Revisionist Islamic scholars trying to claim Aisha was much older than 9 when Mo consumated marriage

[MicroBrew]

If you have make up lies to cover for your guy being a creep, maybe he shouldn't be your guy.

That's the amazing thing ; that Muslims can worship this guy knowing he was a pedophile. How do they just ignore such a major aspect of Muhammed.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

I'm a christian yes. Its just funny how atheists condemn muhammad when under pure materialism he did nothing wrong at all. In fact Muhammad was a huge success when you think about it. Muhammad passed on his DNA with many many women and built up a HUGE following during his lifetime.

How is anything muhammad did wrong according to pure materialism and evolutionary thinking? Muhammad was chasing his fleshly desires and achieved everything he wanted. Tell me how that is wrong according to pure materialism.

Well this is a retarded response. I love how Christians just make up in what atheist believe. Atheist dont believe in a God, period. As much as you want to believe in a God. Your moral belief are made up by humans no different from atheist. I don't need a myth to let me know that rapping a little girl is wrong. I have the intelligence to understand human suffering. If you need ancient myths to direct your personal morals you have no morality.

 

[ValidArmani]

Well even the NT condones slavery. You are are the 1 trying to deflect now by not answering my argument that if theists are soo dam moral then how do you explain all the evil shit in the OT and Quran and slavery in the NT and all the immoral things Christendom has done . The Catholic church covered up pedophilia for a long time.

So you think only Western morality thinks pedophilia is bad. That's quite a supremacist way of thinking.

If Western morality was shaped by Christianity and you obviously think morals come from Christianity then how come the West engaged in widespread genocides and slavery. Segregation was the norm in the South until the 60s, and the Christian South supported it.

What evidence do you have to show that atheists and agnostics are amoral or immoral.

I can say that the only reason you are being moral is because you are scared of punishment in the afterlife so really you aren't being genuinely moral.

--

Anyways you are derailing this thread into an argument on whether Atheists and Agnostic can be moral . That is a different thread. This thread is about Islamic revisionism to whitewash Pedo Muhammed.

"Anyways you are derailing this thread into an argument on whether Atheists and Agnostic can be moral"

False. I never said anything about atheists not being able to be moral agents. You can't seem to grasp my argument Micro.

Its about having a foundation for objective moral values. This is what pure christianity provides. Atheism cannot provide this. Atheism always leads to moral relativism. Moral relativism leads to great evil.

 

[dontsnitch]

a) animals (other than humans) exhibit moral behavior
b) you theists cherry-pick what you follow from the New and Old testament and if you are Muslim then you cherry-pick what you follow from the Quran.

These points do not prove morality exists. Displaying moral behaviour means absolutely nothing, and the second point is irrelevant since all you end up trying to argue that morality doesn't exist.

Of course murder is wrong, our morality is shaped by a survival instinct melded with our empathy and intellect. If we say that murder is moral than we are saying it's ok for our families and us to be killed. You have a strange ideas concerning evolutionary morality.

We meet again.

You use the word "wrong", but you should know that you've run into the is-ough problem, which is begging the question. If we accept that morality is shaped by instinct, a right or wrong does not follow.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

These points do not prove morality exists. Displaying moral behaviour means absolutely nothing, and the second point is irrelevant since all you end up trying to argue that morality doesn't exist.



We meet again.

You use the word "wrong", but you should know that you've run into the is-ough problem, which is begging the question. If we accept that morality is shaped by instinct, a right or wrong does not follow.

That's just semantics, in this discussion wrong = immoral and right = moral.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Well you're ranting about the old testament now and trying to avoid my point about atheism and morality.

It wouldn't matter if muhammad had sex with a 1 year old and a camel at the same time it wouldn't be wrong under atheistic materialism.

The reason you think muhammad was bad is because all of our western morality has been shaped by christianity.

Lol the secularism from Christianity is what made the West.

 

[dontsnitch]

That's just semantics, in this discussion wrong = immoral and right = moral.

You said morality was based on instinct. Right or wrong does not exist in this model, you're engaging in semantics, not me. You have not proved right or wrong exists, you just asserted it.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

"Anyways you are derailing this thread into an argument on whether Atheists and Agnostic can be moral"

False. I never said anything about atheists not being able to be moral agents. You can't seem to grasp my argument Micro.

Its about having a foundation for objective moral values. This is what pure christianity provides. Atheism cannot provide this. Atheism always leads to moral relativism. Moral relativism leads to great evil.

