, when it is changing', Socrates said. If, scientists were to argue that it is natural disposition to develop a sexual relationship with a cow or a dog, would you agree? Many countries (Western) have legalised bestiality. And what if, for arguments sake, far right governments take over and supplant the current education system and re-instill the Scientific theories of the 70's. Would homosexuality be wrong, all over again. Because science said so. :D

Furthermore, any religion that thinks it fine to kill people for what is a natural disposition, is terrible.

For once you make sense. I, agree with the statement. But disagree with your definition of natural disposition. If it was natural disposition, you could make a baby out of it, mate! Wouldn't have been a need to turn the adoption agencies into a multi corporation enterprise.

You can argue against me so long as it is done on the basis of merit rather than complete fallacy and insults, as you have done.

I judge what is write and wrong on reason rather than divine command. Killing is wrong for many reasons. Firstly, it creates an unstable society where everyone can take another persons life. This is not good for a coherent society that is built on order. Secondly, it's based on the golden rule. Do unto others what you would like to be done unto you. I don't want to be killed for whatever reason so why should I justify killing anyone? This is just one example but it's built on a logical ground that doesn't require a God and is far more stable.

Negro, did you just quote a religious Bible school text to justify Atheism? Your clearly out of your mind.
If you judge what is right and wrong based on reason, then what if someone elses reason differs to your reason? What if someone believes (an Atheist) that killing handicapped people, for instance, is cohesive to the upliftment of mankind? You wouldn't be able to argue, theologlically because you have no criterion. Yet, again your shooting yourself down. Whose logic does that belong to? Yours? Because Engels believed that there is no right or wrong. That was the premise of his Atheism. What, say you?

Now, what you do is called divine command theory which is essentially built on the grounds of whatever god says is law, hence why you defend immoralities like slavery. This raises an important question. Does God sanction something because it is good, or is it good because god said it is good? If something is sanctioned because it is good, then that means morality is separate from god, but if something is good because god said so, then morality is essentially meaningless because killing babies is good if god said so. The latter is what Islam advocates as we see in the Plagues sent down on the Egyptian which punishes all of the Egyptians for the actions of the pharaoh. Muslims will defend this because anything Allah does is justified to them which renders morality as a set of rules set down by god and nothing more.



You can copy some of my extracts and put it on google if you believe I copied and pasted because that's an accusation you have no evidence for, much like your whole religion.

You can call me stupid, I'm not the one who believes in people talking to ants, prophets splitting seas and Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged donkey or whatever it is. I let evidence dictate reason not some ancient words spoken by desert dwelling primitive Bedouins.

I've never actually defended slavery, I defined it correctly and correlated it to present day semantics. That's not justifying it. Islamic Theology says goodness is from God. However, the argument goes that there is an innate goodness that can only be confirmed by God. Same with evil. But, the distinction is, lest you try and call me out, is that Atheism, has no parameters in any sense. All is ok, as Marx said. And he wasn't talking about Communism. As for collective punishment, then theologlically speaking, Pharaoh was collectively punishing the Jews. This will lead us to another question, does good come from evil? Can the fact that evil happened to Pharaoh and his people be a means to good. Absolutely. Especially, when considering the lesser of the two. And it had an impact, because Pharaoh abandoned his subjugation of the Jews.

Well, your the one who believes in a creation without a Creator, a means and an end without a definitive beginning, a reaction without an action and a reality without a foundation. So yes, I do call you stupid. With all respect.

 

[The Ash'ari]

Somalis need to carve out a place for atheists within the scope of Somalinimo lest our culture degenerate further

There I said it

Not in our lifetime.

 

[Mohamud]

Not in our lifetime.

Then we will continue to squander any and all chances at stability

 

[The Ash'ari]

Then we will continue to squander any and all chances at stability

Stability? Did they ever pose a threat to stability in Somalia?

 

[Mohamud]

Stability? Did they ever pose a threat to stability in Somalia?

W-what? No they didn't. And that's why they shouldn't be shunned from the fold of the somali community.

 

[The Ash'ari]

W-what? No they didn't. And that's why they shouldn't be shunned from the fold of the somali community.

I, really do not believe that they're as significant to warrant acceptance. A few hundreds running around (mostly online) who are the product of the diaspora will not affect policy reviews even at the community level.

 

[Mohamud]

I, really do not believe that they're as significant to warrant acceptance. A few hundreds running around (mostly online) who are the product of the diaspora will not affect policy reviews even at the community level.

There are way more than a few hundred. The rest are too scared to come out because of the conditions I stipulated.

