Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    i do not agree with your sig also, because right and wrong can be entirely different to different people, then what would be the criteria to judge which one of them is right?
    Which is the point of that part of my sig; rationality comes from within, and experience comes from... well, experience. How can you call either of those things "useful" if you've been doing what a book has been telling you your whole life?

    (Original post by saalih)
    there is not a single verse in the Qur'an or a single saying of Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him where the term "holy war" is used..it is made up by the west...
    I didn't say anything about the Qu'ran... 0_o

    (Original post by saalih)
    coming to suicide bombers, whoever does it to kill innocent people is wrong, but most of those who do it, usually target the militaries of the real terrorists out there who not just slaughter innocent peple, but deprive them of water, electricity, and experiment new weaponry against them!!! those who do suicide attacks have nothing but stones and bricks, so they resort to their LAST option, which is blowing themselves.even though i personally am against it, but at least i can understand why they do it....and yet we see the media calling them terrorists and forgetting the real ones hiding under army uniforms
    This is not a "do you believe the war is just?" thread, so I'll try not to delve too far into this.

    First of all, I doubt the 9/11 or 7/7 attacks were intended to kill military personnel. Secondly, they use suicide bombing mainly as a method to deprive people of their LIVES.

    And thirdly, I've never seen the tramp round the corner from me play with a concoction of bleach and washing powder, and he doesn't even have stone and brick to rely upon.

    Also, I would like some sauce (preferably tomato) to go with your "those who do suicide attacks have nothing but stones and bricks, so they resort to their LAST option, which is blowing themselves." comment.

    (Original post by saalih)
    and speaking of suicides, why then, in countries like sweden etc, where everything is available, money, luxury, food etc. we have so many suicide rates???? it is the lack of purpose in life (as most atheists claim) and guidance from God what drives them to forsake their own lives..
    Because Sweden is a desolate place in the Winter where temperatures drop below freezing and there less than 8 hours of sunlight a day?
    This isn't about suicide, stop trying to justify your argument with irrelevancies. It's about morals and religion, that's all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Which is my whole point; how is it moral to kill innocents just for the sake of a religion? It's not. Which is why, in this instance and concerning this particular minority who are part of a religion, Atheists are more moral than Theists.

    I honestly can't believe you didn't make that connection :facepalm:
    "Look at suicide bombers; they are doing it for their religion (holy war, whatever). But they believe that what they are doing (the slaughter of innocents) is right."

    You make it look as if they feel they are killing innocents.
    Perhaps if you'd typed it clearer .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    "Look at suicide bombers; they are doing it for their religion (holy war, whatever). But they believe that what they are doing (the slaughter of innocents) is right."

    You make it look as if they feel they are killing innocents.
    Perhaps if you'd typed it clearer .
    I assume that you're disagreeing with that comment I made?

    If so, are you telling me that during the 7/7 bombings, the bombers walked onto the tube without thinking "This may actually kill some people. How about that..."?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I assume that you're disagreeing with that comment I made?

    If so, are you telling me that during the 7/7 bombings, the bombers walked onto the tube without thinking "This may actually kill some people. How about that..."?
    I'm not talking about if people x are or are not innocent because, well, that's open to interpretation, just that the 'terrorists' don't view their 'victims' as 'innocent' all the '' words are rather, ambiguous, subjective etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm not talking about if people x are or are not innocent because, well, that's open to interpretation, just that the 'terrorists' don't view their 'victims' as 'innocent' all the '' words are rather, ambiguous, subjective etc.
    Be that as it may, does that not say something about the rational side of the 'terrorist'? Because, y'know, I would imagine that most MORAL people would think that everyone is "innocent until charged", y'know? As opposed to "I can has go KABOOM! and kill teh infidels!"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Be that as it may, does that not say something about the rational side of the 'terrorist'? Because, y'know, I would imagine that most MORAL people would think that everyone is "innocent until charged", y'know? As opposed to "I can has go KABOOM! and kill teh infidels!"
    What do you mean by a moral person?
    A moral agent?
    A person capable of being a moral agent?
    A moral patient?

