No, rape and murder is wrong because they are wrong; they are acts AGAINST the human race, which comes from when the human race was still living in small groups of 5 -9, and we have this built in now to feature other speices too. To say that I think these things are wrong means you are either a really twisted person, very stupid, or very ignorant.
Evolutionery Psychology is a feild, combining Evolution and Psychology - which is sort of why it's called that. It explains why we feel the need to help homeless people, dispite this seeming to counter natural selection, why we feel sexual lust and other werid little things in our evolution.
There is no moral objectivity, it's just what we humans make for ourselves, and you don't need God for that, for in the old testament God quite happily commit acts of genocide for no good reason, and is quite happy to make Abraham sacrifice one of his sons.
but speaking of morality in general , I am very grateful that I don't have to compromise my moral stance in life at the behest of poverty & nesseccity. I know stealing is wrong,so I cant see myself taking what doesn't belong to me from someone else,but what if I were to end up in dire straights would I give up my morals & steal for food & money ?
I am very grateful, I don't have to resort to such practices.I just hope I would never come to that.I'm not a person of faith ,but I do know morals
I think we should just stick with the basics of morality do unto others as we would want done unto us.
the question of how to live a moral life has been asked for several 1000's of years all the way down from Plato to the Greeks, to the romans & to modern present day. I think everyone wants to be happy & treated decent; I think a being such as god would have an understanding of human psychology 101,so all this fear of hell punishment is rather silly & irrational on god's part.
Well done I too think that morality is an innate feature of humanity.And in fact Religions corrupt this morality by allowing killings of people for being gay or having sex where the partners agree to it for example
Looking at the theory of moral development (Kohlberg), we develop trough 6 stages. Stage 6 represents internalized universal humanistic principles. But an external book claiming to have the absolute moral restrict you to the stages 2-3 were you behave morally because of the fear for punisment.
So the moral stays externalised and by so it is very dangerous, because they can break those moral values for the higher cause (the afterlife)
Our morality comes from our development as a social group.
Actions which were positive for the group made the group stronger and more successful. Rather than doing what is good for the individual we learned to do what is good for the group.
It's evident in Chimps (social grooming for example) - did they have a monkey prophet teach them that? I doubt it.
One thing Muslims do is rename their immoral behaviors to put an aura of 'purity' or 'goodness' on it. Any society that thinks that abusing women, children (pediphilia), slaves, anyone who is not a Muslim is a-ok, is NOT a moral society. I don't care how many tents and scarves they make their women wear, or their women wear willingly, it is only a facade of purity.
Thanks. I can't agree more. A wonderful video. I'm an exchristian. and I'm now so happy to be free from the lies of religion. I truely believe that we can be loving and caring human beings without the need of a "god" telling us how to behave. As a christian I spent many years feeling guilty about "lust". As an atheist I've come to enjoy my sexulity and know that what I previously called "lust" was just "Libido". A perfectly natural part of being a man.
Good video and my very own thoughts. Children are taught about their religion from a very young age, from their parents and teachers. I think the moral codes of decent society can be taught in the same way. Instead of teaching the children that they will burn in hell for being bad, they could be taught the reasons for morality and the good it will do for them and the rest of society. Of how it would lead to an easier and more content life for everyone.
Obamas moral words in Cairo. We share this World for but a brief moment in time. Do we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or commit ourselves to sustained efforts to find common ground and focus on a future for our children! A World where governments serve their citizens in respect and dignity in the fair rights of all.? "Do unto others as we would have them do unto us" This truth transcends nations and peoples a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and billions today!
I strongly question your assertion that the golden rule is natural; the 'natural condition" of man seems to be mutual hatred (e.g., Nazi, Stalin, Vietnam war, etc...); the ethic you invoke is, in fact, a 'religious command ( and for that matter, it's contingent on the one which precedes it). The immoral behavior you rightly deride are common to all men. The fact is that human nature is warped, deeply flawed, & impaired.
Quite simply, it comes from the general observation of the history of human society... are you willfully oblivious to, say, just some of the prominent events of the last century ? Would you not consider the constant wars trhoughout the wars (resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents) an 'immoral event" ? Do you not consider, a country which commits genocide or brutal social repression against masses of its own people 'immoral'.
Look again at my questions: "Where is your proof of those assertions being true of the of every person?" "Where is your proof that human beings do have "A" common human nature?"
You did not assert that SOME human beings have or had a flawed, etc. nature. Nor did you assert that that only SOME human beings have exhibited actions that support the belief that THEIR nature is or was apparently as you described.
It does not prove that they were NATURALLY that way. It also does not prove - A.) anything about the nature of those human beings who were killed in war, or who were killed as a result of attempted genocide, or who were oppressed, and/or about anyone else who DID NOT perform those violent or oppressive actions, nor does it prove, B.) that ALL human beings are born "naturally warped, flawed and imparied".
MENCADO - as for having a common human nature, would you not agree that, in many civilized nations, it is an emcouraged 'value' to take care of one's elderly parent ; also, a person who is brave and honest is genreally admired (vs. being cowardly and thiefing ). In simple language, it is 'human nature" which tells people that they should esteem one value versus another.
You asserted that, "It is a fact that human nature" - that refers to the nature of every one of all humans - "is warped, deeply flawed, & impaired".
You used confirmation bias to support your argument.You discluded recognition of any and all individuals who did NOT engage in any violent and/or oppressive actions, and you also discluded recognition of any and all individuals who ARE NOT now engaging in the performance of any violent and/or oppressive actions.
Be historical occurences (or purported historical occurences) as they may, they do not prove that human nature (the nature of every one of all humans ) is inherently anything.
Where historical accounts about those events are correct, it does show that those human beings who did perform those actions did have the capacity to BECOME violent and/or oppressive under the influence of those experiences (or lackings in experience) and under the influence of the learning (or lackings in learning) that they had lived through.
If each and every single person living today - with the sole exception being myself - had previously all and only done and were to continue to commit all and only violent and oppressive actions from this moment forward as well, that would prove absolutely nothing about my being or not being capable of doing those same things, and it would disprove your assertion about human nature being true (unless I wasn't human).
What some human beings have done or have not done proves nothing about any other human or other human beings.You have not proved that human beings do have "A" common human nature, rather than that each human being thinks and accordingly acts in relation to his or her specific learning and lack of learning, experience and lack of experience.
well, if insist on assuming this completely ethically subjectvist approach with respect to your arguments I don;t see howwhy we might to continue here at all. On the contrary, I answered UR question fully regarding is there "A" human nature (not to be confused with is there a singl cultural preference or valiue for all humans).
I explained that having a reflective conscious & process of formulating moral choice is human nature, i.e. what is common to all human and defines what is human. (NOTE: animals do not do engage in such manner of conscious reflection- yet all humans have some idea about how one shd treat other fellow humans). In traditional judeo.christian vernacular, we humans are ALL created in the very image of God.
. Would you consider the "nature" of the majority of civilized men to encourage the rapes of their wives & daughters by evil men. Is it a "good" thing for the likes of a King Herod to slaughter infants ? UR comments strongly imply a type of "moral apathy", or naive lack of observation or real interactiions with people on your part .
Your JUDGMENT of there being a "correct" set of ethics, and a "correct" set of thoughts is based upon your PREJUDICIAL BELIEFS about what "is" and what "is not" correct ACCORDING TO what it is that you BELIEVE.
well, I would most certainly hope my judgement is based on MY prejudicial beliefs (as, I suppose, in contrast to 'your prejudicial beleifs)... I would have to conclude (since I do reason) that mine are clearly superior to yours since I OBJECTIVELY believe that it is a good thing a) to love one's parents, b) not to blindly hate or murder the innocent; c) not to covet . Irrationally and parochially you have insisted it is all a matter of 'personal inclination'.
Being a man, I need, in part, to look at both myself and people such as you to know therebeyond any questions there IS factually God; that is the very source of free will.
I can only speculate that you are engaged in some manner of intentional moral 'self-delusion" in order to maintain your possibly tenuous grip on reality
NOTE: this does NOT mean that a person (or society) ACTS the same, rather the human 'act of choice' which says some value is objectively better than another is what is usually meant by human nature"
the golden rule exists even in nature. its simple. if you dont like someone to take your shit, then dont take theirs!! if you dont want someone to hit you, dont go out of your way to attack someone else? most people play by the rules because, cheating has big consiquences. the ones that cheat put themselves at risk. if they succeed... well good for them. what is most likely is that they will fail and they would be worse for it.
jails only hold about 2% of any given population. so, its fair to say that most poeple recongize that its not in their best interest to break major laws. you dont need a hell when you have a pretty strict justice system.
