Do Morals require God? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Dr Robert Stovold

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 You can't win an argument with a rapist because he might not share your assumption that deity is more worthy to listen to than a human, he might say why should I do what God says? -note here am ignoring for now that the deity is invisible and its very existence controversial-

Natural morality is simpler:

1 Humans naturally want some things A and don't want other things B (can empirically determined)

2 Humans should do things that increase A, and minimize B (only assumption)

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

"You can't win an argument with a rapist because he might not share your assumption"

You're right, I can't win an argument with an Atheist Rapist as to why he should not rape someone, if there is no harm for him (and only benefit). Your absolutely right, and you have unwittingly made my point :)

Secondly, If Rapist wants to have Sex with victim (self-interest 'A'), and not be frustrated (harm 'B'), then he will seek to maximise A and minimise B.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 are saying you agree that YOU can't win the argument with the rapist either?

>>.. and minimise B.

Evidence show that rapists and murderers are rarely happy people, they might wrongly seek what they perceive as A, but in the long run they often experience: mental turmoil guilt (B), alienation(B), fear of being caught, and also miss out on things like genuine intimacy (A), love(A), feeling of trust and safety (A) ..etc. so on balance they are really loosing out objectively.

[KNOWNMuslim001]

I have two questions to the Atheist. It might be off-topic to this topic but, PM me to answer my questions.

1. How something, like the Universe or even the Big Bang, exist? Is it came from nothing or made by it self or made by a creator?

2. If life is freedom, can you change your birth date, or the place where you born, or the creature that you want to be born?

[IAmARationalApe]

@KNOWNMuslim001

Answer to Q1: I don't see how postulating something else (i.e. a God) as the creator of this Universe solves the problem of discovering ultimate origin of everything if you are unable to answer the question of how this God came into existence?

Answer to Q2: This question is incoherent. Please rephrase.

[KNOWNMuslim001]

@IAmARationalApe We, humans, don't know how God can be eternal.

[IAmARationalApe]

@KNOWNMuslim001 what?

[FreeThyMind]

Salaam. Man I wish these things had better audio, what you guys need is a nice shotgun microphone. I would love to record these events for you. if you are ever in the bay area,California, i'll be more then willing to record your debates or whatever, assuming I'm not in school or at work during that time.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 I don't see evidence that we have "intended existence" so I don't believe in ultimate purpose, our morals -from my point of view- is a human problem of how to live a happy contented lifes. in order to know what to do we need to study human nature and what is conducing to it flourishing. But morals are man made, does not mean they are totally relative, we can make true statement without appeal to external agency. the same way we can say 1+1=2 without God having to validate it!

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

"we can make true statement without appeal to external agency. the same way we can say 1+1=2 without God having to validate it!"

Mathematics is merely deduction with quantities. But quantities exist in the real world, and thus have objective existence. Morality does not according to your worldview. Saying "helping someone is good" is not existent in material reality. The terms 'Good' and 'bad' have no existence in the material world, outside their metaphysical existence.

[Ijustasking]

and since there is no serious evidence for heaven or hell that is not in one way or another circular, then the only well being and harm we should care about is the one that happens in this life which we know exists...

[frid9999]

@Ijustasking Exactly. One way or another moral questions are answered by science-based thoughtful reasoning about how to maximize human wellness. The muslim believes allah has done this reasoning for us and we aren't to do it. The non-muslim recognizes allah's curious silent invisibility, and refuses to be bullied into being evil, and does the reasoning himself. Either way we can't get away from science-based thoughtful reasoning to maximize human wellness. And why would we? Just to submit? Bah.

[wesamalshaif]

@Ijustasking There is a lot of evidence for heaven and hell...let me ask you a question...if your mother was dying of a serious disease and she was a good person her whole life, would you be happier as opposed to her being a bad person her whole life (and this is assuming you have a moral guideline for good and bad).

[Ijustasking]

@wesamalshaif I don't get your question...will I be happier if she is a good person ??

[wesamalshaif]

@Ijustasking I mean would you feel as if you are more at ease with your mother's suffering if she had been a good person prior to her illness?