 

[bluebird]

I mean, does it count if they're still yapping about islam

 

[The Ash'ari]

There are way more than a few hundred. The rest are too scared to come out because of the conditions I stipulated.

Even, if they were in the thousands (which is unlikely). Still insignificant.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

Then we will continue to squander any and all chances at stability

It will be a gradual process. I believe that the young generations will become less religious as they become exposed to the rest of the world and the diversity within.

But in the current situation, in a country where Al-shabbab control 20 % and have support exceeding that, it is but a pipe-dream.

The best we can hope for is that, that Ayan Hirsi children have a chance to live in Somalia along side us

 

[The_Cosmos]

What does Omnipotence of God have anything to do with it? Are you arguing Theology now? :D. Merit is based on actions and achievements. Surely, there would be no reason to reward goodness or punish evil, if God did it all Himself. Since your not someone who professes belief in a deity. That theological viewpoint might be alien to you. Then again, I'm not debating a theologlical viewpoint anyway. Move on, Negro. As for Banu Qurayzah. You never heard of treason? The whole population of Madinah was about to become extinct. With the icollaboration of the Banu Qurayzah, collectively. Sometimes, that's what foolishness does to you. Slavery, which is a bad translation, I would call it fostering. Was that the women and boys were taken care of. They were not put into the plantations like post-enlightenment Europe did to the Negroes.



Your changing tracks. Stick to the theme. Slowly. You said previously that this is all sanctioned by the Books. I retorted and said that all major books on Islamic Jurisprudence (which is plentiful in availability) all suggest that emancipation of slavery is a must and gives bonuses for those who do so. You respond now by saying but "look at what Muslims did" when you said earlier, you based your judgements, not on actions but the inherent system of Islam. There is a clear fallacy in your arguments. Very contradictory. So, most of what you wrote in this segment is amplified hyperbole that contradicts your own principles in your earlier statement.





Wrong again. The correlation between the two is evident. To simplify, not all atheists are communist, but almost all communists are atheist. Karl Marx (ask the man himself), said that the pioneer of Communism lies within Atheism. Most social and political scientists have declared 'Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism'. So, to deny Communism as nothing more than a political ideology is stupid. But I'd expect that from you. When Marx and Engels were describing goodness in philosophical terms, they believed goodness is borne not out of morality or intellect. But the needs of the day. Do you think that was Socialism or Atheism? Don't answer that. Leave yourself some sort of credibility, negro.



Atheism is an ideology, according to many atheists themselves. Jean Paul Sartre was one of the biggest ideologies of existentialism, he was an Atheist.
They have all the hallmarks of an institution. The only reason why Atheists are apprehensive to that is because they know full well that they will have opened themselves for criticism. That which you are fleeing from right now. You do not want to be held accountable for another Atheists' actions. Yet you wish to attack Muslims by virtue of the actions of Muslims. Your are a hypocrite and a stupid one, at that.



Contradiction, is your flag. Just prior, you've attacked Muslim communities for not abolishing slavery, and by that your intention was to smite Islam. Yet now you say that your judging Islam through their merits? I didn't define Atheism as an ideology. Many Atheists did themselves. They have many ideologues, call that whatever you want, a set of principles, guidelines, heck, call it a community. Doesn't change the facts.



Socrates once said that science will never get the last word. 'How can it be truth, when it is changing', Socrates said. If, scientists were to argue that it is natural disposition to develop a sexual relationship with a cow or a dog, would you agree? Many countries (Western) have legalised bestiality. And what if, for arguments sake, far right governments take over and supplant the current education system and re-instill the Scientific theories of the 70's. Would homosexuality be wrong, all over again. Because science said so. :D




For once you make sense. I, agree with the statement. But disagree with your definition of natural disposition. If it was natural disposition, you could make a baby out of it, mate! Wouldn't have been a need to turn the adoption agencies into a multi corporation enterprise.





Negro, did you just quote a religious Bible school text to justify Atheism? Your clearly out of your mind.
If you judge what is right and wrong based on reason, then what if someone elses reason differs to your reason? What if someone believes (an Atheist) that killing handicapped people, for instance, is cohesive to the upliftment of mankind? You wouldn't be able to argue, theologlically because you have no criterion. Yet, again your shooting yourself down. Whose logic does that belong to? Yours? Because Engels believed that there is no right or wrong. That was the premise of his Atheism. What, say you?





