Open Debate: Evolution.

[Muslim]

I require no authority to threaten and slander anyone.

What if someone comes and beats your ass up then? are you going to go running to the police?

It is my pram and they are my toys.

Still, throwing them recklessly can hurt someone.

The pope and the queen are not necessarily and automatically greater than I.

Yes they are, they are respected by masses. You're not.

By continuing the opposition to birth control on a planet whose greatest problem is overpopulation the pope is arguably guilty of far greater evil than any muslim suicide bomber.

So you're in favor of suicide bombers and murders to reduce the population? the biggest threat to the world is nuclear weapons, and global warming.

Calling an asshole an asshole my be uncivil, but it is hardly barbaric.

Thats debatable, anyone can say the same thing about you and calls you as an asshole.

Intolerance of ignorance, prejudice and ethnocentricity is hardly a bad thing.

I think you should get laid.

 

[Ophiolite]

What if someone comes and beats your ass up then? are you going to go running to the police?

That depends how badly they beat me up. Perhaps I shall be unable to crawl, let alone run.
However, your remark is quite irrelevant. No authority is required to threaten or slander someone. Why would it be? Authority should never be granted for these actions by others - that leads to state sponsored oppression. Only self authorisation is appropriate. It is best accompanied by full recognition that such actions are likely to carry consequences.

Still, throwing them recklessly can hurt someone.

For which one must assume responsibility. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

Yes they are, they are respected by masses. You're not..

I don't give a flying aardvark what the masses think. The masses are bunch of weak willed sheep.

So you're in favor of suicide bombers and murders to reduce the population? the biggest threat to the world is nuclear weapons, and global warming.

And both are by products of our grossly excess population. (Those masses again.) And stop the gross misinterpretation of what I have written: it reveals you as either a fool or a liar.

Thats debatable, anyone can say the same thing about you and calls you as an asshole.

Which is still not barbaric. Come on Muslim. Get real. In what way can someone calling me an asshole be even remotely thought of as barbaric. Don't be so utterly stupid.

I think you should get laid.

A take that to mean you have, in essence, no meaningful or effective response to any of my arguments. Learn to offer some resistance or I'll just resort to insulting you.

 

[leopold]

muslim
the biggest threats to this planet are not nuclear weapons or global warming but humanity. for they alone have the power to destroy it or to save it.
i wonder which option they will exercise.

 

[GeoffP]

Just because you have limited knowledge on the subject and have not heard of these scholars doesn’t equate that they are hading or do not exist. There is Harun Yahya, Dr. Zakir, the owner of answering Christianity to mention a few. These are well established and respected Islamic scholars.

The very sane - excuse me, same Harun Yahya who doesn't believe in evolution of any kind, and who's children's da'wa site said that believer children shouldn't play with non-believers or make friends with them? You know, like the Quran says. The same one I called a "punk" in an email and challenged on evolution and who didn't dare respond? That Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar)?

Hmm.

Zakir? The guy William Campbell demolished a few years back? That Zakir?

Also, I don’t know how you can come to the rationale that someone shouldn’t be killed for blasphemy if that is the law.

Then allow me to clarify: the blasphemy law, and sharia in general, is a stupid law, and if you support it in any way then you are a stupid person. I hope this is sufficiently clear? If the law were that someone should be killed for being muslim in a Western state, would that be a good law or a bad law in your opinion?

Back then you could get killed for insulting the king today in England if you slander the queen you can be prosecuted. If you slander the Pope in Vatican you can be locked up.

The telling phrases being "back then" and "slander". Show me where one can be imprisoned specifically for insulting the Queen (God Save Her) and the Pope as functions of their state.

If you blasphemous against Christianity in the Philippines it’s a death penalty.

Also an evil law. Incidentally, do you have any proof?

Anyway under Sharia law the death penalty if passed often but carried out very seldomley, I mean when was the last time you saw a public handing or a beheading for blasphemy in an Islamic country.

