Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

That's a joke, right? :roflmao:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you recall the recent case where a girl was to be whipped for not being mehram and getting raped? What happened to that case? Did the ulema concede to the king or vice versa?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i refuse the red herring
trends rather than specifics
the "bitch" was rhetoric
yet, barring a miracle, fundie influence rises rather than wanes

reign these fuckers in before dawkins orders a nuke attack
you might be collateral damage

just like that? rather naive

critique this as an intellectual exercise

i like an expansion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the king likes to pretend that he is bowing to the dictates of a religious authority. However, the religious authority itself is subservient to the wishes of the king who is the highest authority legally and has the power to pardon and override any decisions by the ulema.

 

that holds true now
the ulema cannot fight an f-16

 

Don't be silly. Even Abdullah did not bow to Abdul Wahab.

 

perhaps thats due to the fact that the founder of wahabism lived a century before that particular king's time?

why the disconnect?
i am supporting your claim that the king is nominally more powerful than the fundies
i know this cos he is still around

here is how it works and still does to this day...

Upon his expulsion from 'Uyayna, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was invited to settle in neighboring Dir'iyya by its ruler Muhammad ibn Saud in 1740 (1157 AH). Two of Ibn Saud's brothers had been students of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in Uyayna, and are said to have played a role in convincing Ibn Saud to take him in. Ibn Saud's wife is also reported to have been a convert to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's cause. Upon arriving in Diriyya, a pact was made between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, by which Ibn Saud pledged to implement Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings and enforce them on neighboring towns, while Ibn Saud and his family would remain the temporal imams ("leaders"). of the movement. (wiki shit)


comprende? politics.
scratch my back and i shall scratch yours

 

lordy lordy
i cannot believe some indians venerate foreigners

 

Maalish, I confused Abdulaziz with Abdullah, it was an honest mistake

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The bugger destroyed priceless historical structures for his fundie hood

 

We were speaking of the effects on the Western economies.

Which were not nearly as large.

North America north of Mexico was conquered, not robbed - the stuff stayed put, and the people moved in (luckily for them, disease preceded their bad intentions). America is Western, in this discussion.

But the atheists or doubters were invisible, for some reason, and the logical structure of your rhetoric goes all to hell in the neighborhood of that topic - witness the OP title.

He's not in my denomination. And he seems civil enough - hasn't said anything outlandish that I know of. Tantrum's blame lies elsewhere.

 

sam is a godsend cos most atheists on this board are also hardcore materialists
the fucks probably imagine an implicit correlation

 

Don't think so. Material/spiritual is mostly a theistic split. Find the world, the natural, spiritual.

 

cannot compute
do elaborate

 

And you still haven't answered my question ...

I had thought that in accord with your religion, you would have specific grounds for why you think one ought to be kind even to atheists - for example "God wishes that we treat all people kindly," or "Everyone is subject to karma, and one would make bad karma if one would unnecessarily treat other people unkindly - and one doesn't want to make bad karma," or something.

Would you not teach your children your religion?
Or is liberalism your religion?


Given the thread topic -and your other thread on whether atheists indoctrinate their children, I expect you would take a more definitive stance on such practical issues as explaining to your children why they should be kind to people.

 

I'm puzzled as to what exactly you seek, I've elaborated my own conditions pretty well, I think.

As to why one should be kind, an example can be:

‘It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that ... give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts - these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)’
(Surah al-Baqarah 2:177)

If one aims to be righteousness, it is not sufficient to simply believe in God. Belief should be accompanied by actions that reflect your status as a Muslim. As such, anyone who simply mouths good intentions without carrying them out is falling short of doing what is considered right.

As you can see, the single most important principles after belief are charity, truth and tolerance.

 

Not really until now.

I wanted to see why you think that social propriety and equality towards all groups should be pursued.

So you think that it is out of love for God that one ought to be kind to everyone - if I am understanding you correctly.
And that out of love for God social propriety and equality towards all groups should be pursued.


There are several possible reasons why a person thinks it is important or necessary to be kind to others, or that social propriety and equality towards all groups should be pursued. Love of God is just one of those reasons.

Many atheists, too, hold that it is important or necessary to be kind to others, or that social propriety and equality towards all groups should be pursued. But they have different reasons for that, "love for God" is not among those reasons.

Charity, truth and tolerance - something that many atheists also support.
And again, there are different reasons why different people pursue charity, truth and tolerance.

If we are to look into where or how there is room for abuse in either theism or atheism, given that both to some extent seem to pursue the same things, room for abuse will possibly be in the reasons people state for pursuing what they pursue.

 

One has to rise beyond love of the self to be able to consider the other. Love of God is love of the universe and all that exists in it. It is a recognition that everyone has a right to exist and to exist without oppression. Another example:

"O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." 49:13

There is a notion of inalienable rights which cannot or should not be undermined by any organisation or institution. Which of course, highlights the hypocrisy of those who claim to be acting in the interests of others while filling their own coffers at their expense.

 

I recognize the everyone has a right to exist and to exist without oppression, how could that be?