    My whole point is that to them they are doing moral actions. Now I wouldn't say by my view of morality that that is the case, and to my standards that's immoral.
    I guess a key question is, are there objective moral facts (facts about morality, what is moral, immoral, and non moral, outside of the subject)?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    What do you mean by a moral person?
    A moral agent?
    A person capable of being a moral agent?
    A moral patient?

    My whole point is that to them they are doing moral actions. Now I wouldn't say by my view of morality that that is the case, and to my standards that's immoral.
    I guess a key question is, are there objective moral facts (facts about morality, what is moral, immoral, and non moral, outside of the subject)?
    A moral agent? Dude, I'm not 007.

    I'll explain it simply:

    Everyone sees the 'terrorists' actions as immoral aside from them, amirite? Now, they follow a religion which they have interpreted (I would assume) as the bringing about of a "Holy War" or some ****.
    So it would be logical that religion (or their interpretation of it) is to blame. Following me so far?

    Conclusion: They believe in religion, they are being mislead by religion (or their belief in their interpretation of it)... their interpretation of their religion is causing them to commit whatever atrocities by whatever means. Meaning that said religious people have a blinkered view of what "morality".

    Yes, morality might be subject to each individual, but does that make what they are doing more right or wrong, regardless of how they view it?
    Because I assure you, blowing up people in such a fashion is WRONG. And their interpretation of their religious texts is to blame.

    I think I've done this to death now... there really is no better way I can explain it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    A moral agent? Dude, I'm not 007.

    I'll explain it simply:

    Everyone sees the 'terrorists' actions as immoral aside from them, amirite? Now, they follow a religion which they have interpreted (I would assume) as the bringing about of a "Holy War" or some ****.
    So it would be logical that religion (or their interpretation of it) is to blame. Following me so far?

    Conclusion: They believe in religion, they are being mislead by religion (or their belief in their interpretation of it)... their interpretation of their religion is causing them to commit whatever atrocities by whatever means. Meaning that said religious people have a blinkered view of what "morality".

    Yes, morality might be subject to each individual, but does that make what they are doing more right or wrong, regardless of how they view it?
    Because I assure you, blowing up people in such a fashion is WRONG. And their interpretation of their religious texts is to blame.

    I think I've done this to death now... there really is no better way I can explain it.
    You're being incoherent, on the one hand it changes from person to person on the other you're saying it is wrong.
    Unless you mean to your moral standards?
    But it looks like you're talking about it as if it's objective.


    Now another issue I take with all of this is blaming religion, I believe the subject and only the subject is responsible for their actions. Now if they are in some way objectively wrong (and I wouldn't agree with them being that) then only they would be blameable. They allow themselves to get taken in to religion, and even try to shift the blame onto it. But it's not a subject, it's a concept.
    In a similar way you can't blame gravity if you fall down.

    Now lets say that most people think that the terrorists are acting immorally. The majority rule isn't necessarily the correct one.

    I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with it, at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Which is the point of that part of my sig; rationality comes from within, and experience comes from... well, experience. How can you call either of those things "useful" if you've been doing what a book has been telling you your whole life?
    it is not just a book, for us it is a revelation from God, so a world of difference is there...We do not follow it blindly but rather because it makes sense and is logical and moral...


    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    This is not a "do you believe the war is just?" thread, so I'll try not to delve too far into this.

    First of all, I doubt the 9/11 or 7/7 attacks were intended to kill military personnel. Secondly, they use suicide bombing mainly as a method to deprive people of their LIVES.

    Also, I would like some sauce (preferably tomato) to go with your "those who do suicide attacks have nothing but stones and bricks, so they resort to their LAST option, which is blowing themselves." comment.
    if you still live in a world which actually believes 9/11 & 7/7 were carried out by Muslims then I think delving into this with you is useless..
    And clearly you have ignored the real terrorists actions...



