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

[mygoddotcom]

14 or 15 or 19, yeah sounds legit.

Legit old for those days standards

 

[berimBOWLoh]

hey if Christians can turn Jesus into a straight man why cant Muslims turn Mo into a non pedo??

 

[Squarechoke]

I fully expect such things. Religious people today are constantly trying to twist the holy texts to not seem horrible by today's moral standards, as our societies have grown in morality with secular philosophers and not stuck with the religious texts that should be the word of their gods. Of course it's embarrassing for a modern person when there are things like pedophilia in your holy book that's supposed to be preaching a timeless way to live.

Personally I don't see how you can claim to be a follower of a religion when you completely ignore lots of part of the holy text, try to twist other parts with contrived reasoning and don't do your best to live up to the rules and messages of the books. To me that's like claiming to be a law abiding citizen because you're explaining away the crimes you're committing by saying that some laws don't matter and that you interpret other laws in your own way. It just doesn't seem honest, neither towards others or to oneself. People can do what they want as long as they don't harm others though, so I won't judge people based on their beliefs if their actions are sound.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Most atheists don't believe in "pure materialism" or whatever. They still have morals....

Where do the morals come from?

 

[Squarechoke]

Where do the morals come from?

Reasoning. You don't find morals outside of humanity, it's not a force of nature, it's just a code of ethics that we share with some and not with others. Not all people think the same things are morally right, which is especially easy to see when looking at history. That also fully displays that morals have nothing to do with religion since if there were we'd be morally incorrect to oppose slavery, to let people live for things we don't even consider legally punishable crimes, etc.

The morals of the western world of today derive a lot from secular philosophy, they aren't ripped from holy books. Hence why religions people are constantly scrambling to ignore some parts of their holy texts and twist the interpretation of others.

 

[dontsnitch]

In that case nothing can prove morality exists.

I never said otherwise.

He gets what you are saying even though it's wrong. Your morality changed from the old testament to the new. That's hardly universal.

You're too quick to shift gears into Christian apologetics. This conversation is more interesting without invoking the Bible so early.

Valdi made the same argument I made last time. If morality is a byproduct of evolution it is not absolute, and, it's subject to change. This substantially reduces the impact of right and wrong to where the terms are meaningless. The is-ought problem is still stubbornly planted.

In a model where God dictates what right and wrong are, they are universal principles not subject to change.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Reasoning. You don't find morals outside of humanity, it's not a force of nature, it's just a code of ethics that we share with some and not with others. Not all people think the same things are morally right, which is especially easy to see when looking at history. That also fully displays that morals have nothing to do with religion since if there were we'd be morally incorrect to oppose slavery, to let people live for things we don't even consider legally punishable crimes, etc.

The morals of the western world of today derive a lot from secular philosophy, they aren't ripped from holy books. Hence why religions people are constantly scrambling to ignore some parts of their holy texts and twist the interpretation of others.

Can you source where the Bible condones slavery? It gave guidelines on how to treat slaves which was better then all their surrounding neighbors. Also they were strictly against manstealing which was punishable by death. People would often sell themselves into slavery to pay a debt.

As to your answer, you admit that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective then what authority does anybody have over another? Who are you to say slavery is wrong etc.?

 

[dontsnitch]

Who are you to say slavery is wrong etc.?

Right or wrong have moral connotations, so they don't fit in this model. He shouldn't say x is wrong unless he defines wrongness apart from normative claims. There are obvious reasons why we don't want to do that, but it logically follows.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Right or wrong have moral connotations, so they don't fit in this model. He shouldn't say x is wrong unless he defines wrongness apart from normative claims. There are obvious reasons why we don't want to do that, but it logically follows.

Atheists prefer to avoid this topic, or pretend your strawmanning them as if they aren't capable of being moral. They can be, jut have no reason to be

 

[mtron929]

Atheists prefer to avoid this topic, or pretend your strawmanning them as if they aren't capable of being moral. They can be, jut have no reason to be

Well, atheists have diverse views with regards to morality/ethics. For example, I classify myself as an atheist/agnostic and I have a very pragmatic view on the issues of morality. That is, I fully agree with Hume that is/ought problem is a concern and morality is pretty much subjective. That said, certain systems just work better for not just the society as a whole but for the individual that live in that society. For example, with everything else being equal, a society that encourages murder is not going to last a long time and as a participant of this society, it seems like a terrible place to be. So it is good that murder is seen as "wrong" even though it is all very subjective.

With that said, setting aside the pragmatic issue, I find murder to be abhorrent on a fundamental level, probably due to the genes and the way that I was brought up in society. And it is good that pragmatism agrees well with the gut instinctive feeling as it makes it that much easier to me to live in peace in the society.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I never said otherwise.



You're too quick to shift gears into Christian apologetics. This conversation is more interesting without invoking the Bible so early.

Valdi made the same argument I made last time. If morality is a byproduct of evolution it is not absolute, and, it's subject to change. This substantially reduces the impact of right and wrong to where the terms are meaningless. The is-ought problem is still stubbornly planted.

In a model where God dictates what right and wrong are, they are universal principles not subject to change.

That's an assertion that neither of you have been able to substantiate. How can it change? Can you give me an example.

 

[DevilsLettuce]

Yes they do, I haven't met one atheist that isn't a pure materialist. Atheists have opinions on morality based on what their culture thinks is right and wrong.

Muhammad could turn around and say that his culture is actually doing the right things. How are atheist opinions on morality better than muhammads opinions on morality?

In the end according to evolution and materialism whoever is the strongest will be able to impose their "morality" in the end.