[Ijustasking]

@wesamalshaif ">> I mean would you feel as if you are more at ease with your mother's suffering if she had been a good person prior to her illness?"

I am not sure I can answer this question, I guess it does not matter, if my mother is suffering I would want her suffering I would want her to get better....still don't see the relevance of the question to our discussion...

[Ijustasking]

often people respond by saying what is the ontological basis for that definition? what if someone says I don't care about maximizing weelbeing and minimizing harm?? well...you can ask the same question to the theist "why should I care what God says?" there is no more ontological basis for morality in theism than there is in atheism. if the answer is to avoid hell and go so heaven you are back to humanist definition of avoid harm (pain in hell) ... either way the foundation is the same...

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

Heaven and Hell are only for those people who require incentive to do the right thing/desist for the bad, when no one is looking. However, the ultimate basis for morality is our God-given purpose. If you believe humans have purpose (i.e. an intended existence), then living by this purpose defines our good, and going against it, defines our bad. This is something Atheists cannot use, bcos they deny the intentionality of humans - as we're 'just accidents' rite?.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 >>Heaven and Hell are only for those people who require incentive to do the right

Heaven and hell are the primary -if not the only- incentive used in the Quran almost every page has a threat of hell and promise of heaven.

>> then living by this purpose defines our good ...

This is your arbitrary definition of good/bad it is not different from me saying "Living a life that maximises human flourishing defines good" my point is your definition is no more objective than mine...

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

"Heaven and hell are the primary -if not the only- incentive used in the Quran" - The Quran uses many incentives to follow Morality, including to follow ones purpose. However,you have overlooked what Heaven and Hell represent - Justice, objective and real. So while an Immoral person may escape the notice of human law enforcement, and thus, do something immoral for their own benefit - heaven & hell, ensures that these people cannot get aay with it. Atheists cannot offer the same.

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

your arbitrary definition of good/bad it is not different from me saying "Living a life that maximises human flourishing defines good"

What makes your statement empty, is not the statement per se, but the glaring lack of authority behind it. You have no ontological basis, and no narrative to explain why we must believe what you say to be the case. Whereas God, who is the creator, has a right to define our purpose, as much as he defined our existence.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 >>What makes your statement empty ....

When people disagree, usually either one or both use faulty logic, in which case we can look at the logic (with logical people and you sound like one) or they started from different assumptions about reality and language so I am really curious as to what are your underlying assumptions, are you saying "All statements are empty unless supported by an external authority"?

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

I like your approach to disputation :) To answer your question "are you saying "All statements are empty unless supported by an external authority"?".

Ultimately yes. If I were to say "I have a blue car", unless I actually have 1) A Car, and 2) It is Blue, then my statement would be empty. Likewise, if I say "My job is to be a Policeman", I would need to show that I have been tasked to do that by the State. One's truth claims must be verified by reality.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 great, we agree up to that point, now do you think humans can do the empirical verification of claims about the real world or does it have to be deities only?

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

Humans can do empirical verification of tangible objects within the material world - of which the only morality is the possible and impossible. For anything else, there must be an appeal to a transcendent metaphysical reality. Now Atheists don't have to win this one - they can merely say "fine, there is no morality, big wup" - defending Morality is only a matter of culture and tatse for Atheists, so you shouldn't be squemish about denying it's intrinsic existence.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 I see, I think we might be using language differently here, if by "intrinsic existence" you mean it exists in the same way the moon exists then of course I don't think it does exists morality is an idea. I think we starting from two definitions of the word "morality":

you: "morality is that which god mandated/approved we should do in our live"

me: "morality is that which we should do to have more of what we naturally want and less of what we don't want".

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

There are a few critiques of: "morality is that which we should do to have more of what we naturally want and less of what we don't want"

For we may want something that damages us or others. Now, human experience of life is individual, not collective - so we perceive harm and benefit from a self-centred viewpoint. If I was not conditioned with social empathy (like some youth today), I will not be restrained from doing what benefits me just because it doesn't harm others.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 When I say "natural want", this includes everything humans generally want, it should not be limited to low level biology. psychology tells us we have empathy (natural dislike of pain experience by others). There is fascinating work on "mirror neurons". We naturally want things like: peace, harmonious relations with others...etc. It is to our benefit to cooperate with others...Plus what you said can be said of theism, God can ask you to do things that harm others then what?

