Lets tell the Muslims that Islam is copied directly from Judaism and Christianity, with a sadistic twist. If they accept that, than maybe I'll accept this. Compromise is the essence of our democracy after all! :D
@crewmannumber7 wow you sound like an expert. I don't think that copied is the right term, it is more of a continuation that Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians haven't accepted. If you've read the Bible and critiques, I think you might agree with Islam in that it has been corrupted over the years as it was embraced by power. And what reason to 21st century well connected people like us have for not listening with an open mind to the what the Prophet Mohammed had to say?
Further to my comment, after reading ridiculous comments made by others.
I find it fascintating that it's "cool and chic" to denounce western culture and it's achievements. Does someone have a name for it? You know, the modern climate of universities to try to slander white achievements, etc. To make it a myth that, say, Muslims actually invented jet travel, and not christian whites. I'm going to guess that some dumb ass will make a video trying to debunk that very statement I just made.
You just have to love youtube comments section become "debates" with it's 500 characters or less. lol. For the record, I could care less where something came from. Fact is, Islam is no longer democratic, whether or not they "invented it". I will tell you, that european christian whites invented the phone, the internet, electricity, vaccines, the engine, skyscrapers, computer, shall I go on? The roots are now in every society around the globe. Last laugh. LOL!
but there are only 5% of Muslims Britain and Europe combined. If you want to look for an enemy, I would suggest looking very carefully at which group is in all the influential positions? Who is running all the big companies? Who is calling all the shots? You must look past your own face.
@coralreefuk The people in industry are among our societys sanest. Our politicians are less so and if you look at the welfare classes they are the ones dragging our societies down. Of them lots are from africa and mideast.
I find it funny that people get angry and start to blast off sharia law and say how bad it is, and say how bad islam is against freedom of speech but yet all of these were praticed by the early muslims who were in spain and sciliy, etc,
I think people dont know their history and seem to forget with islamic teachings, their wud be no democracy
@TheTruth8018 and how did these people in span become to be muslim, Through force the muslim empire expanded into europe, going as far north as southern france. before the muslim conquest the spanish people has their own way of life, the muslims took that away from them.
@ParanoidAndroid90 That view is out of date even the Spanish no longer go with that theroy of forced conversian. You can find credible referances both on the BBC and Channel 4.
@ParanoidAndroid90 It took the Spanish Inquisition 10 yrs to kill, or force all Muslims and Christians to convert to Christianity, while the Muslims were in Spain for 700 yrs and Christians were still the majority in Spain. I think your smart enough to see how wrong your statement was.
Western government should do something before their countries are consumed by retarded aggressive Pakistanis and Arabs.
The Muslims from these nations are retarded, depressed, and blind. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR RACE, YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR DEMOCRACY, DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GET STRONG INSIDE YOUR SOCIETIES. YOU WILL SEE EUROPE AND SPECIALLY FRANCE WILL GO DESTROYED SOON.
ps, I'm a former Muslim myself, from middle east.
Another point I should make is that Europe never would have had Democracy if it wasn't for the Muslims that rescued and saved the Greek works that the Churches were burning. All this man is saying is that the Muslim culture played a part in creating, and introducing Democracy to the world.
@cbluver22 I wonder how those Greek works were lost to begin with? Could it be that Muslims conquered the centers of Greek/Christian thought such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople. These works were preserved by the Greeks and by Christians who later brought them to western Europe in the spanish reconquista and the final destruction of the Byzantium.
Umm, the works of the Greeks are not lost though. Well not all of them. Most of them was burned by the Moguls before they converted to Islam. And no the Christians were not preserving them. Like I said before, the Churches were burning the works of the Greeks and Romans because they believed that their work was the work of the devil.
@cbluver22 "Umm, the works of the Greeks are not lost though... And no the Christians were not preserving them. Like I said before, the Churches were burning the works of the Greeks and Romans because they believed that their work was the work of the devil."
Staggeringly ignorant. The entire Islamic translation movement utilized Christian scribes as they had preserved the knowledge. The Muslim conquests thus inherited the works. Arabs didn't speak Greek dumbass, Christians did.
And why are you turning this to a Christian vs Muslim thing. Lands in the Middle East were always being conquered by new people. How many time do I have to repeat myself. THE CHURCHES IN EGYPT AND EUROPE WERE BURNING MANY WORKS OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. Muslim, Christians and Jews worked together in regathering and translating these works. Stop acting childish with this whole "we Christians started this first". The Greeks were no Christian when they were in their golden age.
It's funny to most Muslims when they hear the West brag about Democracy.. The Muslim world organized their Gov't similarly like Democracy. There was the Executive Brance (Khalifa), the Judical Branch( Qadi System), and the Representitive Branch(Majlis ash Shura). While Europe was in it's Dark ages living as serfs under the harsh rule of Lords and Kings and Queens, the Muslim World was flourishing in science, arts, literture and was the most tolerent and fairest civilization the world ever had.
Koran is a dangerous book in the hands of illiterate, ignorant take it literary as they read it. Koran has more than one meaning. between one page & next page it has different meaning.
interesting about the concept of group decisions starting in mesopotamia...the fukn west thinks they started everything...there are probably a million things they teach us in school as originating in western thought that began somewhere else in the world
...even teh beginnings of modern science and the empirical approach has major contributions from islam...the current state of things is due more to circumstance and shifts in power than ideology
it is well known that Islam was a beacon of knowledge in the dark ages. I learned that back in school. it was the Muslims who kept many Greek texts in tact.
and I have to say, Mesopotamia belongs to all of us. We've all benefited from these cultures. they out date anything that separates us.
oh i get it.. Mesopotamia or Rome seeded democracy. then early Islam rooted it.. but died (murdered) after several caliphs. then we made new roots.. the result is the democracy we have today. wow
No the video refers to cases in a region known, in a time before, in a place where the cause unknown. The Mesopotamian democracy origin has only recently been suggested by Thorkild Jacobsen in the 60s. So I don't think the people of the middle ages would have known such a thing, unless they left record of knowing such a thing about such a people.
Not quite... Mesopotamia is a region. Islam is an idea. The ideas in Mesopotamia are what gave rise to it's civilization. That is in the form monotheism. We look to the history of Mesopotamia and find that monotheism is in it's beginnings. Mesopotamia didn't just randomly become advanced. It had it's sources. And we note that in many places it was a lost era, and it's ideas lost. Corruption of it's ideas might have chinese whispered into it's future.
Mesopotamia gave birth to democratic ideas that were used by Islam many hiunrdeds of years later.
Are you trying to link Islam directly with democracy, because if it's the case, you are doing a biiiiiiig historical leap. Is it an enterprise of religious justification (Islam) based on secular ideas (Democracy)?
We're linking modern acceptance of democracy, the muslims did not get democracy from Mesopotamia. Democracy is not secular, secularists take things from religion, and pervert religion to make it look wrong. We call that paganism, it's something Sam Harris seems to be doing. We can also google: atheist illuminati, and note the first link.
1) You are stuck in a religious mind, even though you think you are open minded. It's a question of «filter», how you chose your datas about yourself and the world. Your filter is loosed.
2) You bring in the Illuminati... pfffff!! Come on man, get real, life is not as epic as you may think.