I've never actually defended slavery, I defined it correctly and correlated it to present day semantics. That's not justifying it. Islamic Theology says goodness is from God. However, the argument goes that there is an innate goodness that can only be confirmed by God. Same with evil. But, the distinction is, lest you try and call me out, is that Atheism, has no parameters in any sense. All is ok, as Marx said. And he wasn't talking about Communism. As for collective punishment, then theologlically speaking, Pharaoh was collectively punishing the Jews. This will lead us to another question, does good come from evil? Can the fact that evil happened to Pharaoh and his people be a means to good. Absolutely. Especially, when considering the lesser of the two. And it had an impact, because Pharaoh abandoned his subjugation of the Jews.

Well, your the one who believes in a creation without a Creator, a means and an end without a definitive beginning, a reaction without an action and a reality without a foundation. So yes, I do call you stupid. With all respect.

What does Omnipotence of God have anything to do with it? Are you arguing Theology now? :D. Merit is based on actions and achievements. Surely, there would be no reason to reward goodness or punish evil, if God did it all Himself. Since your not someone who professes belief in a deity. That theological viewpoint might be alien to you. Then again, I'm not debating a theologlical viewpoint anyway. Move on, Negro. As for Banu Qurayzah. You never heard of treason? The whole population of Madinah was about to become extinct. With the collaboration of the Banu Qurayzah, collectively. Sometimes, that's what foolishness does to you. Slavery, which is a bad translation, I would call it fostering. Was that the women and boys were taken care of. They were not put into the plantations like post-enlightenment Europe did to the Negroes.

I'm not sure if you're capable of comprehending what I wrote, but the omnipotence of god has everything to do with this. You claimed that god intended to outlaw slavery but I have shown that he failed to do it in a very competent manner as would be expected from an omnipotent god. Slavery was outlawed due to pressure from western intervention in the 20th century! Over 1300 years after the death of the prophet! Surely an all powerful god could have done a lot better? Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Islam ever intended to outlaw slavery. History shows that the Islamic empires only expanded the institution after they embarked on a ques of invasions. This includes the Rashidun Caliphate. You state that a slave is a bad translation when that is entirely false! A slave is someone who is owned as property by someone else. These people were owned as property, and the prophet himself bought and sold slaves.

Moreover, your next statement is by far the most retarded thing you've said yet. Firstly, how can you punish everyone for the crime of the few? Women and children didn't commit treason nor the majority of the young boys over the age of puberty who were killed. Treason applies only to those who commited the act not everyone related to those people. By your logic it's completely valid to hold your family accountable for crimes commited by you or you tribe? Secondly, the idea that they were being 'fostered' is by far evidence of your blind faith to justify the unjustifiable. The prophet executed over 600 men and boys of that tribe! How the hell can you then turn around and claim he's doing them any favour?! Nonetheless, you're showing your lack of knowledge in Islam because the women and children were divided among the sahabas with the prophet taking a fifth of the booty.

"Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair."

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4390

Barbaric! Young boys were killed for something they had no part in!!

“Then the Apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Qurayza among the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger took his fifth of the booty.”
Ishaq:465

Nonetheless, you'll justify this atrocious act because... you're a Muslim!

Your changing tracks. Stick to the theme. Slowly. You said previously that this is all sanctioned by the Books. I retorted and said that all major books on Islamic Jurisprudence (which is plentiful in availability) all suggest that emancipation of slavery is a must and gives bonuses for those who do so. You respond now by saying but "look at what Muslims did" when you said earlier, you based your judgements, not on actions but the inherent system of Islam. There is a clear fallacy in your arguments. Very contradictory. So, most of what you wrote in this segment is amplified hyperbole that contradicts your own principles in your earlier statement.

There is nothing contradictory about what I said, you've equated, wrongly, the ability of slaves to receive emancipation with the notion of future abolition. You claimed Islam intended to end slavery and I'm telling you that either it failed to do so, Muslims ended slavery from pressure coming from the West in the mid 20th century, or it never intended to so. The claim that slaves must be emancipated is nonexistent. One does not have to give up his slaves and there are Hadiths where the prophet discourages the freeing of slaves, although there are verses in the Quran and Hadiths that also encourage freeing of slaves on certain occasions and those slaves must be Muslim ones. A slave converting to Islam is not a sanction for manumission.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan(3/387).

One could argue that Islam encourages freeing slaves but one cannot argue that Islam demands the abolition of this institution that only grew after the rise of Islam. The sahaba expanded the institution when they conquered many territories. Umar Al Khattab even demanded a fix set of slaves from Nubia, men and women, as a tribute for not being invaded. This occurred in other places too. This is coming from a sahaba who was very close to the prophet who expanded the institution.