[Ijustasking]

Good debate. I felt both speakers were clearly intelligent and articulate and put good arguments. Personally felt the atheist dude pushed the arguments furthest many of Mr. Andalusi's rebuttals did not adequately address the points made by Mr. Stovold. Anyway one thought I want to add: if you define morality as that which maximises wellbeing and minimises harm, then why do you need god? all you need is establish through reason and experience what that is??

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

"morality as that which maximises wellbeing and minimises harm" - that's fine, but you've just made my point. If a rapist, rapes a woman - he may view that it benefits him (sex wellbeing + passing on his genes w/ someone that is normally out of his league) - what could you say to the rapist t o make them desist? Their experience of life is individual (not collective), so as long as they are reasonably sure they can get away with the crime, it's 'moral' for them by ur reasoning.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 All I can say to a rapist is that he is causing pain to others, if he is indifferent to other's pain then there is nothing I can say to such a psychopath. All non-psychopaths in a society can do is protect themselves from such people by locking them up in prison if found guilty as deterrent and protection. Now what would YOU say to someone who is intent on rapping? am curious ...

[wesamalshaif]

@Ijustasking I think we are looking too superficially into the concept of crime and morality...let's take something that is not so obviously immoral to a majority of the secular world, and immoral according to the Quran...a perfect example, as we've discussed before, is pornography...to those of sound mind and judgement, pornography is definitely immoral...so why do secular societies make it available for the people when it does so much harm?

[Ijustasking]

@wesamalshaif I personally find pornography. In terms of harm, I don't know it might cause a bit of harm, though there is not much evidence of that I know of. It is a question of balance between personal freedom and decency and a society can have a rational discussion about it ... am not sure how effective banning would be, people will go underground, and those who wants to watch it will find a way to do so people in Iran/Saudi etc do watch pornography still through proxys despite ban so...

[Ijustasking]

@Ijustasking meant "find pornography degrading"

[Ijustasking]

@wesamalshaif also pornography is more appealing in places where there is sexual repression where people can't have normal sex, and yet can't get married easily because of economic reality which is the case of most muslim countries. People who are sexually fulfilled don't usually seek pornography ... finally islam might ban pornography but has no problems if a victorious muslim army take female captives from the defeated tribes as sex slaves... it is very odd type of morality I find...

[KNOWNMuslim001]

@Ijustasking I think you only judging the bad PEOPLE. Some PEOPLE, meaning not just Muslims but also other non-Muslims, are like, doesn't really care about their religion. So please, just judge the Muslims who has good believe in Allah SWT, not them.

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

Yeah, that's right- condemn examples you can't deal with, as 'psychopaths'. But you see, most rapists are not psychopaths, and a lot of them are merely opportunists who were drunk, or just sexually frustrated and saw no reason why they shouldn't rape a woman who was 'asking for it' (presumably by dressing provocatively) according to them. You have no way to persuade them otherwise, whereas I at least, can appeal to a number of theological arguments why they shouldn't rape.

[Ijustasking]

@mujtahid2006 they might not all be psychopath but they clearly lack empathy. my point was there is nothing YOU could do to dissuade them either.

>> whereas I at least, can appeal to a number of theological arguments why they shouldn't rape.

I doubt it, there is no evidence that belief in God does dissuades people from committing crimes they feel incline to do. E.g. Faith did not dissuade catholic priests from abusing children, there are no less theist criminals than there are atheists.

[mujtahid2006]

@Ijustasking

My point was not how successful I would be in persuading someone, my point was, that the Rapist would WIN an argument with an Atheist as to why they do not have to adopt the Morals dictated to him by other human beings (who are, by essence equally temporal, ignorant and mortal). Plus, if you think about it, Theists have more arguments for morality than Atheists do, because we can match your Ethics (taught by social conditioning), and Raise you, Heaven, hell and Human Purpose.