3) Ideas like democracy can have religious roots, but they are indeed secular.
4) Sam Harris has a point : Zeus is as real as God, Allah and Santa Claus.
I am stuck? Perhaps I prefer having functional temporal lobes? (God on the brain - youtube it). Interesting filter. I bring the illuminati since the atheists at american atheists insist that these were the origin of current irreligion, and enlightenment. Ideas like law can also have religious roots, but become secular, but that's ignorance and inorganic/unnatural. Sam Harris is out done by Max Muller in regards to meanings of godly names. Zeus (original)may = the god Allah but /= SC ever.
wrong wrong wrong, religion is nothing but taking shared values that help us live as societies and put an element of fear and mystery in it to relate to the lowest common denominator. religion does not invent anything, people observe societies and their needs as they change and when the time is right, someone comes along claiming to have spoken to god and people follow him since he's telling them what they want to hear. as arabs are it's primary audience quran has a tribal arabic influence.
religion is merely a skin, when we as societies grow, we must shed the skin or it will prevent us from growing and progressing for the better. in this 21st century, we have immense access to information and technology thus we can no longer be governed with the religion of the tribal world. it can be observed that many societies which figured this out are blatantly ahead of others who have stuck with the ways of the past. progress is inevitable, resistance is futile...
progress is change for the better which requires rational discussion of ideas rather than a clerk telling you right from wrong. societies who favour logic and free discussion over doctrine and dogma statistically make better decisions towards progress and by this virtue alone historically they enjoy higher standards of life; better health, more comfort-wealth, stability
unless you argue god wants us to be poor, unhealthy and unstable, you've no case
technology is derived from scientific progress which requires a stable and rich society to produce the academics to push science forward. the reason why modern societies are more advanced in science and technology is because they haven't left their faith to be determined by a single book but a plethora of books to decide on the best solution given any problem. others thought it's best to stick with a book and how good that one book may be it has failed to create the correct answers consistently.
This argument could be valid, only if we think that this book has a solution to all the problems of the world or if there is a contradiction between this book and those other books, neither of which is the case in respect to most problems.
there are contradictions you moron. there have always been. the issue at hand is what one does when contradictions arise. if you stick by the book, you aren't a free thinking individual and your destiny will be determined by a dogma not by reason and intellect.
But reason and intellict is limited by many things. It has proven to be wrong in as many occasions as it it has proven to be right. In addition, it is not a matter of consensus. There has never been a human decision with 100% agreement. There has never been a human decision with no mistakes. There has never been a human decision with no side effects.
even though reason and intellect can be wrong THEY CAN BE CORRECTED, RE-EVALUATED, CHANGED. RELIGION CAN'T BE CHANGED SO IF IT'S WRONG, IT STAYS WRONG.
First: I don't have in my religion a clerk to tell me what's right and what's wrong. I know my rights from my wrongs on my own. That's how my religion is. My belief of course has a vital role in determining the standards of right and wrong, but this is the same for every human being, even atheists.
how do you know that, because some book tells you ?
i rather come to my own conclusions without fear of a higher power striking me down or punishing me for stepping outside the boundaries he had drawn for me ? can you do the same ? or is the border of your imagination only lies as far as your holy book tells you it is ok to imagine ?
It depends on ur belief. U r an atheist. U don't beloeve in God. Then, all of it is rubbish in ur eyes.
For me, I believe in God. I believe that God created this universe and runs it, then his rights and wrongs r as valid for me as the best proven scientific evidence for u.
Second: What is the better in your eyes.?Is having a Nintendo Wii an example of the better in your eyes? Many cities of what's called underdeveloped countries r safer and have more stable families than London and Newyork. In the same time, there are other cities which r religionless suffer horrors of hunger and civil war, African cities for example.
you are living a lie. there is no such thing as crime rate isn't statistically linked with religiousness. again, you prove that you lack basic reasoning as you don't depend on data to provide results but instead depend on your feelings and beliefs.
that statistic only shows that half of the crime in england is committed by people under the influence of alcohol. it doesn't prove that the crime rate in england is higher than other countries where people don't drink alcohol or that alcohol is the main cause of those crimes. you dismiss all the other factors like education, wealth etc. I bet 55% of the people in england who commit crimes are men, does this prove that being a man is bad.
LOGIC requires you to factor in all the variables you clueless idiot. your statistic isn't a scientific experiment where all other variables are accounted for and show no discrepancy but only the variable of alcohol does. YOU FAIL.
Those statistics r declared by the metropolitan police to reveal the disastrous effect of alcohol on the society.
Do U mean that they r not aware of the variables ???!!
Similar statistice have been revealed from the US and many other countries. It seems that they r all religious idiots and lack the basis of knowledge of how to run a scientific experiment.
they do not question all criminals about their childhood or their marital or economic or religious status. a human being is not a fucking machine that goes like
So when a man gets drunk, drives a car and hits a pedestrian this needs a scientific experiment to prove that his crime is related to alcohol and when a drunk lady gets sexually abused by a drunk man in a pub this needs a scientific experiment to prove that it is an-alcohol related crime.
the issue at hand is again a multi variable crime....
IT IS NOT THE FACT THAT HE DRINKS, BUT THE FACT THAT HE DRINKS AND DRIVES THAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENT. WHY DON'T YOU BLAME THE CAR AS WITHOUT IT THE CRIME WOULDN'T HAVE OCCURED.
THE SEXUAL ABUSE IS ALSO THE SAME. THERE ARE TWO FACTORS, THE SEXUAL DRIVE OF THE PERSON AND ALCOHOL. REMOVE ANY ONE OF THE FACTORS AND THE CRIME IS GONE. BESIDES WHAT ABOUT THE 20 OTHER DRUNKS WHO DON'T SEXUALLY ABUSE WOMEN ? WHY THE DIFFERENT OUTCOME ?
The scientific analysis is that they r all risks. Driving a car is a risk but driving it drunk multiplies the risk several times.
The same for the pedestrian. Crossing the road is a risk which is multiplied several times if the pedestrian is drunk. Does this really need science or the hell of all of this argument???!!
the fact is that drinking alone is not a risk only proves that you are not able to reason anything. you have to be able to eliminate all factors which you have proved to be incapable of.
give it up on the alcohol issue man. you have proved nothing worthy as to why people should not drink alcohol other that possibilities far fetched conclusions that fail to analyse the whole of any given situation.
drinking alcohol isn't bad or problematic. drinking to the point of unconsciousness or drinking and operating heavy machinery is. the two are separate issues and thus the law prohibits one and not the other.
I think now that u want me to leave the alcohol issue because u've run out of replies to my very logic, scientific and reasonable comments around it which r evident to every objective reader.
it's because you have failed to pin the cause on alcohol induction but cases of alcohol induction which are extremely dependant on other factors for alcohol to even become remotely relevant. the same logic can be applied to rally behind a ban for doors because people slam into them.
Yes. This is an example of fruitful modernism, were the benefit of a progress is overwhelming and the side effect is minimal. This doesn't apply for example to liberal consumption of alcohol.