About a month ago, when the Christian convert was going to be sentenced to death. Did you miss that whole shitstorm? We have, of course, no way of knowing how many people are sentenced more routinely by mob justice short-circuiting the more formal legal process; a woman in Niger was recently stoned to death in a long, agonizing ordeal for insulting the ridiculous Mohammed among others:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/north/nt129062006.html

Also I would just like to mention something I am trying to have a civilised debate here with you, so I request that you show some civility when talking about historical figures (Mohammed) Islam also not to use ad hominems when addressing these issues.

Message noted, and refused. I am entirely free to insult Mohammed, a historical figure I put on moral par with Gengis Khan, as I like. You cannot issue a fatwa against me - they don't apply in my country and my position is, in any event, well founded.

We were talking about, does the death penalty apply to Muslims for committing crimes and yes it does. Such as for murder, so I don’t know why you’re trying to make it out as if the death penalty is only applied to apostates.

We certainly were not talking about whether the death penalty does or does not apply to muslims. We were talking about whether the penalty for apostacy is death in islamic countries, and it largely is. This is wrong; it is evil. I hope you can follow my reasoning. Whether it is the law is utterly immaterial.

These laws are to protect the law abiding citizens.

From the evil apostates? My, my: a fearful bunch the faithful must be.

In Saudi Arabia, the penalty for thieving chopping off of the hands, and works in Arabia you can leave a pot of gold in a busy street and you can bet your life it will still be there when you come back.

No: your hand, actually. You could bet your life that if a man leaves islam he will be killed for it. So what is your last point meant to illustrate? That the filthy apostate gets what he or she deserves?

No that is not true which Islamic nation regards it as treason?

And round and round Muslim's arguments go. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan - the list goes on and on. Why else is it punished? And what constitutes 'blasphemy'? 'Making partners with god?' That's how islam describes Christianity. So if I, in a pique of good morals, converted away from islam to Christianity, I would be by definition guilty of 'blasphemy'.

Sure if this apostate commits blasphemy then the death penalty should be applied.

This is the point that 'Muslim' loses all right to the generosity of free debate. He feels that death is a suitable punishment for blasphemy. Well then - to hell with you and your revolting prophet. What will you do now?

It’s a consistent law.

It's a stupid law, written by a fool to be interpreted by children.

You have misconstrued, that verse to suit your own agenda and taken it totally out of context the actual verse says this: “2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.”

And what 'religion' is Mohammed describing there? What 'religion' is he part of? What does Mohammed think of other 'religions'? He describes them as false beliefs, not 'religion'. The implication is clear and also occurs in translations of al-Buhkari. 'Religion' in these texts is islam. You will note that extant interpretations of sharia permit conversion among other faiths - which I think is a point you yourself made earlier, or perhaps DH or samcdkey. It does not permit conversion from islam.

I can’t believe this I am against the killing of apostates; you’re the one that is in favour of it.

You most certainly are; sharia does not permit leaving islam. If you care to make the pathetic distinction that a muslim that insults Mohammed recieves the same penalty as a Christian, then you have missed the most important point: refutation of Mohammed's madness is a death penalty.

I am actually glad you said that, now everyone will...I don’t know whether or not I can take your seriously anyone.

That's "take YOU seriously anyMORE"; and I never took you as much of a debater from the get-go. I appreciate that you are some kind of religious fascist; that you support death for insulting Mo-Mo proves it. So I take you seriously, but don't respect you.

Prove it.

You already did above with the statement:

Sure if this apostate commits blasphemy then the death penalty should be applied.

Failure of belief in the ridiculous Mohammed translates into blasphemy.

I asked you a question, you didn’t answer that and have come back with your own question, and you did not even bother to address my point.

It was a ludicrous question. How can one prosetylizing apostate - a man or woman merely speaking their mind - possibly hope to 'make war' or whatever your deluded mind could conceive on the islamic state?

So now you’re advocating that people who leave other religions should also be “put to death”

Not in the slightest: I have already told you I reject islam, its deluded patron and the entire concept of sharia.

However they should not be exempt from local laws such as if there is a death penalty for murder then the law should be applied to that person to the full effect.

This is a red herring of yours, and a stinky one; the death penalty for apostacy is evil. Period. The law is wrong, and evil.

Prove it where I said that.

See above.