My conclusion is that morality simply does not exist.
This doesn't mean conscience does not exist. Conscience is "that little voice inside you that asks 'have you brushed your teeth?'" (a child's definition, excellent I think).
But what is this morality that is different from conscience? Perhaps, nothing.
I was not sure about the whole rant and what his thesis was all about and then the last line, "it is what makes us human.", i just thought, daaaaaaaamn. Nice stinger ending.
Islam is a horror show! Muslims I have met and liked turn in to vile creatures the moment they talk about Islam. I have always been stunned by the way Muslims foam at the mouth at Jews, but ignore the misery that islam brings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
its hypocritical after being muslim your whole life and assimilating its values into your subconcious to then say you had no need for it in the first place. whose to say your moral compass is still not shaped by Islam. secondly, if we all rejected religion and followed our "moral compasses" how would one with sexual desire towards children know what he is doing is wrong, or someone who earnestly believes he has the right to steal and murder due to past injustices.
Mankind's should not be conscious of restraint to behave in a decent manner. A mother's not conscious of restraint, devoting herself to nursing a sick child or working to supply it with food. A man who is left in the house of a friend isn't conscious of restraint when he refrains from pocketing the silver or when he does not steal a purse that has been left on the table. But is immoral, a potential criminal if he does not commit a crime only 'cause afraid of being caught or some pathetic Hell.
"morality is a natural fact", please prove it. if morality is a natural fact why do you get tribes in africa cut off from the rest the world who engage in cannabilism. for them eating human flesh is perfectly moral. if morality is natural why are there variances across the world in what people believe to be moral. if people had a belief in divine law, regardless of whether that law is from God, that law would serve better to control human behaviour then any man made law or manly desire and whim.
(xingyimaster1987) You currently train in cage fighting and hope to have a fight soon and hate zionists, islamophobes and sexual perverts etc.
Well, why are you muslim? as from Bukhari vol. 7, #65: "Aisha", the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. That's a sexual pervert. And what African tribes now engage cannabilism?
danielnz1, you are going into theology now because you couldn't answer my prior point. fine, you want to play that dirty unintelligent game i guess i'll have to answer you. my definition of sexual pervert are atheists who have sex with animals, people of the same sex, dead bodies and who knows what else because they have no law and think they only live once. see next comment.
continuation, my definition of sexual perverts does not include men who MARRIED not raped girls as young as 9 at a period in history when life expectancy was so low early marriage was a necessity and a custom. as for cannabilism it still goes on in many parts of the world, especially among tribes. it occurs in africa and even recently the kulina tribe in brazil. are you denying facts?
I have twin 9yr old grandaughters! If any man sexually had or wanted them! He would be locked up for a hell of a long time, don't make excuse for perversion!
"Morality is what makes us human.",
The Kulina Indians have no history of consuming flesh, even in their far history, police believe that three men were practicing homicide. Police think theyd been on drugs at the time of the murder. Seems an isolated case of homicide, Seargent Osmildo Fereira da Silva said in a statement. .
xingyimaster1987, You censor free-speach, but burble bull-shit on other sites?
Its good to hold dialogue with moderate liberal Muslims, those who acknowledge the supremacy of certain humanist values, such as the sanctity of life and free choice. When a Westerner converts to Islam, that's fine, but when a Muslim de-converts, its suddenly unthinkable and condemned! When all theyve done is logically reason life for themselves. Blind-faith religion means: stop thinking obey archaic orders only!
when did i censor free speech you silly old man, what are you talking about. anyway back onto the previous point, with low life expectancy, early marriage comes naturally. early marriage was practiced by all societies and cultures 1000 yrs ago. these people were not "sexual perverts" but people of there time. would you be willing to say your the descendant of sexual perverts because i can guarantee you at least one of your ancestors married a young girl. your argument is just plain stupid.
you have twin grand daughters, that nice but i didn't ask for your life stories. just to give you some facts, if they were born 1000 yrs ago they might have been married by now. early marriage was the norm when life expectancy was so low. are you seriously denying cannibalism still occurs in various tribes, you have lost that debate for sure. as for the kulina tribe, they are isolated form the rest of the world and that incident was not plain homicide but a ritual murder.
finally why don't you watch this video, Cannibalism - Tribe - BBC on youtube, it proves cannablism still exists in these isolated african tribes. morality is natural my ass, unless of course you think cannabilism is moral. your argument is destroyed.
How about 50 something year old men who married 9 year olds? Their life expectancy was apparently not all that "low" was it? Maybe life-expectancy is low where men marry and fuck children for a reason.
maybe you should re-read the comments lesbian. 1400 yrs ago in the harsh arabian wilderness life expectancy was very low, between 20-30yrs of age. therefore child marriage was a common occurrence, not just in arabia but all around the world. i think having sex with other women would probably make your life expectancy low, the lesbian lifestyle does take a good 20 yrs off your life expectancy according to current research. give up your ways while you can, marry a man and grow some hair.
If I were a lesbian, then you would have no way of knowing it unless you are suggesting that you and I have had a lesbian affair, or that you are a voyeur and that you had been watching me have sex with another woman - if I have done so.
lesbians have a particular look to exclaim to the world: "i'm lesbian and i'm proud". unfortunately you happen to have that look, unless of course you really are a lesbian then more power to you. just make sure you take more vitamins and do more exercise than the average person because your life expectancy is reducing everyday.
"lesbians have a particular look to exclaim to the world:"
If a woman is a lesbian, but does not have whatever look you think that lesbians do have, you might assume based on her appearance that she is not a lesbian, but that would not make your assumption correct.
Why do you assume that I am sexually active at all? Do you see me having any sex?
alright, alright you win. i'm a woman and we met at that club girl on girl about a month ago. its me fiona. how u doing. haven't seen you around the clubs lately, you got a new girlfriend or are you still available?
Sorry fiona, you will have to be more specific: Were you th lipstick lesbian, were you the bulldyke, or were you that woman who no person who has a stereotypical image of what a lesbian looks like would ever guess that she is a lesbian?
Too bad. Whatever happened to the lipstick lesbian? She was hot. That slinky little dress that she had on was just way too sexy to miss. Must have one.
Hey wait, what does someone who is a bisexual look like? And what does someone who is a virgin look like? And what does someone who is celibate look like?
"1400 yrs ago in the harsh arabian wilderness life expectancy was very low, between 20-30yrs of age. "
Fucking young girls - who may already have reached the age of menstruation (or not) , but who have not necessarily developed enough physically to carry and to birth a child is a good way to insure that they will be more likely to die either while pregnant, during the birthing process, or subsequent to the act of giving birth -
your actually wrong there. by definition once a girl has reached puberty and is able to give birth she is healthy enough to have a successful pregancy. show me the data that says the younger a mother the more likely she is to die. why would nature allow pregnancy to occur at younger ages if it was detrimental to the mothers health.
Puberty is not "reached". Puberty is a developmental stage that is passed though - over a course of time. All of the various developments which occur during that course of time do not happen within a single instant. A person who is beginning puberty or who is still pubescent has not yet fully developed.
yes puberty is a developmental stage during whic ovulation commences which is necessary for pregancy. whats your point? puberty can begin in girls as young as 7.
A female merely having begun to ovulate does not mean that all of her body is equipped to handle the physical stress and strain of a child developing within her, nor to handle the physical stress and strain of giving birth.
really, i'd like to know your evidence for that, during puberty a girls hips widen to carry a baby, she undergoes thelarche-breast growth, menarche-start of menstruation, she start ovulating. the whole point of puberty is to prepare the girl for her biological purpose, to give birth. can you show me some evidence for you magnificent claims.