If this is the case, then an atomic bomb is not a risk. There r other factors: a pilot, a political decision, a military decision, fuel, navigator and a plane. U have to eliminate those factors to say that an atomic bomb is dangerous.
an atom bomb is designed for the purpose of creating mass devastation. the purpose of the bomb is to kill. the only effect of the bomb is to destroy.
alcohol isn't designed to kill or to aid in crime. it's purpose isn't neither. it's effects are multiple and can range from very good to very bad DEPENDING ON OTHER FACTORS. AN ATOM BOMB GIVES THE SAME EFFECT IRRESPECTIVE OF OTHER FACTORS.
you are mistaken again. i was talking about effects and alcohol has multiple effects given the situation and the other variables. it puts my girlfriend in the mood which is a good effect. atomic bomb has only one effect and it goes like boom.
so you accept that there can be two sides to a story and no absolute good or bad. what kind of a religious person are you ?
and the effect is always the same. it kills people period. an atomic bomb might or might not end wars or might or might not guarantee victory but it is certain that people only use it with the intent to kill others and the only purpose of the weapon is this. alcohol is as you said created to give pleasure
For me, it is not about (the purpose of using the object). It is about the end result. I can kill the evil so that the world becomes safer. But, I won't drink with the purpose of having pleasure considering that this pleasure might kill an innocent person, even if it is a side effect.
yes it does need to have a scientific basis as to understand how much of an effect leading to a crime is alcohol related and not related to other variables. real life events don't allow you to have the luxury of separating it from other variables.
i think you either don't understand how logic works or you confuse it with vague deduction.
actually alcohol is good for your body when induced in right amounts. some of it's positive effects are documented scientifically. it relieves stress, makes you more sociable etc. does that mean religion should force people to drink some alcohol as well. that seems LOGICAL by your standards.
increases by how much ? if it increases by 0.000001% than it is irrelevant because background radiation is much more dangerous than that so simply by standing you are at more risk from it than you are with alcohol.
Studies have recently shown that alcohol can increase the risk of bowel cancer and even small amounts can have an effect. The EPIC study found that for every 2 units a person drinks each day (less than a pint of premium lager) their risk of bowel cancer goes up by 8%.
well the quran is wrong. I have had alcohol all my adult life and so far haven't seen the harm, just the benefits. millions of people drink alcohol and are more than fine. similarly food is good for us but millions of people abuse it and are less than fine.
This is ur personal view, but most people in the world agree with the Quran that alcohol as well as smoking as well as drugs r more wrong than right. Science agrees as well. Logic agrees. What is left???!!
Of course if more crimes r committed by men than women, logic says that there is something in men which make them more likely to be criminals than women, whatever that thing is.
well many people who read the quran have suicidal and homicidal tendencies, would you go as far out as to say that islam makes people murderers. the point is you have free will, you can choose to stop taking alcohol or choose to not murder anyone. the responsibility is on the individual and banning things isn't the way to teach people to take responsibility.
Reading the Quran is one thing and following it is another. How comes it can lead u to killing or suicide if it clearly tells u it is a great sin to do so???!!
I have nothing in my religion which prevent for example a rational discussion about a health system or an education system. What sort of religion u r talking about???!!
In my religion, there is nothing contradicting a consensual logic. It contradicts (some people's logic). In this case I follow the religion's logic as what those people think as logic is not a subject of absolute rightness.
holy books don't have logical arguments. they just have orders for you to obey. they do not go to lengths to make a case or are willing to listen to other points of view that challenge theirs.
Last but not least, u judge human well-being by how much money people own, how modern they are and how comfortable they are..Those standards r not parallel to human happiness. The suicidal rate in the western so called civilized countries is much higher than developing countries. A typical materialistic view, resposible for many of the disasters humanity suffers now.
other standard of human happiness that you claim to have are al subjective... on the other hand there are objective standards that can be measured with real world data which tell a more believable story than yours.
But what has religion to do with all of those indices. These r common indices to target for all human beings and there is nothing in religion which prevents progress in such areas. For example, religious charities always help people for access to clean water, safe homes, better health etc......
religious charities wouldn't know how to have clean if it wasn't for the scientists and the engineers.
plus, religion doesn't target those indices but even if we accept it does for the sake of argument, since non religious societies do a better job at them, wouldn't it be fulfilling god's wish if we stopped living a religious life and one based only on reasoning and logic ? you are the one who claims religion targets those indices remember ?
this argument isn't about your personal beliefs or lifestyle or profession. it is about the belief system based on a book which claims to have all the answers and isn't open for criticism and discussion so it only gives you the option to believe it or burn in hell.
if some advancement in your field contradicts your book, do you remain loyal to your job or your religion ? it is always easier to decide when there is no real decision to be made.
no I am referring to the core of all religion which asks only for belief and obedience. you can't negotiate with god, can you ? so it's pretty established that criticism and discussion is out of question.
but it tells you how you can treat your wife or your children while modern science proves that the methods offered by religion in how to treat them aren't effective methods. do we believe religion which says you can beat your wife to make her submissive or do we believe in psychology which tells us that is not the way to deal with human beings for so many rational reasons.
Islam tells u to beat a wife who is destroying the family in purpose after failure of all other ways of dealing with it and it insists that if u beat her, it shouldn't hurt and the prophet has never beaten a woman.
I am not sure whether Psychology has a better solution for such a problem for the sake of the family.
yes it does have a better solution, actually it has many of them. it goes to show you that you can gain a lot more by using reasoning and understanding and analysing compared to beating...
beating that shouldn't hurt is unheard of. if you hit someone you hurt them.
beating is useless so if reasoning fails, trying something less effective than reasoning is plain DUMB. of course when you lose all sense of reasoning it seems logical to beat someone when you can't talk to them.
actually we don't have to but facts are facts and statistics are statistics. western european countries have more atheists and agnostics among their population compared to middle eastern muslim states and they are statistically higher on human development index.
95 % of africans belong to a religion compared to 58% UK.
95 > 58 and going by the human devel. index it shows that in countries where less people identify with religion the country has a higher standard of life.
Africa is a vast continent with natural resources, coal, steel, forests, mines, plains to grow all sorts of food on.
the only variable that makes the difference is how people use those resources, how people tackle the problems in harvesting those resources and in this fron MENTALITY is the ONE VARIABLE that has made the most difference in the quality of the life that people achieved in UK and Africa.
europe also went through dictatorships and occupation.60-70 years ago germany went through both in a short amount of time but the mentality of the germans, less religious than the rest of europe for the past 500 years allowed them to prosper and become a formidable power once again.
Germany was a power even before Hitler. Many nations all over the world have prospered under dictatorships for example China and the soviet union, but dictatorship in Africa is not for the benefit f the people and it hasn't helped that they've been occupied, their resources drained.and they r poor countries anyway
the difference is that before hitler germany was a power because of things like enlightenment, renaissance and the industrial revolution. the fact that they remained strong after hitler is only to support my point that mentality of the reasonable mind overcomes difficulty when religious dogmas create and keep people in poverty and misery.
And anyway, this is completely irrelevant. It is well known that all African nations r secular. None of the African nations is led by a priest, none of their civil wars is religious, none of them is being drained of resources by religious people. Actually, it is ther imperial western countries who r not religious who exploited them over the centuries.
first of all undemocratic countries are not to be considered neither religious nor secular. as long as people don't get to decide their faith they can't be judged on how they have chosen to live because the reality is someone else chose for them.