    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Because Sweden is a desolate place in the Winter where temperatures drop below freezing and there less than 8 hours of sunlight a day?
    This isn't about suicide, stop trying to justify your argument with irrelevancies. It's about morals and religion, that's all.
    i did not bring up the topic of suicide bombers, you did, so i replied to that...

    and no, most of those who commit suicide despite of having everything is because they do not have a sense of direction/purpose of life...

    coming back to the morality issue, rationality comes from within, but who decides what is rational or not?

    for example in a society where a widow is cursed for life is considered normal and rational, but for you it might not, so who is right and who is wrong?

    for us, we have something to go back to in case of a conflict, and who better than God to be the judge?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Which is my whole point; how is it moral to kill innocents just for the sake of a religion? It's not. Which is why, in this instance and concerning this particular minority who are part of a religion, Atheists are more moral than Theists.

    I honestly can't believe you didn't make that connection :facepalm:
    WWI & WWII were carried out by people for non-religious reasons...

    i would love to get a survey of those who commit crimes in the west and ask them are they religious or atheists, i am pretty sure the majority would be those who do not believe in God at all...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    straw man:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    just love to use such terminologies right?

    anywho
    http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_jo...pcp/about.html

    http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e32/32d.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/sc...pagewanted=all
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    it is not just a book, for us it is a revelation from God, so a world of difference is there...We do not follow it blindly but rather because it makes sense and is logical and moral...
    Your view over mine. I'm an Atheist, hence why I think what I do, and I stick to it.

    (Original post by saalih)
    if you still live in a world which actually believes 9/11 & 7/7 were carried out by Muslims then I think delving into this with you is useless..
    And clearly you have ignored the real terrorists actions...
    First of all, I didn't specifically say "Muslim". Terrorists are terrorists, no matter what they believe in (going by the bog standard definition of "terrorist" ), be it any religion or political ideology. So your argument is, again, irrelevant.

    Secondly, you gave me no sauce. I am disappointed by this, because it shows that you cannot come up with any support for your argument in which you used facts, whereas I'm just stating my opinion on such matters.


    (Original post by saalih)
    i did not bring up the topic of suicide bombers, you did, so i replied to that...

    and no, most of those who commit suicide despite of having everything is because they do not have a sense of direction/purpose of life...
    I find your lack of sources disturbing... GET SOME! And no, I don't want any psychologists ******** either; I want fact, not theory.

    (Original post by saalih)
    coming back to the morality issue, rationality comes from within, but who decides what is rational or not?

    for example in a society where a widow is cursed for life is considered normal and rational, but for you it might not, so who is right and who is wrong?

    for us, we have something to go back to in case of a conflict, and who better than God to be the judge?
    Because you believe in "God" (I assume?) and I don't. It's my opinion against yours, and you've just said that rationality comes from within. Rationality and experience combined help make the better person in my eyes, not any "God" which may or may not exist.

    Also, if your "God" takes away a human being from another (husband away from wife), then how is that "God" helping someone to decide their morals when the whole of the society is against them (and I assume) by the will of said "God"?

    Also, you said earlier that your book makes sense... how is condemning someone to a life of loneliness and misery just because their spouse has died make sense to you?!?
    If "God" takes them away and they go to "Heaven" or whatever, then said "God" is being most irrational by condemning someone to solitude.
    On the other hand, if you do not believe that it is "God" who is taking said spouse away, then why does he still condemn them to solitude? Such a "God" is not benevolent, and is hardly being moral himself!

    So why should have have the power to judge others' morals?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What's your issue with using the correct terminology, that I even give you a link to so that you can see what a straw man argument means.

    Care to put the first website into context properly?

    I don't see why you've posted the second, and doubt you understand it, but if you do then by all means put it more simply.