EXACTLY! So within any female who has ONLY JUST STARTED PUBERTY, THIS PREPARATORY STAGE HAS NOT YET FINISHED OCCURING, AND SHE IS NOT YET READY to become pregant, carry a child, and to give birth.
so whats your point, girls can begin puberty as young as 7 and have it completed by age 9. who said the marriage occurred on the dot when puberty began, do you have aisha's ra medical records. all i know is the islamic rule is marriage can occur once child bearing age has been attained.
yes there is a child bearing age and it varies between different girls. the earlier a girl reached it, the earlier she was considered a woman 1000 yrs ago and the earlier she would get married. attitudes were different 1000 yrs ago.
ok fine, when i say reached puberty i mean the process has finished and a young girl has the capacity to bear children. i think you knew thats what i meant but your trying to debate it because you have no better points to discuss.
yes and once again i fail to see your point. as i have said before girls can being and finish puberty very early. puberty can initiate at the age of 7 quite easily.
its a figure of speech, no one actually believes nature is a collective conciousness, but whether you believe in God or natural selection you have a belief that everything is made/designed to survive and pass on its genes. therefore your early pregancy death theory goes against this basic principle found in nature.
"no one actually believes nature is a collective conciousness, "
Unless you are every person and have firsthand knowledge of every person's mind, you can state that you do not BELIEVE that anyone does believe that nature is a collective consciousness, but you cannot assert that you KNOW it for a fact.
what a silly point you've made, scrutinising the most trivial of points. there is no scientific evidence that nature is a collective conciousness, what i meant was any rational person would not believe so just like i would say any rational person would believe elvis is dead, yet you get people who believe the contrary.
"there is no scientific evidence that nature is a collective conciousness,"
Woah! What do you mean by saying that there IS no scientific evidence? That you - that anyone else, or even that all people - may be unaware of any such evidence is not proof that there is no such evidence.
scientific evidence includes what we currently know about science now. i challenge you to show me one scientist or peer reviewed journal that states nature has a conciousness. show it to me or stop going on about this stupid irrelevant point because you have nothing better to say.
That no scientific evidence may have been discovered and/or that no scientific evidence may have been revealed is not proof that no such evidence could be discovered, nor is it proof that such evidence is necessarily non-existent.
"but whether you believe in God or natural selection you have a belief that everything is made/designed to survive and pass on its genes. "
Those are not the only potential options for what anyone might believe. Someone might believe neither of those to be the case. On what basis would you presume that I do necessarily have a belief in the existence of anything which "is made designed to survive and pass on its genes"?
really, thats very sad if they do. anyone who has studied nature knows that either some form of selection is taking place or some sort of design is present. thats why everything is adapted and fit to survive and pass on its genes. please tell me, what other options are there? tell me what you believe. you must have some other theory in your head otherwise you wouldn't have made a fuss about this trivial point.
well no, that point is stupid because life expectancy was short across the world in both men and women. if your point had any truth to it we would see only women (those who can get pregnant) with low life expectancies and not men. however women have always had a slightly higher expectancy then men.
because i know scientifically your point makes no sense. your theory about young girls giving birth lowering the populations life expectancy is rubbish. malnourishment, lack of sanitation, hygeine, poor health education, these factors caused the low life expectancies not early marriage!
"these factors caused the low life expectancies not early marriage! "
#1 - That those other things contributed to low life expectancies does not rule out as a possilibity that females becoming impregnated too soon did not ALSO contirbute to lower life expectancies.
#2 - I made no suggest that early marriage caused low life expectancies.
don't divert the issue, you made a wonderful and bold claim that early pregnancy causes lower life expectancies. where is the scientific empirical proof. are you telling me that the reason life expectancies were so low was due to early marriages causing early pregnancies. as i have said repeatedly, if a girl can give birth, she has has only reached this stage because her body is ready for it
"don't divert the issue, you made a wonderful and bold claim that early pregnancy causes lower life expectancies"
I made no such "claim". I did suggest it as being a possibility that is may do so.The attempt at diverting from the issue has been made by you, not me.
yes you did make that claim, you made it several times and now your trying to backtrack, show me your proof for that crazy claim or be silent. don't try and wiggle your way out of it. i can copy and paste your previous comments and prove it to you.
Many women who have sex too early, being a girl, become barrel. This is scientific tested issue. There is an age for sex & one for playing with dolls; obviously the age for sex is not 9. If we have to discuss this, then is not worth talking. Women MAY do some other things besides being a sexual object & giving birth: just as studying, working, being free independent persons, etc.. BTW, yes having children too early is one of the main causes of female deat at birthgiving time. YOU are right
"if a girl can give birth, she has has only reached this stage because her body is ready for it "
That is true, but that is not the issue. The issue is that a girl having reached the stage of MERELY being able to become impregnated (aka. having REACHED PUBERTY) is NOT the same thing as a girl having reached the age of being able to carry a child and to sucessfully give birth (aka. having COMPLETED puberty).
i don't see your point, where is this going. whenever i used the term reached puberty i mean successful pregnancy could occur. i don't believe islam allows marriage before child bearing age so your point is invalid. have you got new evidence to suggest aisha was in the midst of puberty, no you don't.
had they not been impreganted at too young of an age - but apparently the sex-obsessed Arab men (Muhammad possibly included amongst them) were too dull of mind to think without their dicks and tried to rationalize their preversion by ignoring some facts and picking only the ones that suited to support their argument in favor of pedophelia.
So tell me, rationally, if you can do so: How would making children with children solve the potential problem of the population dying out, if girls were dying due to not being ready to be impregnated AND ALSO READY TO give birth? Then too, there is the question of the likelihood of the survival of those children whom the children were trying to birth.
you said: "So tell me, rationally, if you can do so: How would making children with children solve the potential problem of the population dying out"
the answer is very simple. if life expectancy is 20-30 yrs the younger you marry the more likely you will have children and be able to look after them and provide for them before early death engulfs you. therefore the next generation can flourish and thrive. furthermore the earlier you have children the more children you will have.
"if life expectancy is 20-30 yrs the younger you marry the more likely you will have children"
If a female's life expectancy was between 20-30 , and if she married and began having children by the time she was 9, but was not physically developed enough to handle the stress and strain of pregnancy and childbirth, then she might - rather than living until 20-30 die at 9.
If she made it through the first pregnancy, she might - with compromised internal health - make it until her next pregnancy and then die - still not even having reached the age of 12 let alone 20. With each additional pregnancy her health might very well deteriorate even more so, thereby, increasing her chances of dying before she reached the age of 20.
"furthermore the earlier you have children the more children you WILL have. "
That is not a fact. A female is not guaranteed to become impregnated every time that she has sexual intercourse. A female might have one child at the age of 11 and be permanently physically damaged so that she would never have any other of her potential children survive pregnancy or the birthing process.
of course it is a FACT. they never had contraception at the time, so the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you would have. its very simple.
"the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you would have."
No, that is not a fact. Not every female is guaranteed to necessarily get pregnant even once, let alone more than that, nor to have a successful pregnancy just becasue she becomes impregnated, no matter what age she begins having children.
of course its a fact. the earlier you have children the more your going to have because contraception never existed at the time, therefore more children you will survive not don't die off while young.
Why was Aisha not married off to someone CLOSER TO HER OWN AGE - who, therefore, might have been more reasonably expected to be much more likely to be around long enough to raise whatever children they might have together with her, and less likely to leave her as soon to be a widow?
in that time marriage was a way of cementing relations, so Mohammed saws married two daughter of his closest companions umar ra and abu bakr ra and gave his own daughters in marriage to ali ra and uthman ra to cement relations with them. he also married a jewish woman to build bridges between the muslims and jewish tribes. this was the custom at the time.
Any female could get married when she was young or when she was older and either way she could have no children, or she could have 2 children, or she could have 6 children, or however many she might have. This is not necessarily dependent on how soon she begins having children, nor is it necessarily dependent on how frequently she has sex.
of course it is, the earlier you get married the more sex you are likely to have then someone who gets married later. the more sex the more children, its simple. when life expectancy is low the earlier the better to ensure survival of the population.
You have been making two different sorts of assertions here. BOTH sorts cannot be true.Both could - in fact - be false in regard to any PARTICULAR case. Which do you mean to make:
"...of course it is, the earlier you get married the more sex you are LIKELY TO HAVE then someone who gets married later." ( "likely to have" means may or may not do so)
"...the earlier you have children the more your GOING TO HAVE... " ( "going to have" means absolutely will do so)
what a trivial point, how many times do i have to say i am talking of the general rule. i never claimed to have absolute knowledge. saying more children your going to have is an absolute truth in most cases. both statements are correct.