Wrong again. The correlation between the two is evident. To simplify, not all atheists are communist, but almost all communists are atheist. Karl Marx (ask the man himself), said that the pioneer of Communism lies within Atheism. Most social and political scientists have declared 'Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism'. So, to deny Communism as nothing more than a political ideology is stupid. But I'd expect that from you. When Marx and Engels were describing goodness in philosophical terms, they believed goodness is borne not out of morality or intellect. But the needs of the day. Do you think that was Socialism or Atheism? Don't answer that. Leave yourself some sort of credibility, negro.

This is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. I could equally say that not all Muslims are suicide bombers but almost all suicide attacks are carried out by Muslim. Atheism is defined by the oxford dictionary as, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," nowhere is there a link to communism found. It doesn't matter if all communists are atheists, what matters is that you associate atheism to communism when it predates communism.Atheism is even older than Islam! You're clearly grasping on straws to seriously think there is a connection.

Atheism is an ideology, according to many atheists themselves. Jean Paul Sartre was one of the biggest ideologies of existentialism, he was an Atheist.
They have all the hallmarks of an institution. The only reason why Atheists are apprehensive to that is because they know full well that they will have opened themselves for criticism. That which you are fleeing from right now. You do not want to be held accountable for another Atheists' actions. Yet you wish to attack Muslims by virtue of the actions of Muslims. Your are a hypocrite and a stupid one, at that.

I swear you're fucking retarded. You're arguments aren't even logically consistent. Existentialism is a philosophical idea and has nothing to do with atheism. The very fact that you're trying to make dubious links shows that you're grasping on straws. You haven't demonstrated that atheism is an ideology at all! You've simply stated that an atheist was a strong proponent of certain philosophical ideas so therefore atheism is an ideology? You lack any logical coherency whatsoever. An ideology is, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy," and I've clearly provided an Oxford definition of atheism. Please... demonstrate the connection.

Contradiction, is your flag. Just prior, you've attacked Muslim communities for not abolishing slavery, and by that your intention was to smite Islam. Yet now you say that your judging Islam through their merits? I didn't define Atheism as an ideology. Many Atheists did themselves. They have many ideologues, call that whatever you want, a set of principles, guidelines, heck, call it a community. Doesn't change the facts.

Atheists having ideologies doesn't mean atheism is an ideology! How do you come up with this shit?!

You've claimed Islam intended to outlaw slavery, I clearly showed that this effort failed because it took the filthy west, as many call them, to intervene and end the abhorrent institution. The sahabas never ended or reduced slavery but expanded it exponentially. Point is, either Islam failed in its attempts to outlaw slavery or it never intended to outlaw slavery in the first place. Which is more probable? No contradiction here.

Socrates once said that science will never get the last word. 'How can it be truth, when it is changing', Socrates said. If, scientists were to argue that it is natural disposition to develop a sexual relationship with a cow or a dog, would you agree? Many countries (Western) have legalised bestiality. And what if, for arguments sake, far right governments take over and supplant the current education system and re-instill the Scientific theories of the 70's. Would homosexuality be wrong, all over again. Because science said so. :D

This level of complete retardation and lack of appreciation of science is precisely why you're making these clear and ignorant remarks. Socrates was from a time when modern science didn't exist. Their science was very primitive and isn't of the standard that we apply it today. In fact, many of them didn't even peer review or test their claims!!! Nonetheless, could you show me sources where western countries have legalised zoophilia? Now, I'm asking for something very specific here. The act of legalising something is purposely intending to make something legal that wasn't once legal. If anything, western countries have began to make this illegal as a concern for animal welfare. Some countries don't have any laws against it just like Djibouti doesn't have any laws addressing homosexuality.

For you last point, science works on a process that requires evidence to substantiate something. You can't reintroduce something that is now considered to be unsubstantiated simply because it suits your narrative. That's not how science works. Scientific theories are, "a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." A right wing government cannot reintroduce something that was discarded and present it as a scientific fact when it is not. Homosexuality isn't a choice and we know this by a ton of studies done that have made this point beyond clear. Science is a self correcting tool hence why it is highly reliable. The very internet you're using was developed thanks to quantum mechanics. Reality is, you can shit on science when it doesn't suit your own narrative but you'll reap the benefits all the same. Nonetheless, science works on evidence whilst you'll claim things and hold it on blind faith.