No its not that was a factual statement I made about you, were lying and are still lying. Anyone can read through the posts and see, it’s a public forum people are not stupid.

I would agree with the second statement, with the exception of you and two others. The first remains, regrettably, slander. Doesn't islam say you shouldn't make false statements? What does it say about catching crabs?

And then you say that “Islam demands it” duh yeah that’s because Islam is a just religion so it demands “justification” before the death penalty is applied for anyone regardless it being for an apposite or a Muslim. You’re saying in your world there wouldn’t be a justification for it, you’d just kill someone regardless

No, islam is not a just religion, as far as I can tell. The point specifically says "without justification". By islam's reckoning, apostacy is suitable justification. I do not consider it one. I consider it disgusting.

Wow do you even know what you’re taking about? You yourself said there should be no justification and you said and let me quote: “There is no justification for killing an apostate - but islam demands it anyway “ and now you’re Islam saying you can kill someone without justification.

Allow me to illuminate: islam is incorrect when it considers death as suitable punishment for apostacy. Islam considers it correct, but islam is wrong.

Oh, and don't call me mate: we are not friends.

Sure it’s not treason, but if you commit murder and the death penalty applies what are you saying that the apostate should be exempt from all laws? And it’s pretty ironic you’re calling my points pathetic when you’re struggling to even stay on topic.

So it's not treason, but it should be punished by death? I do not feel that apostates should be immune to reasonable laws, or to humanitarian punishments. No one would so accuse me, save the helplessly desperate. But please assist me: which side of your mouth did you wish to debate out of? As for the topic comment, by all means: illustrate some kind of convincing argument against evolution. Or any argument.

I think I may have to end this debate here as you can not intellectually defend yourself.

Actually, I just did end the debate, though not in the way you wanted it to go.

Tell me: does feigning ignorance work on other forums?

 

[Muslim]

The very sane - excuse me, same Harun Yahya who doesn't believe in evolution of any kind, and who's children's da'wa site said that believer children shouldn't play with non-believers or make friends with them? You know, like the Quran says. The same one I called a "punk" in an email and challenged on evolution and who didn't dare respond? That Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar)?
Hmm. Zakir? The guy William Campbell demolished a few years back? That Zakir?

Add hom attacks. Half of what you said is not even relevant to the topic. No one should be killed for apostate, but unfortunately it happens. And you can’t blame Mohamed or Islam for this the hadeeth which people believe Mohammed said this is based on hearsay. There should be a proper debate about these issues people shouldn’t be given random death threats, it just makes their argument stronger that Muslims are intolerant. This intolerant position is not held by all Muslims its manly held by whabbis my family or I do not follow this school of thought we follow the Hanafi school of thought. I do not support the idea of killing apostates for them being an apostate. You seem to miss my point my argument is this, if there is a law in state say Pakistan for murder and the penalty for murder is the death penalty then this person just for being an apostate should not be exempt from this. Although I would also like to mention I am also apposed to the death penalty too.

Then allow me to clarify: the blasphemy law, and sharia in general, is a stupid law, and if you support it in any way then you are a stupid person. I hope this is sufficiently clear? If the law were that someone should be killed for being muslim in a Western state, would that be a good law or a bad law in your opinion?

The topic was about; apostate’s blasphemy is completely different topic, and I do not have enough understanding of it really to debate with you on that. Although I agree with you on the Sharia law issue I don’t think its properly thought throw I think as a law in can work however it needs to be revised for a start there should be no death penalty for apostates or the death penalty for someone having a non Muslim opinion of Mohammed which could be considered offensive as long as the person is not going around using profanities directed at Mohammed and is brining evidence for his claim. The sure there should be no death penalty for this person under sharia law.

The telling phrases being "back then" and "slander". Show me where one can be imprisoned specifically for insulting the Queen (God Save Her) and the Pope as functions of their state.

Am sure if someone went up to the Queen and directed profanities at her or the Pope I am sure legal action would be taken against these people.

Also an evil law. Incidentally, do you have any proof?

I once came across it; on the internet I can’t seem to find the article. Or much information on Philippinion blasphemy laws.