If a 9 year old girl marries a 52 year old man (who has, incidentally - according to your description - already lived nearly two times as long as the highest age of life expectancy at that time, and is ,therefore, quite an elderly man), how much sex is SHE likely to have? Doesn't that not only depend on her but also on how often HE is able to have sex, how willing he is to have sex, and how interested he is in having sex with her?
of course it depends on several factors. once again i was talking generally as a rule. all my points i talk as a general rule, not as absolutes. i never once claimed to have absolute knowldege, by your standards no one can make a general claim because there are always exceptions.
Many women who have sex too early, being a girl, become barrel. This is scientific tested issue. There is an age for sex and an playing with dolls, and obviously the age for sex is not 9. If we have to discuss this, then is not worth talking. I must remind you women MAY do some other things besides being a sexual object and giving birth: just as studying, working, being free independent persons, etc.. BTW, yes having children too early is one of the main causes of female deat at birthgiving time
One female might begin having children at 11 and have only a single child. Another woman might begin having children at 22, have a set of twins at her first birth, and then later have 4 more children over the remaining births. Still another female could have only multiple miscarriages.
what do you think, i'm talking common sense here, its pretty obvious that in the majority of cases this would occur. if you can't see that obvious fact why are we debating.
Then too any man that a female might marry could turn out to be impotent, or just not interested in having sex with her very frequently, if at all. The more children a female WILL have and the more children she MIGHT potentially have are not the same thing.
lets not talk about isolated cases, lets talk about whats happening with the majority of cases. say the average couples had sex with 1000yrs ago was 3 times a week. obviously the earlier you got married the more children you will have as a general rule, i'm not talking about silly exceptions and rare cases.
of course i can make absolute statements. by your logic i can't say "all men have testes" because a minority might be born without them. i mean what a silly point. lets talk about the majority
You could truly say that some number of men have testes (if you knew this to be true at the time that you were saying it), but you would not be able to say as a matter of known fact (in relation to you) what number of men had them, nor whether it was some, many, most , or all men who did have them at that time - unless you did actually know the number of men who did actually have them at that time.
"you will have as a general rule, i'm not talking about silly exceptions and rare cases. "
You added that "as a general rule" afterwards. That was not the same as the statements that I was challenging. You were - according to your previous language use - talking about ALL CASES.
of course i wasn't talking about all cases, i don't claim to be God, how can i know ALL. if thats what you assumed than thats your ignorance, not mine.
You wrote: "... the earlier you have children the more children you WILL have" and "the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you WOULD have." - as if what might be true of one female is necessarily true for all females.
Unless an absolute statement is absolutely true, then it is not absolutely true.
Had you written '... the earlier you have children the more children you MAY have' and 'the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you MIGHT have' I would not have grounds on which to challenge the truth of those statements.
no it is an absolute truth. MOST women have normal fertility, MOST womens pregnancies are correlated with the amount of intercourse they have, and MOST women would have more babies if they married earlier because there was no birth control 1000 yrs ago
Comment removed
awesomewelles90 1 year ago
You find your own morality, everyone does; or do you have to be told not to kill or rape?
MrLemex 1 year ago
Comment removed
awesomewelles90 1 year ago
No, rape and murder is wrong because they are wrong; they are acts AGAINST the human race, which comes from when the human race was still living in small groups of 5 -9, and we have this built in now to feature other speices too. To say that I think these things are wrong means you are either a really twisted person, very stupid, or very ignorant.
MrLemex 1 year ago
To say I don't think these things are wrong - sorry.
Nothing is wrong, unless complex creatures make morality - which we do.
You know anything of Evolutionery Psychology?
MrLemex 1 year ago
Comment removed
awesomewelles90 1 year ago
Evolutionery Psychology is a feild, combining Evolution and Psychology - which is sort of why it's called that. It explains why we feel the need to help homeless people, dispite this seeming to counter natural selection, why we feel sexual lust and other werid little things in our evolution.
MrLemex 1 year ago
And just in case you say it; Evolution via Natural Selection is an observed fact.
MrLemex 1 year ago
Comment removed
awesomewelles90 1 year ago
There is no moral objectivity, it's just what we humans make for ourselves, and you don't need God for that, for in the old testament God quite happily commit acts of genocide for no good reason, and is quite happy to make Abraham sacrifice one of his sons.
So what's this about Atheists being immoral?
MrLemex 1 year ago
but speaking of morality in general , I am very grateful that I don't have to compromise my moral stance in life at the behest of poverty & nesseccity. I know stealing is wrong,so I cant see myself taking what doesn't belong to me from someone else,but what if I were to end up in dire straights would I give up my morals & steal for food & money ?
I am very grateful, I don't have to resort to such practices.I just hope I would never come to that.I'm not a person of faith ,but I do know morals
xspettacolare 2 years ago
I think we should just stick with the basics of morality do unto others as we would want done unto us.
the question of how to live a moral life has been asked for several 1000's of years all the way down from Plato to the Greeks, to the romans & to modern present day. I think everyone wants to be happy & treated decent; I think a being such as god would have an understanding of human psychology 101,so all this fear of hell punishment is rather silly & irrational on god's part.
xspettacolare 2 years ago
Well done I too think that morality is an innate feature of humanity.And in fact Religions corrupt this morality by allowing killings of people for being gay or having sex where the partners agree to it for example
isamelbou 2 years ago
Where do you think this moral compass comes from? Is it just a product of evolution and social and cultural conditioning?
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
Well said !!!!!!
That's exactly what I have always thought too.
Great video.
WoodstockRogue 2 years ago
Very well said in the video!
Looking at the theory of moral development (Kohlberg), we develop trough 6 stages. Stage 6 represents internalized universal humanistic principles. But an external book claiming to have the absolute moral restrict you to the stages 2-3 were you behave morally because of the fear for punisment.
So the moral stays externalised and by so it is very dangerous, because they can break those moral values for the higher cause (the afterlife)
regenboogroosje 2 years ago 3
Our morality comes from our development as a social group.
Actions which were positive for the group made the group stronger and more successful. Rather than doing what is good for the individual we learned to do what is good for the group.
It's evident in Chimps (social grooming for example) - did they have a monkey prophet teach them that? I doubt it.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago 11
Religion is like a 'recipe' for innocence. They state that no matter how good you are you can not be free of sins unless you believe.
But it is religion that corrupts your own values, your reflections.
Kulumuli 2 years ago
Very good video. 50000000000000/5 stars
sgthunter09 2 years ago 13
"Women walk naked in the streets and couples openly have sex in the parks!" Sounds like party time to me! Where is this again?
cyxgun 2 years ago 10
Very well said!
Aristotelezz 2 years ago 10
love this video...thanks!
PlanetoftheAtheists 2 years ago 9
One thing Muslims do is rename their immoral behaviors to put an aura of 'purity' or 'goodness' on it. Any society that thinks that abusing women, children (pediphilia), slaves, anyone who is not a Muslim is a-ok, is NOT a moral society. I don't care how many tents and scarves they make their women wear, or their women wear willingly, it is only a facade of purity.
staffsgt7 2 years ago 12
"I don't care how many tents and scarves they make their women wear, or their women wear willingly, it is only a facade of purity."
- Nice
tomtomttom 2 years ago
Amazing. Great video!
TheOtherSide100 2 years ago 3
Thanks. I can't agree more. A wonderful video. I'm an exchristian. and I'm now so happy to be free from the lies of religion. I truely believe that we can be loving and caring human beings without the need of a "god" telling us how to behave. As a christian I spent many years feeling guilty about "lust". As an atheist I've come to enjoy my sexulity and know that what I previously called "lust" was just "Libido". A perfectly natural part of being a man.
Keep up the good work.
memully 2 years ago 11
Good video, well put. Reminded of a quote I unfortunately forgot the source of:
"Religious people often say that without religion there'd be no morals.
Now that implies that because of religion, you don't run around stealing from people.
Well, I don't run around stealing from people is because it's kind of a dick thing to do."