I have studied ottoman empire and how the failure to adopt the printing press because it was labelled as "THE DEVIL'S INVENTION" by religious guilds caused the empire to spiral into descent as it failed to spread information at the speed and cost that europeans were capable of.
In addition, currently, the middle eastern countries r not letting for example religion rule their way of running their states. Their governments r as secular as western countries. The dictatorships in Arab countries for example r far less religious than Iran and Israel who r more developed,.
actually religion is a growing trend in middle east. in 20th century military indoctrinated nationalism hasn't worked so well for those countries so religion is back on the rise. besides what about the previous 6-7 centuries ? what about all the time where middle east missed renaissance, enlightenment and the industrial revolution. religion played an important role in politics back then and look at how they ended up.
Religion is back on the rise in the middle east and it hasn't been involved in governing yet, as the failures in those countries r results of nationalist (non-religious) governing. How comes then u accuse religion of being responsible for such failures???!!
Sharia law is not all Islam. It is only the legal system of it. Sharia law doesn't contradict science. Islam outside the legal system encourages science. I don't think that the industrial revolution happened due to a legal system.
the reality of it is under sharia law, the clergy can decide what can be adopted and what can not be adopted. so advancement isn't only dependant on the capabilities of the scholars and the scientists but the permission of the clergy. clergy can have either no or negative effect which makes it useless if not dangerous for advancement of science.
The Ottoman empire anyway is not part of the golden age of Islam in many aspects. It is an era of deterioration of both scientific advancement and religious committment.
Actually, renaissance is based in many aspects on the Islamic civilization preceding it. While medieval Europe was darkened by papal rule and myths, Muslim scientists were on the run inventing, reasonong and translating Roman and Greek texts and building on them.
Lets tell the Muslims that Islam is copied directly from Judaism and Christianity, with a sadistic twist. If they accept that, than maybe I'll accept this. Compromise is the essence of our democracy after all! :D
crewmannumber7 7 months ago
@crewmannumber7 wow you sound like an expert. I don't think that copied is the right term, it is more of a continuation that Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians haven't accepted. If you've read the Bible and critiques, I think you might agree with Islam in that it has been corrupted over the years as it was embraced by power. And what reason to 21st century well connected people like us have for not listening with an open mind to the what the Prophet Mohammed had to say?
isteemaen 6 months ago
Further to my comment, after reading ridiculous comments made by others.
I find it fascintating that it's "cool and chic" to denounce western culture and it's achievements. Does someone have a name for it? You know, the modern climate of universities to try to slander white achievements, etc. To make it a myth that, say, Muslims actually invented jet travel, and not christian whites. I'm going to guess that some dumb ass will make a video trying to debunk that very statement I just made.
wakeupscreaming 8 months ago
You just have to love youtube comments section become "debates" with it's 500 characters or less. lol. For the record, I could care less where something came from. Fact is, Islam is no longer democratic, whether or not they "invented it". I will tell you, that european christian whites invented the phone, the internet, electricity, vaccines, the engine, skyscrapers, computer, shall I go on? The roots are now in every society around the globe. Last laugh. LOL!
wakeupscreaming 8 months ago
This is such bullshit.
crewmannumber7 8 months ago
why is there so many dislikes? we're never going to win any argument against theocracy with lies you dipshits. what his saying is true!
halflifeproductionz 9 months ago
but there are only 5% of Muslims Britain and Europe combined. If you want to look for an enemy, I would suggest looking very carefully at which group is in all the influential positions? Who is running all the big companies? Who is calling all the shots? You must look past your own face.
coralreefuk 11 months ago
@coralreefuk The people in industry are among our societys sanest. Our politicians are less so and if you look at the welfare classes they are the ones dragging our societies down. Of them lots are from africa and mideast.
CJFCarlsson 10 months ago
I find it funny that people get angry and start to blast off sharia law and say how bad it is, and say how bad islam is against freedom of speech but yet all of these were praticed by the early muslims who were in spain and sciliy, etc,
I think people dont know their history and seem to forget with islamic teachings, their wud be no democracy
TheTruth8018 1 year ago
@TheTruth8018 and how did these people in span become to be muslim, Through force the muslim empire expanded into europe, going as far north as southern france. before the muslim conquest the spanish people has their own way of life, the muslims took that away from them.
ParanoidAndroid90 11 months ago
@ParanoidAndroid90 That view is out of date even the Spanish no longer go with that theroy of forced conversian. You can find credible referances both on the BBC and Channel 4.
coralreefuk 10 months ago
@ParanoidAndroid90 It took the Spanish Inquisition 10 yrs to kill, or force all Muslims and Christians to convert to Christianity, while the Muslims were in Spain for 700 yrs and Christians were still the majority in Spain. I think your smart enough to see how wrong your statement was.
cbluver22 10 months ago
Western government should do something before their countries are consumed by retarded aggressive Pakistanis and Arabs.
The Muslims from these nations are retarded, depressed, and blind. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR RACE, YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR DEMOCRACY, DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GET STRONG INSIDE YOUR SOCIETIES. YOU WILL SEE EUROPE AND SPECIALLY FRANCE WILL GO DESTROYED SOON.
ps, I'm a former Muslim myself, from middle east.
OktoberFist1 1 year ago 2
Another point I should make is that Europe never would have had Democracy if it wasn't for the Muslims that rescued and saved the Greek works that the Churches were burning. All this man is saying is that the Muslim culture played a part in creating, and introducing Democracy to the world.
cbluver22 1 year ago
@cbluver22 I wonder how those Greek works were lost to begin with? Could it be that Muslims conquered the centers of Greek/Christian thought such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople. These works were preserved by the Greeks and by Christians who later brought them to western Europe in the spanish reconquista and the final destruction of the Byzantium.
mmaghola 10 months ago
@mmaghola
Umm, the works of the Greeks are not lost though. Well not all of them. Most of them was burned by the Moguls before they converted to Islam. And no the Christians were not preserving them. Like I said before, the Churches were burning the works of the Greeks and Romans because they believed that their work was the work of the devil.
cbluver22 10 months ago
@cbluver22 "Umm, the works of the Greeks are not lost though... And no the Christians were not preserving them. Like I said before, the Churches were burning the works of the Greeks and Romans because they believed that their work was the work of the devil."
Staggeringly ignorant. The entire Islamic translation movement utilized Christian scribes as they had preserved the knowledge. The Muslim conquests thus inherited the works. Arabs didn't speak Greek dumbass, Christians did.