[Gnomefro]

Of course, what's really amusing is that the side that argues that we do need other people to determine what's right and wrong for us use a book that justifies plunder, murder, enslaving and oppression of people who don't believe as they do. When the "creator of the universe" declares that looting after slaughtering your neighbors and raping their women as "Gifts from Allah" in al anfal, it doesn't take much to dismiss them as moral ignorants.

[mujtahid2006]

@Gnomefro

"When the "creator of the universe" declares that looting after slaughtering your neighbors and raping their women as "Gifts from Allah" "

Ah, the quintessential Straw man - you and I both know it doesn't say that. Why are you lying? Oh I forgot, you need to have moral basis to tell you that lying about a group of people you hate, is wrong.

[frid9999]

The great invisible celestial dictator could never order me to accept that human slavery, sex with children and the oppression of women is moral. I am too good, strong and intelligent to be so bullied into being immoral.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

The video is two hours long, and has only been out for 15 mins, and yet you rush straight to comment on it - it seems you are also too 'strong' to be affected by argument, debate and evidence either...

[Gnomefro]

@mujtahid2006 To be fair, you can comment on the self refuting statement in the title without watching the video. It's embarrassing that we have humans that would think such a debate important at this point in time. The title says this: "Do you require someone else to determine what's right and wrong for you?". If yes, you admit that you have no tools to determine that this someone in fact is correct in his assessment and consequently you're no moral agent, if the answer is no you don't need God

[mujtahid2006]

@Gnomefro

You've made my point when you said 'what's right and wrong FOR YOU'. A Thief, rapist and murderer have all decided what was right for them! You should salute them right? Cos you can't tell them they are wrong, since that is merely your own tastes, which you can't justify with a basis outside of urself, right? You should go to a judge and tell him/her to quit their job, since how dare they tell others what is right or wrong?! right? ;)

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 You said, "A Thief, rapist and murderer have all decided what was right for them!" So has a muslim. A muslim has decided that whatever the quran says, whatever allah says (through gabriel, through muhammed), is moral. Period. If allah says that human slavery is moral then it is, by definition. Period. End of discussion. End of thoughtful reasoning. Am I right? Or am I daring to speak too plainly of the islamic concept of right and wrong (aka "morality from totalitarianism")?

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 Yes, a muslim has decided that whatever Allaah says is moral...but the difference is we see that as an objective morality...it is not something that someone can strip from us by means cultural pressure...we are soo familiar with the tactics of branding islam with the dirty steriotypes that you have just perpetuated, so it is very clear that you have not studied islam at a level that would befit such generalizations...your merely one of those "I have a Quran so I'm a scholar" types.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 Spare us the frivolous questioning wont you? while I was at work a young girl came and asked me to go to the strip club with her! so is it fair now to brand secularlists with being ok with female objectification? How many times have you been asked by a muslim to "go and capture slaves"...or "loot villages" lol.Isnt it time we break the vicious cycle of speaking against a text and people with limited understanding of it's exegetical nuances? or do you just want the ignorance to fester?

[frid9999]

@wesamalshaif 1/2 First of all, if there is an allah surely It is extremely disappointed in your lack of respect for the quran. I don't think your fooling allah or anyone. When you say "exegetical nuances", you, I and It know what you are really referring to: the parts of the quran you don't like to think about such as the endorsement of slavery.

Second of all, why didn't you go the strip club? Just because you think allah said not to go? Just following the Dictators orders eh? I would have...

[frid9999]

2/2 ... had a much better response. I would have told her I find strip clubs to be demeaning to both men and women and not a healthy expression of human sexuality at all. I would have suggested instead that perhaps we go to a lecture on human sexuality at the local university - you know the kind of lectures that prove the quran is backwards, oppressive of human sexuality (particularly female sexuality), ignorant, proven wrong by science, and demonstrably man-made.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 Hmm..so you mean a lecture of lies? who is delivering the lecture? Pat Robertson? hahah...its probably someone bereft of the basic understanding of Quran, history, hadeeth and science...I dont think shed like go to one of those...especially after secular societies made minarets illegal and prostitution legal...she is probably brainwashed to thinking that she is indeed just a toy for male amusement...thanks a lot atheists.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 haha First of all, by exegetical nuances, I meant the STRENUOUS, COMPLEX METHODOLOGY that one has to understand before opening their mouths or in this case typing their keys...I love every part of the Quran, even the parts that you are so intent on twisting...the reason I didnt go to the strip club is because I will not support a system that transforms women into pieces of meat with no soul...what if your mother or sister was there? shame on you...this is a good example of why you need