For once you make sense. I, agree with the statement. But disagree with your definition of natural disposition. If it was natural disposition, you could make a baby out of it, mate! Wouldn't have been a need to turn the adoption agencies into a multi corporation enterprise.

That's highly nonsensical. You make the presumption that for homosexuality to be natural it must enable procreation, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexuality. Approximately around 10% of sheep are gay and they've even been observed to shun their female counterparts for their male opposites which dismisses the argument from isolation. This has also been observed in other primates and dolphins and thousands of other species. Nature is clearly filled with homosexuality but the reason is not clear at the moment but many hypothesis exist and are waiting to be substantiated.

Negro, did you just quote a religious Bible school text to justify Atheism? Your clearly out of your mind.
If you judge what is right and wrong based on reason, then what if someone elses reason differs to your reason? What if someone believes (an Atheist) that killing handicapped people, for instance, is cohesive to the upliftment of mankind? You wouldn't be able to argue, theologlically because you have no criterion. Yet, again your shooting yourself down. Whose logic does that belong to? Yours? Because Engels believed that there is no right or wrong. That was the premise of his Atheism. What, say you?

Lmao, that's the golden rule and it predates Christianity. It is found in many different religions and cultures and was even espoused by Confucius who predates Christianity. This shows you need to do more research mate.

Reason is built on evidence and logic, not faith. Someone who claims that killing handicapped people is justified for whatever reason, isn't providing a logical and rational argument, because the definition of handicapped can be broadened to include many different people that society deems unworthy. Also, taking someone else's life is still wrong for whatever reason, as I've mentioned before, because then someone else can justify your own killing for whatever reason. Theology doesn't give you morals because it can, and has, justified killing people on the grounds of commandment from god. You believe that killing apostates is fine because that is what Islam espoused. Nobody is shooting themselves in the foot. Plus, religious people can't agree amongst themselves anyways. Muslims killed each other after the death of the prophet and Christians killed each other too for centuries. Also, do you justify the killing of someone for witchcraft? Saudi Arabia does it and it very much holds precedence in Islam. Religion is poison hence why it isn't used to to dictate international laws.

Well, your the one who believes in a creation without a Creator, a means and an end without a definitive beginning, a reaction without an action and a reality without a foundation. So yes, I do call you stupid. With all respect.

That's an abstract definition of stupid. You believe that everything must have been created by a creator but if I were to ask where that created came from, you'd argue that he exists on nothing and creating everything from nothing. You're essentially arguing from a hypocrisy. If everything requires a creator than the creator requires a creator, but that would create an infinite regression and thus one could simply state that we should end the regression where human knowledge ends... the universe.

 

[The Ash'ari]

I'm not sure if you're capable of comprehending what I wrote, but the omnipotence of god has everything to do with this. You claimed that god intended to outlaw slavery but I have shown that he failed to do it in a very competent manner as would be expected from an omnipotent god. Slavery was outlawed due to pressure from western intervention in the 20th century! Over 1300 years after the death of the prophet! Surely an all powerful god could have done a lot better? Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Islam ever intended to outlaw slavery. History shows that the Islamic empires only expanded the institution after they embarked on a ques of invasions. This includes the Rashidun Caliphate. You state that a slave is a bad translation when that is entirely false! A slave is someone who is owned as property by someone else. These people were owned as property, and the prophet himself bought and sold slaves.

Moreover, your next statement is by far the most retarded thing you've said yet. Firstly, how can you punish everyone for the crime of the few? Women and children didn't commit treason nor the majority of the young boys over the age of puberty who were killed. Treason applies only to those who commited the act not everyone related to those people. By your logic it's completely valid to hold your family accountable for crimes commited by you or you tribe? Secondly, the idea that they were being 'fostered' is by far evidence of your blind faith to justify the unjustifiable. The prophet executed over 600 men and boys of that tribe! How the hell can you then turn around and claim he's doing them any favour?! Nonetheless, you're showing your lack of knowledge in Islam because the women and children were divided among the sahabas with the prophet taking a fifth of the booty.

"Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair."

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4390

Barbaric! Young boys were killed for something they had no part in!!

“Then the Apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Qurayza among the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger took his fifth of the booty.”
Ishaq:465

Nonetheless, you'll justify this atrocious act because... you're a Muslim!

Wallahi, you haven't understood the paradigms, your very slow one. Try and figure this one out. I, dislike having to repeat myself more than once on any given issue. But since theology is problematic for you, I suspected I might have to say it twice or thrice for it to sink in.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the Omnipotence of God. Had He wanted, there would be no slavery, no death, no killings, no war, no rape, no evil. Does that make sense? Or do I have to repeat it again? Re-read it. That sets the foundation for what comes next.