Anonymous6778 2 years ago 3
Excellent videos mate, I wish all Muslims could watch them.
todore00 2 years ago 7
Good video and my very own thoughts. Children are taught about their religion from a very young age, from their parents and teachers. I think the moral codes of decent society can be taught in the same way. Instead of teaching the children that they will burn in hell for being bad, they could be taught the reasons for morality and the good it will do for them and the rest of society. Of how it would lead to an easier and more content life for everyone.
alemappurple 2 years ago 4
Obamas moral words in Cairo. We share this World for but a brief moment in time. Do we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or commit ourselves to sustained efforts to find common ground and focus on a future for our children! A World where governments serve their citizens in respect and dignity in the fair rights of all.? "Do unto others as we would have them do unto us" This truth transcends nations and peoples a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and billions today!
danielnz1 2 years ago
Its actually funny, when people believe, that eating pork is a sin, while possesing slaves is god's will.
UnsichtbarerGeist 2 years ago
You've got a beautiful mind Hassan - Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
anmarupappa 2 years ago
very measured views. I admire the way you try putting ur points across without demonising islam.
Its difficult not to do so ..hence respect!
piyush1979dec 2 years ago
Where do you get these pictures? im dying to have them =[
amyleesilent 2 years ago
You are a hypocrite if you believe you yourself are objectively morally superior or even capable of being so where it matters most.
shieldsff 2 years ago
I strongly question your assertion that the golden rule is natural; the 'natural condition" of man seems to be mutual hatred (e.g., Nazi, Stalin, Vietnam war, etc...); the ethic you invoke is, in fact, a 'religious command ( and for that matter, it's contingent on the one which precedes it). The immoral behavior you rightly deride are common to all men. The fact is that human nature is warped, deeply flawed, & impaired.
shieldsff 2 years ago
"The immoral behavior you rightly deride are common to all men. The fact is that human nature is warped, deeply flawed, & impaired. "
Where is your proof of those assertions being true of the of every person?
Where is your proof that human beings do have "A" common human nature?
MENCADO 2 years ago
Quite simply, it comes from the general observation of the history of human society... are you willfully oblivious to, say, just some of the prominent events of the last century ? Would you not consider the constant wars trhoughout the wars (resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents) an 'immoral event" ? Do you not consider, a country which commits genocide or brutal social repression against masses of its own people 'immoral'.
shieldsff 2 years ago
Look again at my questions: "Where is your proof of those assertions being true of the of every person?" "Where is your proof that human beings do have "A" common human nature?"
You did not assert that SOME human beings have or had a flawed, etc. nature. Nor did you assert that that only SOME human beings have exhibited actions that support the belief that THEIR nature is or was apparently as you described.
MENCADO 2 years ago
It does not prove that they were NATURALLY that way. It also does not prove - A.) anything about the nature of those human beings who were killed in war, or who were killed as a result of attempted genocide, or who were oppressed, and/or about anyone else who DID NOT perform those violent or oppressive actions, nor does it prove, B.) that ALL human beings are born "naturally warped, flawed and imparied".
MENCADO 2 years ago
MENCADO - as for having a common human nature, would you not agree that, in many civilized nations, it is an emcouraged 'value' to take care of one's elderly parent ; also, a person who is brave and honest is genreally admired (vs. being cowardly and thiefing ). In simple language, it is 'human nature" which tells people that they should esteem one value versus another.
shieldsff 2 years ago
You asserted that, "It is a fact that human nature" - that refers to the nature of every one of all humans - "is warped, deeply flawed, & impaired".
You used confirmation bias to support your argument.You discluded recognition of any and all individuals who did NOT engage in any violent and/or oppressive actions, and you also discluded recognition of any and all individuals who ARE NOT now engaging in the performance of any violent and/or oppressive actions.
MENCADO 2 years ago
Be historical occurences (or purported historical occurences) as they may, they do not prove that human nature (the nature of every one of all humans ) is inherently anything.
MENCADO 2 years ago
Where historical accounts about those events are correct, it does show that those human beings who did perform those actions did have the capacity to BECOME violent and/or oppressive under the influence of those experiences (or lackings in experience) and under the influence of the learning (or lackings in learning) that they had lived through.
MENCADO 2 years ago
If each and every single person living today - with the sole exception being myself - had previously all and only done and were to continue to commit all and only violent and oppressive actions from this moment forward as well, that would prove absolutely nothing about my being or not being capable of doing those same things, and it would disprove your assertion about human nature being true (unless I wasn't human).
MENCADO 2 years ago
What some human beings have done or have not done proves nothing about any other human or other human beings.You have not proved that human beings do have "A" common human nature, rather than that each human being thinks and accordingly acts in relation to his or her specific learning and lack of learning, experience and lack of experience.
MENCADO 2 years ago
well, if insist on assuming this completely ethically subjectvist approach with respect to your arguments I don;t see howwhy we might to continue here at all. On the contrary, I answered UR question fully regarding is there "A" human nature (not to be confused with is there a singl cultural preference or valiue for all humans).
shieldsff 2 years ago
I explained that having a reflective conscious & process of formulating moral choice is human nature, i.e. what is common to all human and defines what is human. (NOTE: animals do not do engage in such manner of conscious reflection- yet all humans have some idea about how one shd treat other fellow humans). In traditional judeo.christian vernacular, we humans are ALL created in the very image of God.
shieldsff 2 years ago
" we humans are ALL created in the very image of God. '
You are using what is know as a back-assward approach:
Step #1 - Assert beings were/ matter was "created'
Step #2 - Challenge assertion #1
You TAKE FOR GRANTED - WITHOUT PROOF OF FACTUALITY the idea of the existence of "created" things/ "created " beings .
MENCADO 2 years ago 2
. Would you consider the "nature" of the majority of civilized men to encourage the rapes of their wives & daughters by evil men. Is it a "good" thing for the likes of a King Herod to slaughter infants ? UR comments strongly imply a type of "moral apathy", or naive lack of observation or real interactiions with people on your part .
shieldsff 2 years ago
I lack belief in the existence of any particular "human nature", just as I lack belief in the existence of any 'God'.
You base your "reasoning" on presumptions.
MENCADO 2 years ago
MENCADO - well, I guess that might, in part, account for your ethical and intellectual lack of acuity, no ?
shieldsff 2 years ago
Your JUDGMENT of there being a "correct" set of ethics, and a "correct" set of thoughts is based upon your PREJUDICIAL BELIEFS about what "is" and what "is not" correct ACCORDING TO what it is that you BELIEVE.
MENCADO 2 years ago
well, I would most certainly hope my judgement is based on MY prejudicial beliefs (as, I suppose, in contrast to 'your prejudicial beleifs)... I would have to conclude (since I do reason) that mine are clearly superior to yours since I OBJECTIVELY believe that it is a good thing a) to love one's parents, b) not to blindly hate or murder the innocent; c) not to covet . Irrationally and parochially you have insisted it is all a matter of 'personal inclination'.
shieldsff 2 years ago
Being a man, I need, in part, to look at both myself and people such as you to know therebeyond any questions there IS factually God; that is the very source of free will.
shieldsff 2 years ago
I can only speculate that you are engaged in some manner of intentional moral 'self-delusion" in order to maintain your possibly tenuous grip on reality
shieldsff 2 years ago
NOTE: this does NOT mean that a person (or society) ACTS the same, rather the human 'act of choice' which says some value is objectively better than another is what is usually meant by human nature"
shieldsff 2 years ago
the golden rule exists even in nature. its simple. if you dont like someone to take your shit, then dont take theirs!! if you dont want someone to hit you, dont go out of your way to attack someone else? most people play by the rules because, cheating has big consiquences. the ones that cheat put themselves at risk. if they succeed... well good for them. what is most likely is that they will fail and they would be worse for it.
QueeeeNoftheHonEBZ 2 years ago
jails only hold about 2% of any given population. so, its fair to say that most poeple recongize that its not in their best interest to break major laws. you dont need a hell when you have a pretty strict justice system.
QueeeeNoftheHonEBZ 2 years ago
What is morality, anyway? It's an excellent tool for bashing one's opponent over the head. But other than that. Does it exist at all?
I've been asking this question for over a decade. Neither people nor dictionaries were able to give me any meaningful cross-cultural definition.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
My conclusion is that morality simply does not exist.
This doesn't mean conscience does not exist. Conscience is "that little voice inside you that asks 'have you brushed your teeth?'" (a child's definition, excellent I think).