[frid9999]

@wesamalshaif You said, ".the reason I didnt go to the strip club is because I will not support a system that transforms women into pieces of meat with no soul...what if your mother or sister was there?" No. That isn't why you declined to go to the strip club. You declined for the same reason you think human slavery is moral in many situations: BECAUSE ALLAH SAID SO (or so you think). You already regard women as pieces of meat (that is why you keep them covered) - again BECAUSE ALLAH SAID SO.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 islam...youre perfectly fine with an establishment that has women naked dancing on poles while men molest her? it is saddening but this is the reality of much of the secular world.and Allaah FORCES me to respect women so He's a dictator?what silly argumentation.if Obama forced people to help the poor will people call him a dictator or a saint? what amazing audacity you have to suggest that islam oppresses women when you support establishments that are responsible for their debasement!

[frid9999]

@wesamalshaif You are just making my point for me now. Submitting to the 8th century orders of allah is not morality - it is submission to oppression. If you were practising morality you would reject the denigration of women in the quran - instead you do it and try to twist it into something moral. You have a backwards, unhealthy and unscientific view of female sexuality. Your excuse for this? You are just following orders.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 How did I make your point for you? lol...I told you that Allaah does not tell us to do any of the things which you are suggesting...if you want to be delusional and transform my replies then thats up to you...of course I reject the denigration of women, that is why I am MUSLIM! look at every form of female degradation, and you will see that secular, atheistic societies are the only ones that implement them...pornography, strip clubs, prostitution, sexism etc..are all INDUSTRIES HERE!

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 We are not just BLINDLY following orders...every single aspect of Islam is beneficial for society and with a little knowledge of shari3ah Im sure you would realize this also...but aye, there is the rub...you are perfectly fine with your "open up the book and interpret it" attitude...so when you read things "cut off the hands of the thief" you assume "aw man, how barbaric! Allaah orders you to cut off the hands of someone who steals a gumball?"..you will never see truth that way!

[frid9999]

@wesamalshaif But you are just blindly following orders. You are submitting to the orders of the Great Invisible Celestial Dictator. It decides what is right and wrong (ostensibly by the use of science-based thoughtful reasoning), not you. Your job is just to figure out what the orders are - essentially translating the poetic ancient arabic of the quran into modern languages. The part of your brain that determines right from wrong using reason has been shut down and putrefies from lack of use.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 "Great invisible Celestial Dictator"..how about a little mature dialogue without the cliches that have been uttered by atheists since the dawn of time...no, there is no blind following in islam...we have a plethora of evidences that establish the fact that the Quran is from a Higher Entity so, consequently we do what it says...not because we accept it out of blind faith but because of the Historical, linguistic, scientific, mathematical, and spiritual aspects of the Quran.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 We all submit to orders one way or another...When youre on the road, you submit to traffic laws and police...when you are with your family you submit to domestic laws and organizations like children's aid...when you are at work you submit to the regulations of your employer...when you walk you submit to the laws of gravity...you submit to all of these man made laws, so why is it when muslims say we submit to God its suddenly "Blind Following"?..our job is to find out if the Quran is

[frid9999]

@wesamalshaif You are just dancing around my point trying desperately to avoid it and never addressing it. If allah told you to stomp on a baby's head you would likely do it - unquestioningly. Because by definition stomping on a baby's head would be "good" (the islamic definition of "good" that is). This is problematic. This is fundamentally anti-human. This creates failed societies (like throughout the islamic world).

Practice science-based thoughtful reasoning if you truly want to be good.

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 it is a sin to kill babies in islam...unlike your abortion loving secular societies...what point have I "danced around"...please tell me so I can refute it until your head spins God Willing...