MattyJames25 9 months ago
@mmaghola
And why are you turning this to a Christian vs Muslim thing. Lands in the Middle East were always being conquered by new people. How many time do I have to repeat myself. THE CHURCHES IN EGYPT AND EUROPE WERE BURNING MANY WORKS OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. Muslim, Christians and Jews worked together in regathering and translating these works. Stop acting childish with this whole "we Christians started this first". The Greeks were no Christian when they were in their golden age.
cbluver22 9 months ago
It's funny to most Muslims when they hear the West brag about Democracy.. The Muslim world organized their Gov't similarly like Democracy. There was the Executive Brance (Khalifa), the Judical Branch( Qadi System), and the Representitive Branch(Majlis ash Shura). While Europe was in it's Dark ages living as serfs under the harsh rule of Lords and Kings and Queens, the Muslim World was flourishing in science, arts, literture and was the most tolerent and fairest civilization the world ever had.
cbluver22 1 year ago
Koran is a dangerous book in the hands of illiterate, ignorant take it literary as they read it. Koran has more than one meaning. between one page & next page it has different meaning.
justicepartyuk 1 year ago
Koran is a dangerous book in the hand of illiterate, ignorant take literary as they read it. click justice party UK. for great news.
justicepartyuk 1 year ago
every society had assembly
what is he talking about?
tmprogram 1 year ago
Epic fail
isocrate27 1 year ago
sounds interesting, but I must admit I get the sense that he's reaching, as it were.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
dark ages in europe must mean dark ages throughout teh world rite? so fukn arrogant, pisses me off...
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
interesting about the concept of group decisions starting in mesopotamia...the fukn west thinks they started everything...there are probably a million things they teach us in school as originating in western thought that began somewhere else in the world
...even teh beginnings of modern science and the empirical approach has major contributions from islam...the current state of things is due more to circumstance and shifts in power than ideology
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
it is well known that Islam was a beacon of knowledge in the dark ages. I learned that back in school. it was the Muslims who kept many Greek texts in tact.
and I have to say, Mesopotamia belongs to all of us. We've all benefited from these cultures. they out date anything that separates us.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
oh i get it.. Mesopotamia or Rome seeded democracy. then early Islam rooted it.. but died (murdered) after several caliphs. then we made new roots.. the result is the democracy we have today. wow
shahfazliz 2 years ago
Bad title...
Its evidences about democracy have nothing to do with Islam since he talks about Mesopotamia BC, not after around 650 AD when Islam took off.
Reversed anachronism!
HalfFullYeah 2 years ago 4
Probably correctly titled since after kingship amongst the Europeans, the Europeans started adopting islamic ideals.
faro0485 2 years ago
But the video refers to pre-Islamic democratic ideals... so it is not correctly titled.
Which does not mean that Islamic societies did not inspired themselves from those democratic roots at the times.
Cheers!
HalfFullYeah 2 years ago
Pre-islamic? When was that? Before time?
No the video refers to cases in a region known, in a time before, in a place where the cause unknown. The Mesopotamian democracy origin has only recently been suggested by Thorkild Jacobsen in the 60s. So I don't think the people of the middle ages would have known such a thing, unless they left record of knowing such a thing about such a people.
faro0485 2 years ago
You indeed agree with me without even knowing it :
Islam dates from around 634 AD;
Mesopotamia dates from the Bronze Age;
It's a question of influence through ages. not direct creation from Islam itself.
HalfFullYeah 2 years ago
Not quite... Mesopotamia is a region. Islam is an idea. The ideas in Mesopotamia are what gave rise to it's civilization. That is in the form monotheism. We look to the history of Mesopotamia and find that monotheism is in it's beginnings. Mesopotamia didn't just randomly become advanced. It had it's sources. And we note that in many places it was a lost era, and it's ideas lost. Corruption of it's ideas might have chinese whispered into it's future.
faro0485 2 years ago
Mesopotamia gave birth to democratic ideas that were used by Islam many hiunrdeds of years later.
Are you trying to link Islam directly with democracy, because if it's the case, you are doing a biiiiiiig historical leap. Is it an enterprise of religious justification (Islam) based on secular ideas (Democracy)?
Or are we just not understanding each others?!
HalfFullYeah 2 years ago
We're linking modern acceptance of democracy, the muslims did not get democracy from Mesopotamia. Democracy is not secular, secularists take things from religion, and pervert religion to make it look wrong. We call that paganism, it's something Sam Harris seems to be doing. We can also google: atheist illuminati, and note the first link.
Perhaps we aren't understanding each other!!!
faro0485 2 years ago
We do not understand each others because :
1) You are stuck in a religious mind, even though you think you are open minded. It's a question of «filter», how you chose your datas about yourself and the world. Your filter is loosed.
2) You bring in the Illuminati... pfffff!! Come on man, get real, life is not as epic as you may think.
3) Ideas like democracy can have religious roots, but they are indeed secular.
4) Sam Harris has a point : Zeus is as real as God, Allah and Santa Claus.
HalfFullYeah 2 years ago
I am stuck? Perhaps I prefer having functional temporal lobes? (God on the brain - youtube it). Interesting filter. I bring the illuminati since the atheists at american atheists insist that these were the origin of current irreligion, and enlightenment. Ideas like law can also have religious roots, but become secular, but that's ignorance and inorganic/unnatural. Sam Harris is out done by Max Muller in regards to meanings of godly names. Zeus (original)may = the god Allah but /= SC ever.
faro0485 2 years ago
wrong wrong wrong, religion is nothing but taking shared values that help us live as societies and put an element of fear and mystery in it to relate to the lowest common denominator. religion does not invent anything, people observe societies and their needs as they change and when the time is right, someone comes along claiming to have spoken to god and people follow him since he's telling them what they want to hear. as arabs are it's primary audience quran has a tribal arabic influence.
ufster81 2 years ago
religion is merely a skin, when we as societies grow, we must shed the skin or it will prevent us from growing and progressing for the better. in this 21st century, we have immense access to information and technology thus we can no longer be governed with the religion of the tribal world. it can be observed that many societies which figured this out are blatantly ahead of others who have stuck with the ways of the past. progress is inevitable, resistance is futile...
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Your view of religion is based on what???!!
I can't understand how religion prevents people from progressing.
What has this idiot comparison between technology and religion comee from. As if u r comparing a car to a house!!!!!
What r the standards on which u r judging that some societies r ahead of others?????!!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
yasserne here is a primer for morons like you
progress is change for the better which requires rational discussion of ideas rather than a clerk telling you right from wrong. societies who favour logic and free discussion over doctrine and dogma statistically make better decisions towards progress and by this virtue alone historically they enjoy higher standards of life; better health, more comfort-wealth, stability
unless you argue god wants us to be poor, unhealthy and unstable, you've no case
ufster81 2 years ago
technology is derived from scientific progress which requires a stable and rich society to produce the academics to push science forward. the reason why modern societies are more advanced in science and technology is because they haven't left their faith to be determined by a single book but a plethora of books to decide on the best solution given any problem. others thought it's best to stick with a book and how good that one book may be it has failed to create the correct answers consistently.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
This argument could be valid, only if we think that this book has a solution to all the problems of the world or if there is a contradiction between this book and those other books, neither of which is the case in respect to most problems.
Yasserne 2 years ago
there are contradictions you moron. there have always been. the issue at hand is what one does when contradictions arise. if you stick by the book, you aren't a free thinking individual and your destiny will be determined by a dogma not by reason and intellect.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
But reason and intellict is limited by many things. It has proven to be wrong in as many occasions as it it has proven to be right. In addition, it is not a matter of consensus. There has never been a human decision with 100% agreement. There has never been a human decision with no mistakes. There has never been a human decision with no side effects.