About a month ago, when the Christian convert was going to be sentenced to death. Did you miss that whole shitstorm? We have, of course, no way of knowing how many people are sentenced more routinely by mob justice short-circuiting the more formal legal process; a woman in Niger was recently stoned to death in a long, agonizing ordeal for insulting the ridiculous Mohammed among others:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles...t129062006.html

That was done by an ignorant youth mob not by the government. Also the Christian guy wasn’t sentenced to death, I don’t agree with him being sentenced to death I did not agree with that.

Message noted, and refused. I am entirely free to insult Mohammed, a historical figure I put on moral par with Gengis Khan, as I like. You cannot issue a fatwa against me - they don't apply in my country and my position is, in any event, well founded.

It was just a simple request.

We certainly were not talking about whether the death penalty does or does not apply to muslims. We were talking about whether the penalty for apostacy is death in islamic countries, and it largely is. This is wrong; it is evil. I hope you can follow my reasoning. Whether it is the law is utterly immaterial.

Ok then I agree with you, I agree with you 100% it’s wrong. Hence why I am apposed to it, you on the other hand are coming of ass promoting it by brining verses from the Qu’ran and hadeeth and claming it’s supported by them – that’s the thing I don’t get about you.

From the evil apostates? My, my: a fearful bunch the faithful must be.

So what are you saying apostates don’t commit crime?

No: your hand, actually. You could bet your life that if a man leaves islam he will be killed for it. So what is your last point meant to illustrate? That the filthy apostate gets what he or she deserves?

And that is wrong if he is killed for leaving Islam. No I never said filthy apostate maybe ignorant about Islam, but I wouldn’t go to the extent of calling them filthy. And if they break a law then they should be punished for it.

And round and round Muslim's arguments go. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan - the list goes on and on. Why else is it punished? And what constitutes 'blasphemy'? 'Making partners with god?' That's how islam describes Christianity. So if I, in a pique of good morals, converted away from islam to Christianity, I would be by definition guilty of 'blasphemy'.

Iran is a Shia nation, Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Whabbi school of thought, Indonesia is hardly a model Islamic country, and Pakistan’s are inherited from the British and I not ruled by Shiara and I also happen to disagree with the death penalty for apostate in these countries.

This is the point that 'Muslim' loses all right to the generosity of free debate. He feels that death is a suitable punishment for blasphemy. Well then - to hell with you and your revolting prophet. What will you do now?

I didn’t mean blasphemy in traditional sense, I meant if for the desecration of the Qu’ran because anyone who does that is just out to create civil unrest. But I mean in a sense of debating in a civil mannar then I am apposed to blasphemy in that sense. Actually do be honest with you I don’t really know about the blasphemy laws and this is just my opinion.

You most certainly are; sharia does not permit leaving islam. If you care to make the pathetic distinction that a muslim that insults Mohammed recieves the same penalty as a Christian, then you have missed the most important point: refutation of Mohammed's madness is a death penalty.

Which country actually implements Sharia Law? Can you tell me that? There is not even one Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia Law other then Saudi Arabia which is a contradiction and they are whabbis. Also the Sharia needs to be revised. Maybe Islamic form of Sharia democracy with it being revised.

That's "take YOU seriously anyMORE"; and I never took you as much of a debater from the get-go. I appreciate that you are some kind of religious fascist; that you support death for insulting Mo-Mo proves it. So I take you seriously, but don't respect you.

I don’t support it, I am apposed to it, I follow a different school of thought dude I am not a whabbi I follow the Hanafi (Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah) school of thought.

What does it say about catching crabs?

I don’t know, it. Do you?

Oh, and don't call me mate: we are not friends.

This clearly shows you’re intolerant towards Muslims.

So it's not treason, but it should be punished by death? I do not feel that apostates should be immune to reasonable laws, or to humanitarian punishments. No one would so accuse me, save the helplessly desperate. But please assist me: which side of your mouth did you wish to debate out of? As for the topic comment, by all means: illustrate some kind of convincing argument against evolution. Or any argument.

NO it shouldn’t be punishable by death. I am playing the evils advocate with the evolution argument, I believe in evolution as it doesn’t go against my religious beliefs.