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 truly form a Higher Being (by using science-based thoughtful reasoning, open mindedness and logic) and THEN AND ONLY THEN can we follow what it says...because if we are in doubt about The Quran's origins then we will never truly follow it...it's like asking a kid to obey his parents when he's not really sure if they're his parents or not...

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 and we do not need to translat the "poetic ancient arabic" of the Quran to modern languages because arabic is still purely what it was during the time the Quran was revealed...it is not like aramaic, or hebrew in the sense that it is almost extinct or there are only a few communities that speak it...Quraishi arabic as it is called is still spoken in every muslim society by millions of people and the books are preserved..the Quran is the reason why arabic has been preserved!

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

You are mistaken, by overlooking the justification Muslims require to believe in the Quran in the frist place. If the Quran orders people to say, bury their first born girls alive, then we'd think: 'God wouldn't order that - it is against the innate Human nature he created us with, and thus, such an order wouldn't originate from God, nor the book that contains it'. But because the Quran agrees with human nature - it has proved itself consistent with what we expect would be from God.

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 What a load of rubbish. The quran is crystal clear in its endorsement of human slavery and denigration of women. These things to do not "agree with human nature". They are immoral commands from 8th century oppressors passed down to you. Every muslim deals with these quran problems by some combination of defending/acting out the immorality, or twisting the orders into something which science-based thoughtful reasoning indicates *is* moral. This is not to be respected.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

"The quran is crystal clear in its endorsement of human slavery and denigration of women." - the Quran gives full human rights to slaves, and even makes setting them free a means of worship. Secondly, the Quran gives slaves the right to buy themselves out of slavery, and makes taking new slaves from free people, forbidden. As for denigration of women, you have nothing. It's a bit rich you saying this, coming from a Western background, and doing it urself - watched porn haven't you?

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 As for your issue with me not watching the video in its entirety... how long did it take you to compare science-based thoughtful reasoning to rape, theft and murder? Not long. You're the one who believes an old book (from a god who is doing a perfect imitation of a mythical god) perfectly defines right and wrong no matter what. You proudly reject any science, reason and fact which shatters your mythology. So who has really practiced thoughtful consideration of right and wrong?

[wesamalshaif]

@frid9999 

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

Science is the study of the material world, not the study of immaterial concepts and notions, like morality. So there is no such thing as 'science-based thoughtful reasoning' when it comes to morals and how humans should behave socially - unless your a Social Darwinist (like the Nazis). I accept science, but show me an Scientific experiment where they have proven 'good' and 'evil' to exist? Or proven 'justice' and 'equality' emerge out of a petri dish? lol

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 You said, "So there is no such thing as science-based thoughtful reasoning" You are completely mistaken. Are these not moral questions?... 1. At what age should young adults be allowed to vote as adults? 2. Should fathers choose/arrange a daughters husband for her? 3. Should human slavery be allowed? 4. Should men and women have equal rights under the law? These are moral questions where science-based thoughtful reasoning provides us the best answers.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

"You are completely mistaken. Are these not moral questions?..." Yes, but they're not scientific questions! 1) What age should a adult vote is outside science, people could be intellectually immature, even if they are physically mature. 2) Science has NO opinion regarding whether anyone can arrange marriages for anyone else. 3) Science has NO opinion on slavery, and 4) Science could be also used to argue that men and women are not equal (since they are biologically different). :)

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 Absolute nonsense. 'At what age should a young adult be allowed to vote?' is a moral question whose answer lies in the sciences of human brain development, sociology, child development and education, psychology, organizational behaviour, and the design of political/accountable systems.

You have put blinders on and are missing most of the world around you. You are demonstrating perfectly exactly why the islamic world is a failure by virtually every measure of human wellness.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

You don't understand what Science is. Science does not discuss Voting, because voting is not a materialistic process of the natural world, neither is education, or sociology, and especially the design of political systems (hmm - you sound communist). Poetry, literature, art are not sciences either. Science just studies the material things that exist, it does not answer whether any human should even vote in the first place, or the preferred condition they should be in, to vote.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

"You are demonstrating perfectly exactly why the islamic world is a failure by virtually every measure of human wellness."