Yasserne 2 years ago
this is where you are dead wrong.
even though reason and intellect can be wrong THEY CAN BE CORRECTED, RE-EVALUATED, CHANGED. RELIGION CAN'T BE CHANGED SO IF IT'S WRONG, IT STAYS WRONG.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
First: I don't have in my religion a clerk to tell me what's right and what's wrong. I know my rights from my wrongs on my own. That's how my religion is. My belief of course has a vital role in determining the standards of right and wrong, but this is the same for every human being, even atheists.
Yasserne 2 years ago
how do you know that, because some book tells you ?
i rather come to my own conclusions without fear of a higher power striking me down or punishing me for stepping outside the boundaries he had drawn for me ? can you do the same ? or is the border of your imagination only lies as far as your holy book tells you it is ok to imagine ?
ufster81 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yasserne 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ufster81
@ufster81
It depends on ur belief. U r an atheist. U don't beloeve in God. Then, all of it is rubbish in ur eyes.
For me, I believe in God. I believe that God created this universe and runs it, then his rights and wrongs r as valid for me as the best proven scientific evidence for u.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Second: What is the better in your eyes.?Is having a Nintendo Wii an example of the better in your eyes? Many cities of what's called underdeveloped countries r safer and have more stable families than London and Newyork. In the same time, there are other cities which r religionless suffer horrors of hunger and civil war, African cities for example.
Yasserne 2 years ago
you are living a lie. there is no such thing as crime rate isn't statistically linked with religiousness. again, you prove that you lack basic reasoning as you don't depend on data to provide results but instead depend on your feelings and beliefs.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
No
It is based on data for sure.
55% of crimes in the UK for example r related to alcohol drinking.
Religin tells me not to drink alcohol.
Full stop.
Data or a lie?
Lie or data??
Yasserne 2 years ago
what a stupid comment
that statistic only shows that half of the crime in england is committed by people under the influence of alcohol. it doesn't prove that the crime rate in england is higher than other countries where people don't drink alcohol or that alcohol is the main cause of those crimes. you dismiss all the other factors like education, wealth etc. I bet 55% of the people in england who commit crimes are men, does this prove that being a man is bad.
you sound dumber by the minute.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Those crimes wouldn't have happened in the same community if they don't drink alcohol
U miss the ABC of logic and u r referring to logic all the time.
Ha ha ha
Yasserne 2 years ago
LOGIC requires you to factor in all the variables you clueless idiot. your statistic isn't a scientific experiment where all other variables are accounted for and show no discrepancy but only the variable of alcohol does. YOU FAIL.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
hahaha
Those statistics r declared by the metropolitan police to reveal the disastrous effect of alcohol on the society.
Do U mean that they r not aware of the variables ???!!
Similar statistice have been revealed from the US and many other countries. It seems that they r all religious idiots and lack the basis of knowledge of how to run a scientific experiment.
Yasserne 2 years ago
they can not compute the variables.
they do not question all criminals about their childhood or their marital or economic or religious status. a human being is not a fucking machine that goes like
if alcohol = 1, commit a crime.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
So when a man gets drunk, drives a car and hits a pedestrian this needs a scientific experiment to prove that his crime is related to alcohol and when a drunk lady gets sexually abused by a drunk man in a pub this needs a scientific experiment to prove that it is an-alcohol related crime.
Wonderful logic.
Yasserne 2 years ago
wrong again.
the issue at hand is again a multi variable crime....
IT IS NOT THE FACT THAT HE DRINKS, BUT THE FACT THAT HE DRINKS AND DRIVES THAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENT. WHY DON'T YOU BLAME THE CAR AS WITHOUT IT THE CRIME WOULDN'T HAVE OCCURED.
THE SEXUAL ABUSE IS ALSO THE SAME. THERE ARE TWO FACTORS, THE SEXUAL DRIVE OF THE PERSON AND ALCOHOL. REMOVE ANY ONE OF THE FACTORS AND THE CRIME IS GONE. BESIDES WHAT ABOUT THE 20 OTHER DRUNKS WHO DON'T SEXUALLY ABUSE WOMEN ? WHY THE DIFFERENT OUTCOME ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
The scientific analysis is that they r all risks. Driving a car is a risk but driving it drunk multiplies the risk several times.
The same for the pedestrian. Crossing the road is a risk which is multiplied several times if the pedestrian is drunk. Does this really need science or the hell of all of this argument???!!
A child would be able to reason this.
Yasserne 2 years ago
the fact is that drinking alone is not a risk only proves that you are not able to reason anything. you have to be able to eliminate all factors which you have proved to be incapable of.
ufster81 2 years ago
give it up on the alcohol issue man. you have proved nothing worthy as to why people should not drink alcohol other that possibilities far fetched conclusions that fail to analyse the whole of any given situation.
drinking alcohol isn't bad or problematic. drinking to the point of unconsciousness or drinking and operating heavy machinery is. the two are separate issues and thus the law prohibits one and not the other.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
I think now that u want me to leave the alcohol issue because u've run out of replies to my very logic, scientific and reasonable comments around it which r evident to every objective reader.
Hard luck
Yasserne 2 years ago
no that's not it.
it's because you have failed to pin the cause on alcohol induction but cases of alcohol induction which are extremely dependant on other factors for alcohol to even become remotely relevant. the same logic can be applied to rally behind a ban for doors because people slam into them.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
hahah
Nonsense.
At the end u can't live without doors. The benefit far outweighs the problem of slamming but u can live without alcohol.
As if I am arguing with a 5 years old.
Not a 10 years old..a 5 years old.
Yasserne 2 years ago
yes you can live without doors. people lived without doors for tens of thousands of years.
now it's like a 3 year old (you) is arguing with a 5 year old.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes. This is an example of fruitful modernism, were the benefit of a progress is overwhelming and the side effect is minimal. This doesn't apply for example to liberal consumption of alcohol.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
If this is the case, then an atomic bomb is not a risk. There r other factors: a pilot, a political decision, a military decision, fuel, navigator and a plane. U have to eliminate those factors to say that an atomic bomb is dangerous.
Yasserne 2 years ago
is this your best reasoning
an atom bomb is designed for the purpose of creating mass devastation. the purpose of the bomb is to kill. the only effect of the bomb is to destroy.
alcohol isn't designed to kill or to aid in crime. it's purpose isn't neither. it's effects are multiple and can range from very good to very bad DEPENDING ON OTHER FACTORS. AN ATOM BOMB GIVES THE SAME EFFECT IRRESPECTIVE OF OTHER FACTORS.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
People drink alcohol just for pleasure.
It is not a medicine.
Yasserne 2 years ago
you are mistaken again. i was talking about effects and alcohol has multiple effects given the situation and the other variables. it puts my girlfriend in the mood which is a good effect. atomic bomb has only one effect and it goes like boom.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
And by the way. there is a benefit of the atomic bomb. It ended a war, it brings victory over evil enemies in the eyes of whoever uses them.
Yasserne 2 years ago
"in the eyes of whoever uses them"
so you accept that there can be two sides to a story and no absolute good or bad. what kind of a religious person are you ?
and the effect is always the same. it kills people period. an atomic bomb might or might not end wars or might or might not guarantee victory but it is certain that people only use it with the intent to kill others and the only purpose of the weapon is this. alcohol is as you said created to give pleasure
do you think pleasure=killing ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
For me, it is not about (the purpose of using the object). It is about the end result. I can kill the evil so that the world becomes safer. But, I won't drink with the purpose of having pleasure considering that this pleasure might kill an innocent person, even if it is a side effect.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Does it really need a scientific experiment to conclude that a drunk guy is more likely to commit a crime as compared to a non-drunk guy????!!!