Now, having said that. The Shari'a has within its protocols, the intended outcome of what would (naturally) be the complete emancipation of slaves (time period is irrelevant, from a historical standpoint, so your 1300 year argument is null and void). You were the first to quote from the texts. Let us see what the Qur'an says:

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves." (The Noble Quran, 2:177).

"And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you." 24:33

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286).


According to the theological standpoint, God set out the injunctions. It doesn't entail that it would be fulfilled. The exact same way that alcohol was prohibited. Does that mean every Muslim will stop alcohol? Do you get it? Differentiate between the injunction (commandments) and what will actually happen. Who would be deserving of a reward in the Hereafter, if everyone was on par? That's from a theological standpoint. So once again, no. Omnipotence is out of the equation. Do not mention that again, sir.

As for the Caliphates, it's quite interesting you mention that, you keep switching lanes. Are we dealing with the Commandments or the actions by Muslims? You want to mix everything together, it seems. See, when I say an atheist did this. You cry foul. Then you do it go on and say the same thing. Do you perhaps, not see the inconsistencies? But the answer is the same. The Rashidun, Umayyads, Abbasids and the other Caliphates were living in a time period in which slavery was more of an enterprise. In those days, slavery was accepted for 2 main reasons:

1. When someone's people/nation/tribe lost the war, they would be bankrupt. There was no World Bank in those days. They would have no means to survive so living as a slave would fit the bill until they were released.

2. Widows and children would be taken in almost automatically, because it was either that or die of starvation (since the enemy was vanquished and killed) who would look and provide for them? Since, all of their male relatives were killed? (Note: Do you propose welfare? Because in those days slavery = welfare).

So, then, it became a code of conduct in warfare and slavery was a universal law practise by EVERY empire of the World. The trans-atlantic slave trade was by far the worst in human history and the biggest stigma of slavery (surprise surprise) was enacted through Europeans who many were by the way, atheists.

As to my choice of words, fostering would be the most appropriate, simply because your definition of slavery is primarily borne out of the European slave trade. And you equate that with the word 'slavery'. But there were societies in the world (Muslim and non Muslim) whose definition was completely different. Ever heard of the Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt and India? Slave kings? You heard of that? Both Muslim empires in which the Kings were slaves! Does that fit into your Euro-Western centric definition of slavery? historians mentioned that in those days every freeman wished that he was a slave. Ofcourse, that is a bygone era, you wouldn't understand it from a non Euro centric lens. So why bother?

It's interesting you mentioned Banu Qurayzah. It is even more interesting as to why you hid the two most important facts:

1) Banu Qurayzah was a warrior tribe. They numbered 900 shields/spears. Meaning every adolescent carried a weapon. Meaning he is a warrior, a fighter under the command of the tribal leader, those 700-900 killed were were fighters. Now it was, the tribal leader himself who broke the treaty during wartime and compromised the entire Medinan population. What does that mean? Politically, the whole tribe was at war. You see my friend, get your mind out of the gutter for a second and try to comprehend. As for those, whose puberty were being ascertained, it was the determining factor as to whether this person was a warrior or not. In case you weren't aware. In those days as soon as you reach puberty, you carry arms and fight alongside the tribe.

2) The arbitrator of the judgement was chosen by Banu Qurayzah themselves. Yes. meaning, they chose Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to decide their fate.

There is nothing contradictory about what I said, you've equated, wrongly, the ability of slaves to receive emancipation with the notion of future abolition. You claimed Islam intended to end slavery and I'm telling you that either it failed to do so, Muslims ended slavery from pressure coming from the West in the mid 20th century, or it never intended to so. The claim that slaves must be emancipated is nonexistent. One does not have to give up his slaves and there are Hadiths where the prophet discourages the freeing of slaves, although there are verses in the Quran and Hadiths that also encourage freeing of slaves on certain occasions and those slaves must be Muslim ones. A slave converting to Islam is not a sanction for manumission.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan(3/387).

One could argue that Islam encourages freeing slaves but one cannot argue that Islam demands the abolition of this institution that only grew after the rise of Islam. The sahaba expanded the institution when they conquered many territories. Umar Al Khattab even demanded a fix set of slaves from Nubia, men and women, as a tribute for not being invaded. This occurred in other places too. This is coming from a sahaba who was very close to the prophet who expanded the institution.