Considering the Islamic world dominated science (and invented a few new disciplines to boot!, like Sociology) for 600 years, I'd say you were as ignorant about history, as you are about the definition of Science.

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 And about issue #4 - the equality of men and women under the law. I just want to point out how you fundamentally misunderstand the issue - which again, I think shows the long term ill effects of not practising science-based thoughtful reasoning daily. The issue isn't whether men and women are the same (penis same as vagina) - the issue is one of equal RIGHTS under the law. The fact that you misunderstand basics like that supports my point that islam misses the boat on morality.

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

Tell me what sciencific experiments have proven the existence of RIGHTS, and the existence of LAW. Please point me in the direction of the appropriate scientific journals or papers outlining the experiment they did. Then I'll partially accept your point. Secondly, Men and Women generally have distinct biological attributes. One is bigger, taller and physically more capable (look at segregation at the Olympics), the other can produce offspring. You haven't shown why they are equal :)

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 Let me make sure I understand you... are you saying men and women should not have equal rights under the law? Is this your claim (of invisible allah's rule)?

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

No, I believe men and women are equal in the eyes of God - however, I'm merely pointing out that the Science-thinking (i.e. applying it in areas it wasn't designed for) you love so much, would actually say the opposite! Science says Women and Men are not equal, for the simple fact that we're not physically identical, nor have the same capacity. Simples! :)

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 It's one strawman after another from you. Why do you have to misrepresent science-based thoughtful reasoning to oppose it?

But anyway... so I think that men and women should have equal rights under the law. And you claim that allah thinks that men and women should have equal rights under the law (and since allah tells you what to think, you should also think that men and women should have equal rights under the law). So the key question... WHY do you think allah has this rule?

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

No, I said men and women are equal in the eyes of God - because God created them with identical souls wrapped up in different bodies). The souls become differentiated due to piety or impiety, and thus make themselves unequal in the eyes of God. As for Rights, they differ due to peoples needs and capacities. Like e.g. disabled/old etc people have different rights due to them from the state, than you. We all have different needs, and so our rights are a little different under law

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 Okay, I think I understand the problem now. You actually don't understand the concept of "equal rights under the law". Can I respectfully suggest you do a bit of reading on the subject. If I can't get you to give a straight answer to the question "Do men and women have equal rights under the law (according to allah's orders)?", then there is no point in continuing our exchange.

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 Further on science-based thoughtful reasoning... even you, and most other muslims, admit that science-based thoughtful reasoning must be the basis of morality - it's just that you think it is the Great Dictator's job to do the science-based thoughtful reasoning not ours - our job is just to submit after It does the thinking for us. You do this every time you try to explain allah's reasoning for one of his (bad) rules, don't you?

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

"muslims, admit that science-based thoughtful reasoning must be the basis of morality" - not really. One can only assess morality by comparing behaviour to human purpose. And one can only believe in human purpose, if you believe that everything in the universe possesses an intention. Science does not tell you intent, it just tells you what's existent (and for matter only). I see humans as purposed, you see humans as accidents, now which one of us has a real basis for morality? :)

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

"You're the one who believes an old book (from a god who is doing a perfect imitation of a mythical god)"

Tell me Frid, how many mythical gods were neither depicted in a shape, form, image or anthropomorphisation? I don't believe in one particular god, rather I believe in the one and only GOD, who has no anthropomorphic features. How many Mythical gods can claim that? and if you find one, whose to say that was not an older word for the same God I worship? :)

[frid9999]

@mujtahid2006 Huh? You are you suggesting that the perfect vacuum of evidence for the existence of your god is a good thing. Stop being silly. Show me your god.

Seriously, show me your god.

No really, stop the silly word play. Show me your god.

Actually, forget you... Allah? Are you there? Stop doing a perfect imitation of a mythical god - show yourself. Stop hiding. Hello? ...hello?

[mujtahid2006]

@frid9999

You can't see me, so how do you know I exist? Second;y, there is plenty of evidence for God - i.e. everything that exists. But that's only if you believe in Cause and Effect, as any rational person would :)