I'm trying to illustrate that atheistic materialism is actually no better that islam because they both place no restrictions on behavior our christian moral structure would consider "evil".

Atheism and materialism cannot tell us what is objectively evil. Evolution actually SUPPORTS behavior that we would consider evil.

You're a shit poster. You're defending pedophiles because your religion teaches you that pedophilia is OK - You're just as disgusting as any Muslim. You're a pedophile apologist.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Well, atheists have diverse views with regards to morality/ethics. For example, I classify myself as an atheist/agnostic and I have a very pragmatic view on the issues of morality. That is, I fully agree with Hume that is/ought problem is a concern and morality is pretty much subjective. That said, certain systems just work better for not just the society as a whole but for the individual that live in that society. For example, with everything else being equal, a society that encourages murder is not going to last a long time and as a participant of this society, it seems like a terrible place to be. So it is good that murder is seen as "wrong" even though it is all very subjective.

With that said, setting aside the pragmatic issue, I find murder to be abhorrent on a fundamental level, probably due to the genes and the way that I was brought up in society. And it is good that pragmatism agrees well with the gut instinctive feeling as it makes it that much easier to me to live in peace in the society.

I shouldn't have said have no reason to be moral, as it can be socially beneficial to be moral. Do you judge people in history acknowledging that the social climate they lived in would change their morality? In other words why do so many people judge the people of the past? Are they justified?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

That's an assertion that neither of you have been able to substantiate. How can it change? Can you give me an example.

By definition a morality based in evolution is subject to change.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You're a shit poster. You're defending pedophiles because your religion teaches you that pedophilia is OK - You're just as disgusting as any Muslim. You're a pedophile apologist.

I don't recognize the poster so I can't speak for his oher posts, but you are off the deep end with this critique. What's the matter can't battle his ideas with your own? You have to start crying?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

This isn't any gap; it's the fundamental question facing our species. This notion of a Creator isn't specific to any single religion, but the Christians (and other Western philosophers) have forwarded the most compelling philosophical arguments in service of such an idea.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and though normally that logic isn't of any use, certainly with regard to such a fundamental question for which nobody alive has ever been able to provide evidence, that is a worthy realization to keep in mind. Certainly God isn't proven by its virtue, but God simultaneously is neither disproved; nor should we assign degrees of certainty with regard to "absence of evidence" based on observations in the material realm when this fundamental question-- why there is something rather than nothing-- extends into an immaterial realm, and thus, for which logical arguments of material likelihood hold no value. That is to say, there is no precedent to explain or verify if a Creator gave birth to us all, so our uncertainty is absolute. It will never be anything but absolute. The only threshold which might cure this is death, but possibly not even that, and it's depressing to accept that if the answer is negative that one will never be aware of it.

This is what I consider to be the position of the "True Agnostic", which I am, and why I regard it discrete from both Theism and Atheism; because it isn't a matter of belief assigned a positive or negative value, but rather asserts a positive value to an entirely different perspective of this immutably unique question rooted in the observation of how that prior belief's values are structured. It's ontological, not semantic, so it can't be condensed to a puerile four-chamber internet grid that has unfortunately become highly popular for framing the question among those who gravitate to such reductionist simplicity in spite of what is obviously a question that persists because it isn't simple or answerable at all:

The above is Intro 101. It's designed to inform neophytes of the basics and its structure. But it's purely semantic: binary logic. It fails to account for a third competing value attached to neither.


Personally, the arguments that cause me to roll my eyes are those which assert that morality is only morality if it is universal, and that such a universal morality can only be valid by the grace of God.

If pressed, I believe that 99.9% of non believers would describe themselves as Agnostic Atheists as we adhere to Philosophical skepticism. I am not absolutely sure there isn't a god(s) but for the most part it's existence is irrelevant.

I agree with your view of absolute morality.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

By definition a morality based in evolution is subject to change.

How so? Evolutionary morality is based on survability guided by empathy and cognitive ability. How does this formula change?

 

[mtron929]

I shouldn't have said have no reason to be moral, as it can be socially beneficial to be moral. Do you judge people in history acknowledging that the social climate they lived in would change their morality? In other words why do so many people judge the people of the past? Are they justified?

Well, it depends on who. For example, I would judge Napoleon differently from Muhammad. One guy is just some famous person in history whereas the other one is one of the central figures in a religion where there should be universal moral codes that spans all space and time. Thus, the followers for that particular religion should feel conflicted about the actions of Muhammad or their God(s) if it does not agree with their ethics. I don't think you can simplify excuse these figures of being prisoners of the moment in that society/culture because they espouse ethics that are supposed to be the Truth for all space/time. So in that sense, I would think the story would be more consistent (not necessarily more right) if pedophilia is still seen as perfectly acceptable for the 21century Muslims.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

How so? Evolutionary morality is based on survability guided by empathy and cognitive ability. How does this formula change?

False it's based on survivability full stop. At the present time is it guided by empathy and cognitive ability? That is debatable as the Muslims are the fastest spreading people in the world I believe

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Well, it depends on who. For example, I would judge Napoleon differently from Muhammad. One guy is just some famous person in history whereas the other one is one of the central figures in a religion where there should be universal moral codes that spans all space and time. Thus, the followers for that particular religion should feel conflicted about the actions of Muhammad or their God(s) if it does not agree with their ethics. I don't think you can simplify excuse these figures of being prisoners of the moment in that society/culture because they espouse ethics that are supposed to be the Truth for all space/time. So in that sense, I would think the story would be more consistent (not necessarily more right) if pedophilia is still seen as perfectly acceptable for the 21century Muslims.

Good point. If somebody claims to live by a certain moral code, then holding them to that standard only makes sense.