Most of what I've said before, pretty much applies. But, I will say. Almost everything you've said here is fictitious. Re-read what I wrote earlier about the theological aspect of God's injunctions versus man's ability/inability to act. Also refer back to the protocols of the Shari'a. Again, wrong, freeing of slaves, weren't stipulated that they had to be Muslims. There were many instances of non Muslims who were freed as slaves. It really doesn't help when you talk to someone who is quite ignorant. Anu Hanifah (scholar of Law) that the man who declares his wife illegal for himself, has to manumit a slave (believing or non believing).

As for equating between the two. Then, let us go back to the sources, since you are now claiming to be an expert in Islam. There is not one verse or hadith that obligates the Muslims to have slaves nor to even look at it as recommended (mustahab) act. But there are plenty of injunctions ordering and obligating the freeing of slaves, the virtue of doing so etc. You said there was no intention for abolition. My question is, how can you abolish a universal enterprise? Are you out of your mind? The only reason why the Europeans (supposedly) ended slavery was because they actually had the ability to do so. They controlled the entire globe. Guess what, you can pretty much do whatever, then. But until then, nobody ever entertained that idea. Those days, it was a bit more complicated. You lose the war, people lose the breadwinner. Either you take this person prisoner i.e slave or they end up dying, pretty much. It's interesting you quoted Shaykh al Shanqeeti, I actually heard his son defining slavery in Islam. What a coincidence. You know what he said: "Indefinite prison sentence with non arduous commitments." Now lets not pick and choose who to quote. I, quoted the son of the the man you quoted, lol. Context is really important. But, I suppose you like it when things can be misconstrued and misunderstood, because then it helps you.

This is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. I could equally say that not all Muslims are suicide bombers but almost all suicide attacks are carried out by Muslim. Atheism is defined by the oxford dictionary as, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," nowhere is there a link to communism found. It doesn't matter if all communists are atheists, what matters is that you associate atheism to communism when it predates communism.Atheism is even older than Islam! You're clearly grasping on straws to seriously think there is a connection.

This is getting tiring. Refer back to the Atheist ideologues of the past. Social scientists are still debating Atheism and its intricacies, some say it is an ideology, some say it isn't, some say it's a religion (believe it or not). That which is most fair, would be to say it is ideological. Which I will address in the next segment.

I swear you're fucking retarded. You're arguments aren't even logically consistent. Existentialism is a philosophical idea and has nothing to do with atheism. The very fact that you're trying to make dubious links shows that you're grasping on straws. You haven't demonstrated that atheism is an ideology at all! You've simply stated that an atheist was a strong proponent of certain philosophical ideas so therefore atheism is an ideology? You lack any logical coherency whatsoever. An ideology is, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy," and I've clearly provided an Oxford definition of atheism. Please... demonstrate the connection.



Atheists having ideologies doesn't mean atheism is an ideology! How do you come up with this shit?!

Let us define ideology:

"A body of ideas reflecting the social needs, aspirations and desires of an individual, group, class, culture or peoples."

Do you accept this definition?

Or how about this definition:

"A set of doctrines or beliefs." ?

Let us see what are some of the core ideological beliefs that make you an atheist:

1) The universe is materialistic
2) Denial of Creationism.
3) Belief in Evolutionism (Generally).

Would you deny this? This is how I come up with this shit.

You've claimed Islam intended to outlaw slavery, I clearly showed that this effort failed because it took the filthy west, as many call them, to intervene and end the abhorrent institution. The sahabas never ended or reduced slavery but expanded it exponentially. Point is, either Islam failed in its attempts to outlaw slavery or it never intended to outlaw slavery in the first place. Which is more probable? No contradiction here.

Hyperbole. Pretty much addressed.

This level of complete retardation and lack of appreciation of science is precisely why you're making these clear and ignorant remarks. Socrates was from a time when modern science didn't exist. Their science was very primitive and isn't of the standard that we apply it today. In fact, many of them didn't even peer review or test their claims!!! Nonetheless, could you show me sources where western countries have legalised zoophilia? Now, I'm asking for something very specific here. The act of legalising something is purposely intending to make something legal that wasn't once legal. If anything, western countries have began to make this illegal as a concern for animal welfare. Some countries don't have any laws against it just like Djibouti doesn't have any laws addressing homosexuality.

Socrates' statement wouldn't be a household quote, even amongst scientists, had it been irrelevant. He was making the case, that science is probable. It is theoretical in it's nature. it always changes. That's factual. Separate the statement from the one who said it, then it wouldn't be an issue. There are tons of scientists who say the same thing today. Do you want me to spam here with the whole array? I'll spare you.