But what is this morality that is different from conscience? Perhaps, nothing.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Great video =)
TheLogicalGod 2 years ago
Finally some common sense! Thank you for sharing this video! : ) I will watch your next videos for sure.
infivoice 2 years ago
I was not sure about the whole rant and what his thesis was all about and then the last line, "it is what makes us human.", i just thought, daaaaaaaamn. Nice stinger ending.
Thucididies 2 years ago
Islam is a horror show! Muslims I have met and liked turn in to vile creatures the moment they talk about Islam. I have always been stunned by the way Muslims foam at the mouth at Jews, but ignore the misery that islam brings.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago
Yeah, cant fault that. excellant.
BritishNoblePerson 2 years ago
brilliant!
STOPShariaLAWnow 2 years ago
awesome video!
freedomfromreligions 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its hypocritical after being muslim your whole life and assimilating its values into your subconcious to then say you had no need for it in the first place. whose to say your moral compass is still not shaped by Islam. secondly, if we all rejected religion and followed our "moral compasses" how would one with sexual desire towards children know what he is doing is wrong, or someone who earnestly believes he has the right to steal and murder due to past injustices.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Think about this. How do YOU know these things are wrong?
Locke840 2 years ago
Mankind's should not be conscious of restraint to behave in a decent manner. A mother's not conscious of restraint, devoting herself to nursing a sick child or working to supply it with food. A man who is left in the house of a friend isn't conscious of restraint when he refrains from pocketing the silver or when he does not steal a purse that has been left on the table. But is immoral, a potential criminal if he does not commit a crime only 'cause afraid of being caught or some pathetic Hell.
danielnz1 2 years ago
Morality is a natural fact!
danielnz1 2 years ago
"morality is a natural fact", please prove it. if morality is a natural fact why do you get tribes in africa cut off from the rest the world who engage in cannabilism. for them eating human flesh is perfectly moral. if morality is natural why are there variances across the world in what people believe to be moral. if people had a belief in divine law, regardless of whether that law is from God, that law would serve better to control human behaviour then any man made law or manly desire and whim.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Nature does not care, nature does not need human permission, nature kills everything.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
The argument of some higher purpose is religious fallacy. Whether this is done by atheists or by the godists, it is exactly the same.
Logic evades these people.
SirWinstonChurchill 2 years ago
(xingyimaster1987) You currently train in cage fighting and hope to have a fight soon and hate zionists, islamophobes and sexual perverts etc.
Well, why are you muslim? as from Bukhari vol. 7, #65: "Aisha", the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. That's a sexual pervert. And what African tribes now engage cannabilism?
danielnz1 2 years ago
Slavery in north African Islamic countries yes! Behave in a decent moral manner by example, not blind-faith religion.
danielnz1 2 years ago
danielnz1, you are going into theology now because you couldn't answer my prior point. fine, you want to play that dirty unintelligent game i guess i'll have to answer you. my definition of sexual pervert are atheists who have sex with animals, people of the same sex, dead bodies and who knows what else because they have no law and think they only live once. see next comment.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
continuation, my definition of sexual perverts does not include men who MARRIED not raped girls as young as 9 at a period in history when life expectancy was so low early marriage was a necessity and a custom. as for cannabilism it still goes on in many parts of the world, especially among tribes. it occurs in africa and even recently the kulina tribe in brazil. are you denying facts?
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
I have twin 9yr old grandaughters! If any man sexually had or wanted them! He would be locked up for a hell of a long time, don't make excuse for perversion!
"Morality is what makes us human.",
The Kulina Indians have no history of consuming flesh, even in their far history, police believe that three men were practicing homicide. Police think theyd been on drugs at the time of the murder. Seems an isolated case of homicide, Seargent Osmildo Fereira da Silva said in a statement. .
danielnz1 2 years ago
xingyimaster1987, You censor free-speach, but burble bull-shit on other sites?
Its good to hold dialogue with moderate liberal Muslims, those who acknowledge the supremacy of certain humanist values, such as the sanctity of life and free choice. When a Westerner converts to Islam, that's fine, but when a Muslim de-converts, its suddenly unthinkable and condemned! When all theyve done is logically reason life for themselves. Blind-faith religion means: stop thinking obey archaic orders only!
danielnz1 2 years ago
danielnz1: "Its good to hold dialogue with moderate liberal Muslims"
Moderate Muslim = OUT OF BULLETS
Islamic birth control is a bomb strapped to a ten year old.
SirWinstonChurchill 2 years ago
I love your sense of humour!!!
asunagullo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
danielnz: "Its good to hold dialogue with moderate liberal Muslims"
Moderate Muslim = OUT OF BULLETS
Islamic birth control is a bomb strapped to a ten year old.
SirWinstonChurchill 2 years ago
when did i censor free speech you silly old man, what are you talking about. anyway back onto the previous point, with low life expectancy, early marriage comes naturally. early marriage was practiced by all societies and cultures 1000 yrs ago. these people were not "sexual perverts" but people of there time. would you be willing to say your the descendant of sexual perverts because i can guarantee you at least one of your ancestors married a young girl. your argument is just plain stupid.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
you have twin grand daughters, that nice but i didn't ask for your life stories. just to give you some facts, if they were born 1000 yrs ago they might have been married by now. early marriage was the norm when life expectancy was so low. are you seriously denying cannibalism still occurs in various tribes, you have lost that debate for sure. as for the kulina tribe, they are isolated form the rest of the world and that incident was not plain homicide but a ritual murder.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
finally why don't you watch this video, Cannibalism - Tribe - BBC on youtube, it proves cannablism still exists in these isolated african tribes. morality is natural my ass, unless of course you think cannabilism is moral. your argument is destroyed.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
How about 50 something year old men who married 9 year olds? Their life expectancy was apparently not all that "low" was it? Maybe life-expectancy is low where men marry and fuck children for a reason.
MENCADO 2 years ago
maybe you should re-read the comments lesbian. 1400 yrs ago in the harsh arabian wilderness life expectancy was very low, between 20-30yrs of age. therefore child marriage was a common occurrence, not just in arabia but all around the world. i think having sex with other women would probably make your life expectancy low, the lesbian lifestyle does take a good 20 yrs off your life expectancy according to current research. give up your ways while you can, marry a man and grow some hair.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
If I were a lesbian, then you would have no way of knowing it unless you are suggesting that you and I have had a lesbian affair, or that you are a voyeur and that you had been watching me have sex with another woman - if I have done so.
MENCADO 2 years ago
no, i can just tell by your hair style. remember, thats a good 20 yrs off your life, give it up while you can. find a nice man and settle down.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Really, how exactly is my hair styled? And how does hairstyle indicate what - if any - gender of person I have had sex with?
MENCADO 2 years ago
lesbians have a particular look to exclaim to the world: "i'm lesbian and i'm proud". unfortunately you happen to have that look, unless of course you really are a lesbian then more power to you. just make sure you take more vitamins and do more exercise than the average person because your life expectancy is reducing everyday.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"lesbians have a particular look to exclaim to the world:"
If a woman is a lesbian, but does not have whatever look you think that lesbians do have, you might assume based on her appearance that she is not a lesbian, but that would not make your assumption correct.
Why do you assume that I am sexually active at all? Do you see me having any sex?
MENCADO 2 years ago
alright, alright you win. i'm a woman and we met at that club girl on girl about a month ago. its me fiona. how u doing. haven't seen you around the clubs lately, you got a new girlfriend or are you still available?
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Sorry fiona, you will have to be more specific: Were you th lipstick lesbian, were you the bulldyke, or were you that woman who no person who has a stereotypical image of what a lesbian looks like would ever guess that she is a lesbian?
MENCADO 2 years ago
i was the bulldyke, the one with the short hair, big muscles and firm handshake. so are you off the market or are you available?
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Too bad. Whatever happened to the lipstick lesbian? She was hot. That slinky little dress that she had on was just way too sexy to miss. Must have one.
Hey wait, what does someone who is a bisexual look like? And what does someone who is a virgin look like? And what does someone who is celibate look like?