Actually, I just did end the debate, though not in the way you wanted it to go.

Tell me: does feigning ignorance work on other forums?

OK. What ever you say obviously you’re the only person in the world and are the absolute holder off all truth because are an atheist.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

One more time: Any culture that is not robust enough to withstand verbal challenges of any kind is not going to survive long enough to be more than an interesting footnote in future history. To outlaw verbal challenges--or any kind of challenge short of violence--actually makes a culture weaker.

It's like a physical organism or an ecosystem. Your body becomes weak if it's not challenged with physical exercise. Your immune system becomes weak if it's not challenged with infections. Ecosystems become weak if they're not challenged with invasive species and extreme weather.

A religion, like a political system or any kind of philosophical orthodoxy, becomes weak if no one ever challenges it and suggests that it's wrong. Without that, its members never exercise their reasoning, never test their faith, and lose their understanding of why they were supposed to be right in the first place. Ask most modern Americans why "the American way" is the best way, and you will get some really vapid and disappointing answers. At a time when we are being challenged from so many corners of the earth, our people are incapable or giving reasoned responses to those challenges.

This is in fact what happens to almost every major religion after many generations of success. Its adherents lose touch with the intrinsic value of its teachings, and instead fall back into a comfortable life of just accepting it because it was worked out long ago and must be right. When something finally does come along to shake it--and something always does eventually if you wait long enough--they've lost their ability to fight back in any meaningful way except to sputter, "But we've always done it this way because it's been handed down for hundreds or thousands of years. This faith I have in the ways of my ancestors feels so right that it's inconceivable that it could be wrong."

If you could ask any of the first couple of generations of Christians or Muslims why their religion is the right one, why we should all succumb to their evangelism, why we should live the way they say we should live, you would get a much different kind of answer than you get from so many of their modern spiritual descendants. Of course they would make reference to their prophet and to their god, but they would also be able to tell you quite engagingly, reasonably, and persuasively why the teachings of that prophet and the commandments of that god are the right way to live. They would not have to resort to threatening you with death in order to convert you. (Or reconvert you.) That is something Jesus would have found abhorrent and I'm fairly sure Mohammed would have agreed with him.

People did not just believe in their religion because they had faith in it, they believed in it because it made rational sense.

The first followers of Jesus and Mohammed were not able to go around browbeating people into converting. They did not have the charisma that only comes later with a large established congregation and can cause outsiders to have epiphanies, and they did not have the force of arms that comes still later with crusades and jihads and can cause outsiders to defer to authority. All they had was the power of language and the power of reason.

When the followers of a religion lose that, their religion is dying.

Therefore it is imperative that it not be a crime to speak out against a religion. For either members or non-members or former members. That will only hasten its death.

This of course is only true for the believers in the religion. The rest of us have no problem with watching Christianity and Islam crumble into the vacuum left by the dissipation of their rational bases.

 

[S.A.M.]

Fraggle Rocker:

I agree about questioning the premise of a religion; it keeps the religion alive and dynamic rather than a few words handed down from a different millenium.

But is mockery and disdain the same as questioning? How about desecration of someone's deeply felt beliefs? Does freedom of expression translate to insults and jeers?

 

[Muslim]

A religion that is not robust enough to withstand verbal challenges of any kind is not going to survive long enough to be more than an interesting footnote in future history. To outlaw verbal challenges--or any kind of challenge short of violence--actually makes a culture weaker.

It's like a physical organism or an ecosystem. Your body becomes weak if it's not challenged with physical exercise. Your immune system becomes weak if it's not challenged with infections. Ecosystems become weak if they're not challenged with invasive species and extreme weather.

A religion, like a political system or any kind of philosophical orthodoxy, becomes weak if no one ever challenges it and suggests that it's wrong. Without that, its members never exercise their reasoning, never test their faith, and lose their understanding of why they were supposed to be right in the first place. Ask most modern Americans why "the American way" is the best way, and you will get some really vapid and disappointing answers. At a time when we are being challenged from so many corners of the earth, our people are incapable or giving reasoned responses to those challenges.