Logic, logic, logic
Yasserne 2 years ago
yes it does need to have a scientific basis as to understand how much of an effect leading to a crime is alcohol related and not related to other variables. real life events don't allow you to have the luxury of separating it from other variables.
i think you either don't understand how logic works or you confuse it with vague deduction.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
What is the logic and rationale by the way behind drinking alcohol ???!!
Is that an index of human well being and an evidence of scientific progress and technology???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
actually alcohol is good for your body when induced in right amounts. some of it's positive effects are documented scientifically. it relieves stress, makes you more sociable etc. does that mean religion should force people to drink some alcohol as well. that seems LOGICAL by your standards.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
No
This has proven to be scientifically completely false now.
Even, the least amount of alcohol increases the risk of cancer.
Yasserne 2 years ago
increases by how much ? if it increases by 0.000001% than it is irrelevant because background radiation is much more dangerous than that so simply by standing you are at more risk from it than you are with alcohol.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Research has shown that even 1-2pints double the risk of accidents. More than that triples the risk.
This is science by the way.
Yasserne 2 years ago
why have you jumped from an isolated incident of alcohol drinking to tying it with other variables again ???
show me the cancer research data.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
even light drinking (just three units a day) can increase the risk of mouth cancer. 6
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
even small amounts could damage their livers
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Even small amounts of alcohol can increase your risk of breast cancer
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Studies have recently shown that alcohol can increase the risk of bowel cancer and even small amounts can have an effect. The EPIC study found that for every 2 units a person drinks each day (less than a pint of premium lager) their risk of bowel cancer goes up by 8%.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
All of this is copied from cancerresearchuk
Go there and search it urself
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
By the way, the Quran says that there r benefits in alcohol but that the harms outweighs the benefits.
Yasserne 2 years ago
well the quran is wrong. I have had alcohol all my adult life and so far haven't seen the harm, just the benefits. millions of people drink alcohol and are more than fine. similarly food is good for us but millions of people abuse it and are less than fine.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Islam tells u not to abuse the food as well
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
This is ur personal view, but most people in the world agree with the Quran that alcohol as well as smoking as well as drugs r more wrong than right. Science agrees as well. Logic agrees. What is left???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Of course if more crimes r committed by men than women, logic says that there is something in men which make them more likely to be criminals than women, whatever that thing is.
Yasserne 2 years ago
so men is bad and we should ban men from social life...
because that is your religions suggestion for alcohol.
btw, i have never committed a crime and i drink alcohol all the time yet i know many muslims who don't drink but cold bloodedly commit murder.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
Muslims who commit murder r not sticking to the rules of their religion.
Individual cases r off point. U were asking for statistics, not feelings and personal impressions.
Remember ?
By the way, I am not sure if u've never committed a crime while u r drunk. Drunk people r not fully conscious of what they do.
Moreover, why r people not allowed to drive while they r drunk if it is safe to drink???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
not all people who drink are drunk you idiot. you are comparing apples and oranges. that relation is totally baseless.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
That's true not all people who drink r drunk, but definitely many people who drink get drunk.
Yasserne 2 years ago
well many people who read the quran have suicidal and homicidal tendencies, would you go as far out as to say that islam makes people murderers. the point is you have free will, you can choose to stop taking alcohol or choose to not murder anyone. the responsibility is on the individual and banning things isn't the way to teach people to take responsibility.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Reading the Quran is one thing and following it is another. How comes it can lead u to killing or suicide if it clearly tells u it is a great sin to do so???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
The issue of free will hasn't worked. If it has, we wouldn't have seen crimes in the west.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
I have nothing in my religion which prevent for example a rational discussion about a health system or an education system. What sort of religion u r talking about???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
but what happens when there is something that prevents ?
do you choose religion or do you choose logic.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
In my religion, there is nothing contradicting a consensual logic. It contradicts (some people's logic). In this case I follow the religion's logic as what those people think as logic is not a subject of absolute rightness.
Yasserne 2 years ago
holy books don't have logical arguments. they just have orders for you to obey. they do not go to lengths to make a case or are willing to listen to other points of view that challenge theirs.
logic and religion are thus incompatible.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
It is obvious u've never read my book which has many logical arguments, not just orders to obey. Orders to obey follow logical arguments.
I think otherwise, logic and atheism never meet.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Last but not least, u judge human well-being by how much money people own, how modern they are and how comfortable they are..Those standards r not parallel to human happiness. The suicidal rate in the western so called civilized countries is much higher than developing countries. A typical materialistic view, resposible for many of the disasters humanity suffers now.
Yasserne 2 years ago
other standard of human happiness that you claim to have are al subjective... on the other hand there are objective standards that can be measured with real world data which tell a more believable story than yours.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Like what???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
like death rate of infants.
like average life span.
like quality of health care.
like the number of people with a roof over their heads.
for a better understanding google "human development index" and look at where zealot muslim and christian countries stand.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
But what has religion to do with all of those indices. These r common indices to target for all human beings and there is nothing in religion which prevents progress in such areas. For example, religious charities always help people for access to clean water, safe homes, better health etc......
Yasserne 2 years ago
religious charities wouldn't know how to have clean if it wasn't for the scientists and the engineers.
plus, religion doesn't target those indices but even if we accept it does for the sake of argument, since non religious societies do a better job at them, wouldn't it be fulfilling god's wish if we stopped living a religious life and one based only on reasoning and logic ? you are the one who claims religion targets those indices remember ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Who said that being religious means that we shouldn't have doctors and engineers????!!
I am religious and I am a doctor.
Yasserne 2 years ago
this argument isn't about your personal beliefs or lifestyle or profession. it is about the belief system based on a book which claims to have all the answers and isn't open for criticism and discussion so it only gives you the option to believe it or burn in hell.
if some advancement in your field contradicts your book, do you remain loyal to your job or your religion ? it is always easier to decide when there is no real decision to be made.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
U r here referring to a special form of religiousness, not necessarily referring to all religious people or all religions or religion in general.
Yasserne 2 years ago
no I am referring to the core of all religion which asks only for belief and obedience. you can't negotiate with god, can you ? so it's pretty established that criticism and discussion is out of question.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
U can negotiate with God until u believe in him. Once u believe in him, argument is like arguing with a Genetics scientist on genetic engineering.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
As I told u, there is no a consensual advancement which contradicts my book and there will never be.
Yasserne 2 years ago
what is with the prophecy man, can you see the future ? what proof of this do you have ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
proof of what???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
proof of never being a contradiction ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
No. religion targets those indices definitely.
Yasserne 2 years ago
if it does, than it shouldn't have a problem leaving the field for other methods that do better in achieving those goals.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
My religion doesn't tell doctors how to treat a patient and doesn't tell an engineer how to build a bridge and it never claimed it does.