MENCADO 2 years ago
oh yeah, now your talking. i'll pick you up at 8, you can feel my manly/womanly muscles in the car.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"1400 yrs ago in the harsh arabian wilderness life expectancy was very low, between 20-30yrs of age. "
Fucking young girls - who may already have reached the age of menstruation (or not) , but who have not necessarily developed enough physically to carry and to birth a child is a good way to insure that they will be more likely to die either while pregnant, during the birthing process, or subsequent to the act of giving birth -
MENCADO 2 years ago
your actually wrong there. by definition once a girl has reached puberty and is able to give birth she is healthy enough to have a successful pregancy. show me the data that says the younger a mother the more likely she is to die. why would nature allow pregnancy to occur at younger ages if it was detrimental to the mothers health.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Puberty is not "reached". Puberty is a developmental stage that is passed though - over a course of time. All of the various developments which occur during that course of time do not happen within a single instant. A person who is beginning puberty or who is still pubescent has not yet fully developed.
MENCADO 2 years ago
yes puberty is a developmental stage during whic ovulation commences which is necessary for pregancy. whats your point? puberty can begin in girls as young as 7.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
A female merely having begun to ovulate does not mean that all of her body is equipped to handle the physical stress and strain of a child developing within her, nor to handle the physical stress and strain of giving birth.
MENCADO 2 years ago
really, i'd like to know your evidence for that, during puberty a girls hips widen to carry a baby, she undergoes thelarche-breast growth, menarche-start of menstruation, she start ovulating. the whole point of puberty is to prepare the girl for her biological purpose, to give birth. can you show me some evidence for you magnificent claims.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"during puberty a girls hips widen to carry"
EXACTLY! So within any female who has ONLY JUST STARTED PUBERTY, THIS PREPARATORY STAGE HAS NOT YET FINISHED OCCURING, AND SHE IS NOT YET READY to become pregant, carry a child, and to give birth.
MENCADO 2 years ago
so whats your point, girls can begin puberty as young as 7 and have it completed by age 9. who said the marriage occurred on the dot when puberty began, do you have aisha's ra medical records. all i know is the islamic rule is marriage can occur once child bearing age has been attained.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"all i know is the islamic rule is marriage can occur once child bearing age has been attained. "
At what AGE exactly is "child bearing age" attained? Is there a child bearing age?
MENCADO 2 years ago
yes there is a child bearing age and it varies between different girls. the earlier a girl reached it, the earlier she was considered a woman 1000 yrs ago and the earlier she would get married. attitudes were different 1000 yrs ago.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"yes there is a child bearing age and IT VARIES between different girls."
It varies - Therefore, the answer is 'NO, there is not A child-bearing age'.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"by definition once a girl has REACHED puberty and is able to give birth she is healthy enough to have a successful pregancy."
"Reached puberty and is able to give birth"
Has COMPLETED puberty and is able to give birth.
Do you not see the difference between those two states?
Is someone who has only "reached" puberty able to give birth?
MENCADO 2 years ago
ok fine, when i say reached puberty i mean the process has finished and a young girl has the capacity to bear children. i think you knew thats what i meant but your trying to debate it because you have no better points to discuss.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"i think you knew thats what i meant "
I do not believe that is what you did mean.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"the whole point of puberty is to prepare the girl for her biological purpose, to give birth. "
So, until she has FINISHED going through puberty she is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING READY, BUT IS NOT YET READY.
MENCADO 2 years ago
yes and once again i fail to see your point. as i have said before girls can being and finish puberty very early. puberty can initiate at the age of 7 quite easily.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
That is why I pointed out that puberty is a stage of DEVELOPMENT, not something that occurs within an instant.
MENCADO 2 years ago
i never said that puberty occurs instantly.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"why would nature allow pregnancy to occur at younger ages if it was detrimental to the mothers health."
On what basis do you assume that nature has a conscience with which it would decide whether to "allow " or to not "allow" anything?
MENCADO 2 years ago
its a figure of speech, no one actually believes nature is a collective conciousness, but whether you believe in God or natural selection you have a belief that everything is made/designed to survive and pass on its genes. therefore your early pregancy death theory goes against this basic principle found in nature.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"no one actually believes nature is a collective conciousness, "
Unless you are every person and have firsthand knowledge of every person's mind, you can state that you do not BELIEVE that anyone does believe that nature is a collective consciousness, but you cannot assert that you KNOW it for a fact.
MENCADO 2 years ago
what a silly point you've made, scrutinising the most trivial of points. there is no scientific evidence that nature is a collective conciousness, what i meant was any rational person would not believe so just like i would say any rational person would believe elvis is dead, yet you get people who believe the contrary.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"there is no scientific evidence that nature is a collective conciousness,"
Woah! What do you mean by saying that there IS no scientific evidence? That you - that anyone else, or even that all people - may be unaware of any such evidence is not proof that there is no such evidence.
MENCADO 2 years ago
scientific evidence includes what we currently know about science now. i challenge you to show me one scientist or peer reviewed journal that states nature has a conciousness. show it to me or stop going on about this stupid irrelevant point because you have nothing better to say.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
That no scientific evidence may have been discovered and/or that no scientific evidence may have been revealed is not proof that no such evidence could be discovered, nor is it proof that such evidence is necessarily non-existent.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"but whether you believe in God or natural selection you have a belief that everything is made/designed to survive and pass on its genes. "
Those are not the only potential options for what anyone might believe. Someone might believe neither of those to be the case. On what basis would you presume that I do necessarily have a belief in the existence of anything which "is made designed to survive and pass on its genes"?
MENCADO 2 years ago
really, thats very sad if they do. anyone who has studied nature knows that either some form of selection is taking place or some sort of design is present. thats why everything is adapted and fit to survive and pass on its genes. please tell me, what other options are there? tell me what you believe. you must have some other theory in your head otherwise you wouldn't have made a fuss about this trivial point.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
- thus shortening THEIR LIFE TO LESS THAN WHAT THEIR LIFE- EXPECTANCY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN,
MENCADO 2 years ago
well no, that point is stupid because life expectancy was short across the world in both men and women. if your point had any truth to it we would see only women (those who can get pregnant) with low life expectancies and not men. however women have always had a slightly higher expectancy then men.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"if your point had any truth to it we would see only women (those who can get pregnant) with low life expectancies and not men."
Why would you assume that men and women would necessarily not simply have had shorter life expectancies for different reasons?
I wonder whether children who were born from child mothers do tend to have shorter lives than those who were born of older mothers.
MENCADO 2 years ago
because i know scientifically your point makes no sense. your theory about young girls giving birth lowering the populations life expectancy is rubbish. malnourishment, lack of sanitation, hygeine, poor health education, these factors caused the low life expectancies not early marriage!
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"these factors caused the low life expectancies not early marriage! "
#1 - That those other things contributed to low life expectancies does not rule out as a possilibity that females becoming impregnated too soon did not ALSO contirbute to lower life expectancies.
#2 - I made no suggest that early marriage caused low life expectancies.
MENCADO 2 years ago
don't divert the issue, you made a wonderful and bold claim that early pregnancy causes lower life expectancies. where is the scientific empirical proof. are you telling me that the reason life expectancies were so low was due to early marriages causing early pregnancies. as i have said repeatedly, if a girl can give birth, she has has only reached this stage because her body is ready for it
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"don't divert the issue, you made a wonderful and bold claim that early pregnancy causes lower life expectancies"
I made no such "claim". I did suggest it as being a possibility that is may do so.The attempt at diverting from the issue has been made by you, not me.
MENCADO 2 years ago
yes you did make that claim, you made it several times and now your trying to backtrack, show me your proof for that crazy claim or be silent. don't try and wiggle your way out of it. i can copy and paste your previous comments and prove it to you.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many women who have sex too early, being a girl, become barrel. This is scientific tested issue. There is an age for sex & one for playing with dolls; obviously the age for sex is not 9. If we have to discuss this, then is not worth talking. Women MAY do some other things besides being a sexual object & giving birth: just as studying, working, being free independent persons, etc.. BTW, yes having children too early is one of the main causes of female deat at birthgiving time. YOU are right
asunagullo 2 years ago
"if a girl can give birth, she has has only reached this stage because her body is ready for it "
That is true, but that is not the issue. The issue is that a girl having reached the stage of MERELY being able to become impregnated (aka. having REACHED PUBERTY) is NOT the same thing as a girl having reached the age of being able to carry a child and to sucessfully give birth (aka. having COMPLETED puberty).