This is in fact what happens to almost every major religion after many generations of success. Its adherents lose touch with the intrinsic value of its teachings, and instead fall back into a comfortable life of just accepting it because it was worked out long ago and must be right. When something finally does come along to shake it--and something always does eventually if you wait long enough--they've lost their ability to fight back in any meaningful way except to sputter, "But we've always done it this way because it's been handed down for hundreds or thousands of years. This faith I have in the ways of my ancestors feels so right that it's inconceivable that it could be wrong."

If you could ask any of the first couple of generations of Christians or Muslims why their religion is the right one, why we should all succumb to their evangelism, why we should live the way they say we should live, you would get a much different kind of answer than you get from so many of their modern spiritual descendants. Of course they would make reference to their prophet and to their god, but they would also be able to tell you quite engagingly, reasonably, and persuasively why the teachings of that prophet and the commandments of that god are the right way to live. They would not have to resort to threatening you with death in order to convert you. (Or reconvert you.) That is something Jesus would have found abhorrent and I'm fairly sure Mohammed would have agreed with him.

People did not just believe in their religion because they had faith in it, they believed in it because it made rational sense.

The first followers of Jesus and Mohammed were not able to go around browbeating people into converting. They did not have the charisma that only comes later with a large established congregation and can cause outsiders to have epiphanies, and they did not have the force of arms that comes still later with crusades and jihads and can cause outsiders to defer to authority. All they had was the power of language and the power of reason.

When the followers of a religion lose that, their religion is dying.

Therefore it is imperative that it not be a crime to speak out against a religion. For either members or non-members or former members. That will only hasten its death.

This of course is only true for the believers in the religion. The rest of us have no problem with watching Christianity and Islam crumble into the vacuum left by the dissipation of their rational bases.

Nice post. I agree. But some people go out of their way to piss people off. I mean it would be equivalent to white Americans saying "blacks are subhuman" you can't go around using such terms on labeling people.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I agree about questioning the premise of a religion; it keeps the religion alive and dynamic rather than a few words handed down from a different millenium. But is mockery and disdain the same as questioning? How about desecration of someone's deeply felt beliefs? Does freedom of expression translate to insults and jeers?

Of course it does. Why should it not? Those can be the greatest challenges. Polite debate is one thing, but when Jon Stewart pokes really well-crafted fun at the establishment, it goes much deeper.

The whole concept of "descration" is just pure crap when it's applied only to abstractions rather than physical artifacts that are the result of physical labor and materials. If you destroy a temple or a statue you are destroying the tangible wealth of a civilization. You are destroying a product of the surplus that is one of the defining measures of civilization... a product of the economy of scale and division of labor that qualitatively elevates civilization above village or nomadic life. That is why you can literally "bomb a society back into the Stone Age."

But you can't mock or insult a society back into the Stone Age. The labor and capital required to create and support a belief system is trivial. Some teaching, some writing, some time off to get together. You can't do substantive damage to a civilization by poking fun at its institutions or inventing clever new profanity.

Disdain is a basic human right. It's the right of refusal. If you keep badgering me to join your church, your fraternity, your political party, or your social movement, and you just won't get the hell out of my face, I have a perfect right to get back in your face. And the definition of "getting in one's face" is way too subjective to try to apply a principle of parity to it. The worst of the Christians claim that just having to share the planet with gay people, adulterers, and others who defy orthodoxy is just so painful to them that they have a perfect right to go on an aggressive crusade to convert those people to their way of life. If I feel exactly the same way about Christians (and frankly I more or less do feel that way some times these days) then I have exactly the same right to go on an aggressive crusade to push them back into the margins of society--so long as I don't resort to violence or violate the other laws of the nation I choose to live in, which in our case offers substantial protection of privacy and peace of mind. If they can go on talk shows and publish op-eds applying really nasty epithets to people who don't believe in the teachings of their church (which have diverged mightily from the teachings of Jesus), then I can certainly print a few cartoons depicting them as nasty people.