Here is an article about bestiality in Canada:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html


Germany, South Africa and the United States are just some of the countries where zoophilia is legal. In Germany, they have brothels. You do not really need me to send you any proof. Just do your won research. You will find everything as I have said it.

For you last point, science works on a process that requires evidence to substantiate something. You can't reintroduce something that is now considered to be unsubstantiated simply because it suits your narrative. That's not how science works. Scientific theories are, "a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." A right wing government cannot reintroduce something that was discarded and present it as a scientific fact when it is not. Homosexuality isn't a choice and we know this by a ton of studies done that have made this point beyond clear. Science is a self correcting tool hence why it is highly reliable. The very internet you're using was developed thanks to quantum mechanics. Reality is, you can shit on science when it doesn't suit your own narrative but you'll reap the benefits all the same. Nonetheless, science works on evidence whilst you'll claim things and hold it on blind faith.

Nonsense. Here is the answer by one of the leading scientists of today when asked about the meaning of Scientific facts:

Answer:

"The phrase "fact" is generally avoided in technical scientific language because our scientific understanding of the world keeps changing. So what we believe is a "fact" today may not be tomorrow. The closest technical phrase used is "observation." We use "observation" because the results we observe are always subject to the way we observe them."

As for homosexuality, perhaps I should clarify myself. In Islam, a homosexual is not punished for the fact that he is attracted to men. But it is the act of sodomy that is not recognized as a legitimate form of sexual expression. That is why I argued in regards to pro-creation.

That's highly nonsensical. You make the presumption that for homosexuality to be natural it must enable procreation, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexuality. Approximately around 10% of sheep are gay and they've even been observed to shun their female counterparts for their male opposites which dismisses the argument from isolation. This has also been observed in other primates and dolphins and thousands of other species. Nature is clearly filled with homosexuality but the reason is not clear at the moment but many hypothesis exist and are waiting to be substantiated.

How did they determine that? They saw a group of male sheep getting sodomised by other male sheep? Are you serious? This is what the liberal media come up with nowadays to make gays feel good about themselves. It's not only you. The sheep do it to lol.
Did they manage to record some of the sex talk to detemine whether it was gay sex or maybe some other more natural animal act? This is just comical now.

Lmao, that's the golden rule and it predates Christianity. It is found in many different religions and cultures and was even espoused by Confucius who predates Christianity. This shows you need to do more research mate.

Reason is built on evidence and logic, not faith. Someone who claims that killing handicapped people is justified for whatever reason, isn't providing a logical and rational argument, because the definition of handicapped can be broadened to include many different people that society deems unworthy. Also, taking someone else's life is still wrong for whatever reason, as I've mentioned before, because then someone else can justify your own killing for whatever reason. Theology doesn't give you morals because it can, and has, justified killing people on the grounds of commandment from god. You believe that killing apostates is fine because that is what Islam espoused. Nobody is shooting themselves in the foot. Plus, religious people can't agree amongst themselves anyways. Muslims killed each other after the death of the prophet and Christians killed each other too for centuries. Also, do you justify the killing of someone for witchcraft? Saudi Arabia does it and it very much holds precedence in Islam. Religion is poison hence why it isn't used to to dictate international laws.

Confucius, nevertheless believed in Tao which was a Deity/Spirit?Supreme Being. Rather, you need more research when quoting theists, mate.

You failed in answering critically the issues pertaining to rationale in determining good and bad. Now, for arguments sake, lets say I completely concur and agree with you. Since we both know that humans vary in almost everything. Whose intellect is the determining factor that we could use to determine the rationale for right and wrong? Who is the prototype, essentially? Forget what the theists do, when they kill each other. At least they have a manual from the Almighty, what do atheists have? And if they do not, what is the factor that determines what is acceptable and what isn't?

That's an abstract definition of stupid. You believe that everything must have been created by a creator but if I were to ask where that created came from, you'd argue that he exists on nothing and creating everything from nothing. You're essentially arguing from a hypocrisy. If everything requires a creator than the creator requires a creator, but that would create an infinite regression and thus one could simply state that we should end the regression where human knowledge ends... the universe.

Human perception ends with the universe but human knowlege doesnt. One could easily argue that the knowledge ends with God. Metaphysics is kind of like science. That is where Faith comes into it. Whether or not the Creator has a Creator, will not really matter if I can determine that I believe in the One who created me. I'll worry about the sequence later. Mataphysics is like science. Who knows maybe we will see on the Day of Judgement lol.

 

[Amira]