    The last could be stretched as some vague evidence to hint that plants may feel pain, but it is not proof that plants do feel pain.
    Are you just putting up random journals from the internet hoping that they say what you want them to say?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)


    Also, you said earlier that your book makes sense... how is condemning someone to a life of loneliness and misery just because their spouse has died make sense to you?!?
    If "God" takes them away and they go to "Heaven" or whatever, then said "God" is being most irrational by condemning someone to solitude.
    On the other hand, if you do not believe that it is "God" who is taking said spouse away, then why does he still condemn them to solitude? Such a "God" is not benevolent, and is hardly being moral himself!

    So why should have have the power to judge others' morals?
    who said that the book I believe in, the Qur'an, condemns someone to a life of loneliness and misery? i think you are finding it hard to comprehend what i wrote...

    i was giving an example of a particular society which practices such acts based on their religious beliefs....i do not agree with it at all...but point is, even if you take out religious beliefs, you will have so many views on what is right and wrong which may very well contradict each other, so what will you choose? whichever you see fit? but will you be always correct? same applies for man made law, they might be unjust because of human error..

    for me, the book I believe in, the Qur'an and the Prophet I believe in as the last and final Messenger to mankind, Prophet Muhammad, are the authority I get back to when it comes to morals.....And since it is from God, it will have no error and it will be a just and fair verdict.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    What's your issue with using the correct terminology, that I even give you a link to so that you can see what a straw man argument means.

    Care to put the first website into context properly?

    I don't see why you've posted the second, and doubt you understand it, but if you do then by all means put it more simply.

    The last could be stretched as some vague evidence to hint that plants may feel pain, but it is not proof that plants do feel pain.
    Are you just putting up random journals from the internet hoping that they say what you want them to say?
    yes keep believing what you want, typical denial mentality.....

    and besides, the post is not about animals and plants feeling pain, it is about morality.....

    are you ok with a society burning a widow? because for them it is normal and accepted as a norm!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The only atheist morality should be hedonism, if you are not that, there's little point of being an atheist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    yes keep believing what you want, typical denial mentality.....

    and besides, the post is not about animals and plants feeling pain, it is about morality.....

    are you ok with a society burning a widow? because for them it is normal and accepted as a norm!!!
    You of all people speak about a denial mentality?
    As well as failing to actually address any of the points I've raised?
    You also fail to look into the moral theories I posted in one of me (I think it was my) first post(s).

    Personally I think you have to be trolling, no-one could be that thick.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=there's too much love]You of all people speak about a denial mentality?
    QUOTE]

    look whose talking
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    who said that the book I believe in, the Qur'an, condemns someone to a life of loneliness and misery? i think you are finding it hard to comprehend what i wrote...

    i was giving an example of a particular society which practices such acts based on their religious beliefs....
    You've just completely contradicted yourself. You say what I said is untrue, then tell me that the reason they do it is because of their religious beliefs... the same beliefs that come from the book, or have I missed something?

    (Original post by saalih)
    i do not agree with it at all...but point is, even if you take out religious beliefs, you will have so many views on what is right and wrong which may very well contradict each other, so what will you choose?

    whichever you see fit? but will you be always correct? same applies for man made law, they might be unjust because of human error..
    As you said, whichever I see fit. And if I get judged for it then sobeit, but it doesn't make a difference because I'll be doing something that I, and likely many others, think is the right decision to make. People have different ideas what it coems to "right" and "wrong", but when you throw religion into the mix, everything becomes a lot more blurry because then you get the preachers who believe that what they preach is fact rather than opinion, and that morals come from and are judged by "God" rather than actions based on innate rationalism.

    (Original post by saalih)
    for me, the book I believe in, the Qur'an and the Prophet I believe in as the last and final Messenger to mankind, Prophet Muhammad, are the authority I get back to when it comes to morals.....And since it is from God, it will have no error and it will be a just and fair verdict.....
    So you are saying that you strictly follow the Qu'ran down to the last word because that is what defines your moral actions, thus you believe you will get into Heaven or wherever because of this?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    I **** quotes up.
    http://community.eu.playstation.com/...v=mpbl-1&px=-1
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.