No major contemporary movement uses as vile, hateful, and frightening a rhetoric in describing people they disagree with as the fringe of Islam. As long as they restrict themselves to speech and print (and don't violate pesky national laws about inciting riots or consipiring to commit crimes), they're free to be as nasty as they want. And we have exactly the same freedom.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course it does. Why should it not? Those can be the greatest challenges. Polite debate is one thing, but when Jon Stewart pokes really well-crafted fun at the establishment, it goes much deeper.

The whole concept of "descration" is just pure crap when it's applied only to abstractions rather than physical artifacts that are the result of physical labor and materials. If you destroy a temple or a statue you are destroying the tangible wealth of a civilization. You are destroying a product of the surplus that is one of the defining measures of civilization... a product of the economy of scale and division of labor that qualitatively elevates civilization above village or nomadic life. That is why you can literally "bomb a society back into the Stone Age."

But you can't mock or insult a society back into the Stone Age. The labor and capital required to create and support a belief system is trivial. Some teaching, some writing, some time off to get together. You can't do substantive damage to a civilization by poking fun at its institutions or inventing clever new profanity.

Disdain is a basic human right. It's the right of refusal. If you keep badgering me to join your church, your fraternity, your political party, or your social movement, and you just won't get the hell out of my face, I have a perfect right to get back in your face. And the definition of "getting in one's face" is way too subjective to try to apply a principle of parity to it. The worst of the Christians claim that just having to share the planet with gay people, adulterers, and others who defy orthodoxy is just so painful to them that they have a perfect right to go on an aggressive crusade to convert those people to their way of life. If I feel exactly the same way about Christians (and frankly I more or less do feel that way some times these days) then I have exactly the same right to go on an aggressive crusade to push them back into the margins of society--so long as I don't resort to violence or violate the other laws of the nation I choose to live in, which in our case offers substantial protection of privacy and peace of mind. If they can go on talk shows and publish op-eds applying really nasty epithets to people who don't believe in the teachings of their church (which have diverged mightily from the teachings of Jesus), then I can certainly print a few cartoons depicting them as nasty people.

No major contemporary movement uses as vile, hateful, and frightening a rhetoric in describing people they disagree with as the fringe of Islam. As long as they restrict themselves to speech and print (and don't violate pesky national laws about inciting riots or consipiring to commit crimes), they're free to be as nasty as they want. And we have exactly the same freedom.

OK I agree with this.

 

[(Q)]

OK I agree with this.

I thought you already recognized that position. Is that why you were aghast with mine?

 

[valich]

Fraggle, I like the use of the past tense. It's much more truthful to the scientific community:

"People did not just believe in their religion because they had faith in it, they believed in it because it made rational sense."

Evolution: Did you know one out of every few hundred or so people are born with six fingers but they always correct this socalled "deformity" at birth? Hmmm. Evolution in action. Very high percentage among the Amish.

 

[Godless]

Did you know one out of every few hundred or so people are born with six fingers but they always correct this socalled "deformity" at birth?

Got evidence of this, or is this just made up BS? :bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

Got evidence of this, or is this just made up BS? :bugeye:

I know someone who has six fingers on both hands but they are proportionate to the rest of the fingers and you could not tell at a first glance that they are six and not five.

 

[Godless]

There probably is people with six fingers, however it's the "statics" that I am concerned about, that he gives. 1 of few hundred people, my guess is 100 to 200, if this is so, by now I've would have seen "several" if not more than a few persons with six fingers. I've traveled the world, lived in many places, and have yet to see anyone with six fingers.

Other than weird videos.

click

 

[Godless]

Damn I stand corrected. A little research and wallah!!

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7756

That's all I ask, some evidence. Neve seen it though.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't see any mention of the Amish though

 

[Godless]

lol...

 

[S.A.M.]

Well I didn't see it till the guy pointed it out to me. One extra finger on each hand will not attract as much notice unless its deformed or disproportionate.

 

[GeoffP]

Add hom attacks. Half of what you said is not even relevant to the topic.

It's hominem[i/] and you brought them up, not I.

No one should be killed for apostate, but unfortunately it happens. And you can’t blame Mohamed or Islam for this the hadeeth which people believe Mohammed said this is based on hearsay.