Yasserne 2 years ago
but it tells you how you can treat your wife or your children while modern science proves that the methods offered by religion in how to treat them aren't effective methods. do we believe religion which says you can beat your wife to make her submissive or do we believe in psychology which tells us that is not the way to deal with human beings for so many rational reasons.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Islam doesn't tell u to beat ur wife who is not submissive.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Islam tells u to beat a wife who is destroying the family in purpose after failure of all other ways of dealing with it and it insists that if u beat her, it shouldn't hurt and the prophet has never beaten a woman.
I am not sure whether Psychology has a better solution for such a problem for the sake of the family.
Yasserne 2 years ago
yes it does have a better solution, actually it has many of them. it goes to show you that you can gain a lot more by using reasoning and understanding and analysing compared to beating...
beating that shouldn't hurt is unheard of. if you hit someone you hurt them.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
Islam tells u not to beat unless reasoning fails,
This what I just told u.
Yasserne 2 years ago
beating is useless so if reasoning fails, trying something less effective than reasoning is plain DUMB. of course when you lose all sense of reasoning it seems logical to beat someone when you can't talk to them.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
It worked with some people. It is for them.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
No
There is beating which doesn't hurt, or in other words doesn't cause injuries and it is still being used as a way of punishment.
Yasserne 2 years ago
how about the mental trauma of being hit, or someone being aggressive with you ? is that not an injury ?
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
It is an injury.
That's why it is the last resort,
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
We haven't agreed that non-religious societies r doing a better job.
Go back to my previous posts.
Yasserne 2 years ago
actually we don't have to but facts are facts and statistics are statistics. western european countries have more atheists and agnostics among their population compared to middle eastern muslim states and they are statistically higher on human development index.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
And what applies to western nations apply as well to poor African nations, most people r not religious.
Yasserne 2 years ago
yes they are religious.
40% are christians.
45% are muslims.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Who???!!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
all of africa.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
But u've just said that 58% of the population in the Uk belong to a religion. Do u know how many of the African christians go to the church.
Yasserne 2 years ago
95 % of africans belong to a religion compared to 58% UK.
95 > 58 and going by the human devel. index it shows that in countries where less people identify with religion the country has a higher standard of life.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Where is your talk about the other variables here???
hahaha
Yasserne 2 years ago
lets see...
UK is an island with limited resources.
Africa is a vast continent with natural resources, coal, steel, forests, mines, plains to grow all sorts of food on.
the only variable that makes the difference is how people use those resources, how people tackle the problems in harvesting those resources and in this fron MENTALITY is the ONE VARIABLE that has made the most difference in the quality of the life that people achieved in UK and Africa.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
There r other variables
Occupation, dictatorships, etc..
Even on the mentality issue, it is far more complex than religion. Mentalities r developed under multiple factors.
Yasserne 2 years ago
europe also went through dictatorships and occupation.60-70 years ago germany went through both in a short amount of time but the mentality of the germans, less religious than the rest of europe for the past 500 years allowed them to prosper and become a formidable power once again.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Germany was a power even before Hitler. Many nations all over the world have prospered under dictatorships for example China and the soviet union, but dictatorship in Africa is not for the benefit f the people and it hasn't helped that they've been occupied, their resources drained.and they r poor countries anyway
Yasserne 2 years ago
the difference is that before hitler germany was a power because of things like enlightenment, renaissance and the industrial revolution. the fact that they remained strong after hitler is only to support my point that mentality of the reasonable mind overcomes difficulty when religious dogmas create and keep people in poverty and misery.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
was Hitler a religious person ???!!
Were his predecessors and successors less religious???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
By the way south Americans r also not more religious than Europe and they r not that developed.
Yasserne 2 years ago
actually they are. south americans are majority catholic nations.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
YES
BUTMOST R NON-RELIGIOUS AS WELL
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
And anyway, this is completely irrelevant. It is well known that all African nations r secular. None of the African nations is led by a priest, none of their civil wars is religious, none of them is being drained of resources by religious people. Actually, it is ther imperial western countries who r not religious who exploited them over the centuries.
Yasserne 2 years ago
secular ???
first of all undemocratic countries are not to be considered neither religious nor secular. as long as people don't get to decide their faith they can't be judged on how they have chosen to live because the reality is someone else chose for them.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
OK
This makes all ur talk about the effect of religion on the retardation of middle east countries nonsense.
Yasserne 2 years ago
I have looked at PAST 7 CENTURIES. NATIONALISM IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS WHEN COMPARED TO RELIGIOUS RULE.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
It seems u've looked into the European history only.
Yasserne 2 years ago
I have studied ottoman empire and how the failure to adopt the printing press because it was labelled as "THE DEVIL'S INVENTION" by religious guilds caused the empire to spiral into descent as it failed to spread information at the speed and cost that europeans were capable of.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
True
But this is not sharia law.
Yasserne 2 years ago
it is RELIGION EFFECTING GOVERNANCE WHICH IS WHAT SHARIA LAW IS.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes and it should do.
Religion not clerks.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
In addition, currently, the middle eastern countries r not letting for example religion rule their way of running their states. Their governments r as secular as western countries. The dictatorships in Arab countries for example r far less religious than Iran and Israel who r more developed,.
Yasserne 2 years ago
actually religion is a growing trend in middle east. in 20th century military indoctrinated nationalism hasn't worked so well for those countries so religion is back on the rise. besides what about the previous 6-7 centuries ? what about all the time where middle east missed renaissance, enlightenment and the industrial revolution. religion played an important role in politics back then and look at how they ended up.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
Religion is back on the rise in the middle east and it hasn't been involved in governing yet, as the failures in those countries r results of nationalist (non-religious) governing. How comes then u accuse religion of being responsible for such failures???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
the past 7 centuries is the ultimate fuck up and that was when sharia law was in place. 20th century nationalism is the lesser of two evils.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
hahaha
Complete ignorance
Actually sharia has been the law from the rise of Islam including the centuries of scientific advancement.
The past 7 centuries r the times of the disintegration of the Islamic state and less sticking to sharia.
Yasserne 2 years ago
scientific advancement despite sharia law not because of it.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Sharia law is not all Islam. It is only the legal system of it. Sharia law doesn't contradict science. Islam outside the legal system encourages science. I don't think that the industrial revolution happened due to a legal system.
Yasserne 2 years ago
the reality of it is under sharia law, the clergy can decide what can be adopted and what can not be adopted. so advancement isn't only dependant on the capabilities of the scholars and the scientists but the permission of the clergy. clergy can have either no or negative effect which makes it useless if not dangerous for advancement of science.
ufster81 2 years ago
@ufster81
Yes
But even clergy is not part of Islam unlike christianity. There is no clergic power in Islam or sharia law.
Sharia law is not stated by clergies and they've never been in position of power or authority like christianity.
It depends on the civil's ruler's beliefs.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
The Ottoman empire anyway is not part of the golden age of Islam in many aspects. It is an era of deterioration of both scientific advancement and religious committment.
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Why should I take the Ottoman era as an example and not the Abbassid era or the Andalusian era???!!
Yasserne 2 years ago
@ufster81
Actually, renaissance is based in many aspects on the Islamic civilization preceding it. While medieval Europe was darkened by papal rule and myths, Muslim scientists were on the run inventing, reasonong and translating Roman and Greek texts and building on them.
Yasserne 2 years ago