An evolutionary model of morality does exist, go ahead and try and test it with me.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You said morality was based on instinct. Right or wrong does not exist in this model, you're engaging in semantics, not me. You have not proved right or wrong exists, you just asserted it.

What's your definition of right and wrong?

 

[dontsnitch]

What's your definition of right and wrong?

Funny, I was about to ask you the same question.

Right and wrong are absolute ethical positions that are not subject to debate. They are universal laws of conduct.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'm off to bed, I'll catch you another night. it's not like we haven't run this gambit before.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Funny, I was about to ask you the same question.

Right and wrong are absolute ethical positions that are not subject to debate. They are universal laws of conduct.

That's where we differ (Surprise!), right and wrong must be evaluated with each situation in my world view

 

[dontsnitch]

You're tempting me, but I got an early morning. I'll catch you later if you haven't found a sparring partner by then.

 

[uncommon]

Hopefully extremism is like a roll of tape, where its painfully difficult to find progress (or the start of the roll)

So you look for the tiny edge to pick at, (this revision could be that edge) and if the extremists accept that tiny edge to lift up you can hopefully apply leverage and get some ancient thinking removed from that script which would definitely be a breath of fresh air for the modern world.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You're tempting me, but I got an early morning. I'll catch you later if you haven't found a sparring partner by then.

Everyone else taps out way too early, it takes you a few pages... j/k LOL

 

[ValidArmani]

An evolutionary model of morality does exist, go ahead and try and test it with me.

Yes it does and that proves my point! If you believe in evolution you believe that morality can be changed, developed and can be influenced by by CULTURE.

If evolution is true then maybe on a planet light years away from earth another species evolved with radically different morals than us humans. Maybe we would consider this alien morality "evil" but that WOULD NOT make the aliens moral structure OBJECTIVELY evil. We would just disagree with their morality.

Who's to say that the morality we developed is BETTER than the morality of the hostile aliens on a purely materialistic atheistic worldview?



You're proving my point. If you're going to argue with me at least grasp my argument.

 

[MicroBrew]

"Anyways you are derailing this thread into an argument on whether Atheists and Agnostic can be moral"

False. I never said anything about atheists not being able to be moral agents. You can't seem to grasp my argument Micro.

Its about having a foundation for objective moral values. This is what pure christianity provides. Atheism cannot provide this. Atheism always leads to moral relativism. Moral relativism leads to great evil.

You imply that religion and more specifically Christianity is needed for a moral society and that is false, as history proves .

You 1st say that you are not arguing Atheists can't teach moral truths then you go on to say Atheism leads to moral relativism which leads to great evil. You contradict yourself. How come Europe with its Christian faith engaged in great evil , from colonialism to slavery to the 2 world wards.

Atheists and agnostics are moral and it comes from an innate sense ; now evolutionary biologists would explain it away partly as an evolutionary strategy carried over from our ancient ancestors's life on the savanna's of Africa.

Enlightenment and secularism is what made the West progress towards a more equitable and moral society.

 

[MicroBrew]

These points do not prove morality exists. Displaying moral behaviour means absolutely nothing, and the second point is irrelevant since all you end up trying to argue that morality doesn't exist.

In that case nothing can prove morality exists.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yes it does and that proves my point! If you believe in evolution you believe that morality can be changed, developed and can be influenced by by CULTURE.

If evolution is true then maybe on a planet light years away from earth another species evolved with radically different morals than us humans. Maybe we would consider this alien morality "evil" but that WOULD NOT make the aliens moral structure OBJECTIVELY evil. We would just disagree with their morality.

Who's to say that the morality we developed is BETTER than the morality of the hostile aliens on a purely materialistic atheistic worldview?



You're proving my point. If you're going to argue with me at least grasp my argument.

What are you talking about when you say "different". Please give me an example.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

You are simply regurgitating the classic theist attack on Atheists and Agnostics, namely that they can't be moral without believing in a supreme deity. The problem you theists have to face with this line of reasoning is:
.

He actually never said atheists can't be moral, only that since there's no unchanging standard of morality, it changes with the society one lives in. So an atheist in 21st century America is moral relative to his time and place, and an illiterate epileptic in Arabia in the 7th century was also moral relative to his time and place, even if his lifestyle was abhorrent to us in 21st century America. Therefore, atheists can't claim moral supremacy over the goatfucker from 1400 years ago because there is no eternal standard of morality for us.

A Christian, on the other hand, has a text that lays out what morality is. It isn't dependent on time or place.

It's a much better and more interesting stance than the usual "atheists aren't moral" one.