MENCADO 2 years ago
i don't see your point, where is this going. whenever i used the term reached puberty i mean successful pregnancy could occur. i don't believe islam allows marriage before child bearing age so your point is invalid. have you got new evidence to suggest aisha was in the midst of puberty, no you don't.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
had they not been impreganted at too young of an age - but apparently the sex-obsessed Arab men (Muhammad possibly included amongst them) were too dull of mind to think without their dicks and tried to rationalize their preversion by ignoring some facts and picking only the ones that suited to support their argument in favor of pedophelia.
MENCADO 2 years ago
So tell me, rationally, if you can do so: How would making children with children solve the potential problem of the population dying out, if girls were dying due to not being ready to be impregnated AND ALSO READY TO give birth? Then too, there is the question of the likelihood of the survival of those children whom the children were trying to birth.
MENCADO 2 years ago
you said: "So tell me, rationally, if you can do so: How would making children with children solve the potential problem of the population dying out"
the answer is very simple. if life expectancy is 20-30 yrs the younger you marry the more likely you will have children and be able to look after them and provide for them before early death engulfs you. therefore the next generation can flourish and thrive. furthermore the earlier you have children the more children you will have.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"if life expectancy is 20-30 yrs the younger you marry the more likely you will have children"
If a female's life expectancy was between 20-30 , and if she married and began having children by the time she was 9, but was not physically developed enough to handle the stress and strain of pregnancy and childbirth, then she might - rather than living until 20-30 die at 9.
MENCADO 2 years ago
If she made it through the first pregnancy, she might - with compromised internal health - make it until her next pregnancy and then die - still not even having reached the age of 12 let alone 20. With each additional pregnancy her health might very well deteriorate even more so, thereby, increasing her chances of dying before she reached the age of 20.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"furthermore the earlier you have children the more children you WILL have. "
That is not a fact. A female is not guaranteed to become impregnated every time that she has sexual intercourse. A female might have one child at the age of 11 and be permanently physically damaged so that she would never have any other of her potential children survive pregnancy or the birthing process.
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course it is a FACT. they never had contraception at the time, so the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you would have. its very simple.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you would have."
No, that is not a fact. Not every female is guaranteed to necessarily get pregnant even once, let alone more than that, nor to have a successful pregnancy just becasue she becomes impregnated, no matter what age she begins having children.
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course its a fact. the earlier you have children the more your going to have because contraception never existed at the time, therefore more children you will survive not don't die off while young.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Why was Aisha not married off to someone CLOSER TO HER OWN AGE - who, therefore, might have been more reasonably expected to be much more likely to be around long enough to raise whatever children they might have together with her, and less likely to leave her as soon to be a widow?
MENCADO 2 years ago
in that time marriage was a way of cementing relations, so Mohammed saws married two daughter of his closest companions umar ra and abu bakr ra and gave his own daughters in marriage to ali ra and uthman ra to cement relations with them. he also married a jewish woman to build bridges between the muslims and jewish tribes. this was the custom at the time.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Any female could get married when she was young or when she was older and either way she could have no children, or she could have 2 children, or she could have 6 children, or however many she might have. This is not necessarily dependent on how soon she begins having children, nor is it necessarily dependent on how frequently she has sex.
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course it is, the earlier you get married the more sex you are likely to have then someone who gets married later. the more sex the more children, its simple. when life expectancy is low the earlier the better to ensure survival of the population.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
You have been making two different sorts of assertions here. BOTH sorts cannot be true.Both could - in fact - be false in regard to any PARTICULAR case. Which do you mean to make:
"...of course it is, the earlier you get married the more sex you are LIKELY TO HAVE then someone who gets married later." ( "likely to have" means may or may not do so)
"...the earlier you have children the more your GOING TO HAVE... " ( "going to have" means absolutely will do so)
MENCADO 2 years ago
what a trivial point, how many times do i have to say i am talking of the general rule. i never claimed to have absolute knowledge. saying more children your going to have is an absolute truth in most cases. both statements are correct.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"the earlier you get married the more sex you are LIKELY to have"
"and an earlier marriage MEANS more sex."
Which one - if either - is true for EVERY person, in every case?
MENCADO 2 years ago
both are true in most cases, neither is false.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
If a 9 year old girl marries a 52 year old man (who has, incidentally - according to your description - already lived nearly two times as long as the highest age of life expectancy at that time, and is ,therefore, quite an elderly man), how much sex is SHE likely to have? Doesn't that not only depend on her but also on how often HE is able to have sex, how willing he is to have sex, and how interested he is in having sex with her?
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course it depends on several factors. once again i was talking generally as a rule. all my points i talk as a general rule, not as absolutes. i never once claimed to have absolute knowldege, by your standards no one can make a general claim because there are always exceptions.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Many women who have sex too early, being a girl, become barrel. This is scientific tested issue. There is an age for sex and an playing with dolls, and obviously the age for sex is not 9. If we have to discuss this, then is not worth talking. I must remind you women MAY do some other things besides being a sexual object and giving birth: just as studying, working, being free independent persons, etc.. BTW, yes having children too early is one of the main causes of female deat at birthgiving time
asunagullo 2 years ago
One female might begin having children at 11 and have only a single child. Another woman might begin having children at 22, have a set of twins at her first birth, and then later have 4 more children over the remaining births. Still another female could have only multiple miscarriages.
MENCADO 2 years ago
your talking of isolated, rare cases. for most people more sex means more babies, thats the general rule. and an earlier marriage means more sex.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"and an earlier marriage means more sex. "
Says who?
MENCADO 2 years ago
what do you think, i'm talking common sense here, its pretty obvious that in the majority of cases this would occur. if you can't see that obvious fact why are we debating.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
Then too any man that a female might marry could turn out to be impotent, or just not interested in having sex with her very frequently, if at all. The more children a female WILL have and the more children she MIGHT potentially have are not the same thing.
MENCADO 2 years ago
lets not talk about isolated cases, lets talk about whats happening with the majority of cases. say the average couples had sex with 1000yrs ago was 3 times a week. obviously the earlier you got married the more children you will have as a general rule, i'm not talking about silly exceptions and rare cases.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"lets not talk about isolated cases,"
Oh yes, let's DO talk about "isolated case". That's the point: Each "case" is different, and yet you were making absolute statements.
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course i can make absolute statements. by your logic i can't say "all men have testes" because a minority might be born without them. i mean what a silly point. lets talk about the majority
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
"by your logic i can't say "all men have testes" because a minority might be born without them."
You could say it , but it would not be true - not unless it was true that all men did have testes when you said it.
MENCADO 2 years ago
You could truly say that some number of men have testes (if you knew this to be true at the time that you were saying it), but you would not be able to say as a matter of known fact (in relation to you) what number of men had them, nor whether it was some, many, most , or all men who did have them at that time - unless you did actually know the number of men who did actually have them at that time.
MENCADO 2 years ago
"you will have as a general rule, i'm not talking about silly exceptions and rare cases. "
You added that "as a general rule" afterwards. That was not the same as the statements that I was challenging. You were - according to your previous language use - talking about ALL CASES.
MENCADO 2 years ago
of course i wasn't talking about all cases, i don't claim to be God, how can i know ALL. if thats what you assumed than thats your ignorance, not mine.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
You wrote: "... the earlier you have children the more children you WILL have" and "the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you WOULD have." - as if what might be true of one female is necessarily true for all females.
Unless an absolute statement is absolutely true, then it is not absolutely true.
MENCADO 2 years ago
it is true whether you like it or not, there are always exceptions but i am talking about the general rule. your argument holds no ground.
xingyimaster1987 2 years ago
How is it "true" exactly is an assertion, if there are any exceptions to that assertion?
Is it somewhat truish?
Is it sort of true-like?
Is it sorta kinda truish-like (ish)?
Is it semi-sort -of -kind - of truish-like sort of?
Which is true the 'approximately true' or the 'absolutely true'?
MENCADO 2 years ago
Had you written '... the earlier you have children the more children you MAY have' and 'the earlier you got married the more SUCCESSFUL pregnancies you MIGHT have' I would not have grounds on which to challenge the truth of those statements.
MENCADO 2 years ago
no it is an absolute truth. MOST women have normal fertility, MOST womens pregnancies are correlated with the amount of intercourse they have, and MOST women would have more babies if they married earlier because there was no birth control 1000 yrs ago