Hearsay, nothing. It's from al-Buhkari, which is considered canonical. Do you know how long he laboured to get those quotes? He rejected literally thousands before he could assemble those hadith. They are, correspondingly, considered quite strong. Unless you now think that you alone hold the key to islamic justice, and that it's the other 1.2 billion muslims who are wrong about sharia?

There should be a proper debate about these issues people shouldn’t be given random death threats, it just makes their argument stronger that Muslims are intolerant. This intolerant position is not held by all Muslims its manly held by whabbis my family or I do not follow this school of thought we follow the Hanafi school of thought.

Debate? Debate? It is WRONG to kill a man for changing his religion. Period. It is small-minded, hypocritical and unspeakably evil. There is no debate.

And are you now telling me Hanafi does not condone the killing of apostates?

"Muslims are to seriously resist individual apostasy before it seriously intensifies and develops into a collective one.

That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed."

http://islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml

The lawyers differ among themselves concerning whether or not the person who has apostatized from Islam should be requested to repent. One group says it is much better that the imam (leader) requests the apostate to repent. If he repents, he should be released. Otherwise he should be executed. Imam Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Rahmatullah are among those who have expressed this opinion. A second group says there is no need to request repentance. For them the condition of the apostate resembles that of the harbi kafir ("the infidel at war"). The infidels at war whom our invitation has already reached need not be invited to Islam before initiating war against them. Nevertheless every effort should be made to fully inform all others who have not been previously invited to repent, before attacking them. Likewise every effort should be made to bring back to Islam the person who has apostatized for lack of information about Islam. But the person who understands Islam well and deliberately renounces Islam, should be executed without any invitation to repentance. This opinion is supported by a statement of Imam Abu Yusuf also who writes in his book al-Amla': I will execute an apostate and will not ask for repentance. If, however, he hastens to repent, I will leave him and commit his affair to God.[29]

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Hahn/Mawdudi/

So. Still sure about Hanafi? There seems to be no difference of opinion among the four schools of islamic jurisprudence at all. One wonders how they came to such an erroneous conclusion when you had the answer all along.

I do not support the idea of killing apostates for them being an apostate. You seem to miss my point my argument is this, if there is a law in state say Pakistan for murder and the penalty for murder is the death penalty then this person just for being an apostate should not be exempt from this.

Your 'argument' is utterly ridiculous and was created by you as a red herring. I will not mention it again. If the law is that blasphemy is the capital crime, then it is quite easy to lump apostates in with it, since any deviation from islam is also considered apostacy, often by other muslims.

The topic was about; apostate’s blasphemy is completely different topic, and I do not have enough understanding of it really to debate with you on that. Although I agree with you on the Sharia law issue I don’t think its properly thought throw I think as a law in can work however it needs to be revised for a start there should be no death penalty for apostates or the death penalty for someone having a non Muslim opinion of Mohammed which could be considered offensive as long as the person is not going around using profanities directed at Mohammed and is brining evidence for his claim. The sure there should be no death penalty for this person under sharia law.

First you say it's utterly wrong, then you put conditions of blasphemy on it. Who defines this blasphemy? In whose interest is it constituted? You seem to have little ability to accept evidence even of evolution. How much greater, then, the inacceptance when the religious character of islam is in question?

Am sure if someone went up to the Queen and directed profanities at her or the Pope I am sure legal action would be taken against these people.

Yes: they would immediately be shot. No? Hmm. Well, for sure you'd never be allowed to insult Jesus in Western justice. What's that you say? "Urine Christ"? Well...fine then.

I once came across it; on the internet I can’t seem to find the article.

I am unsurprised.

That was done by an ignorant youth mob not by the government. Also the Christian guy wasn’t sentenced to death, I don’t agree with him being sentenced to death I did not agree with that.

But you just said you did! Ugh - make up your mind.

It was just a simple request.

And it was refused. I shall speak as I like. Next!

Ok then I agree with you, I agree with you 100% it’s wrong. Hence why I am apposed to it, you on the other hand are coming of ass promoting it by brining verses from the Qu’ran and hadeeth and claming it’s supported by them – that’s the thing I don’t get about you.

No? You don't follow? My argument is inordinately simple: the murder of apostates is amply supported in islamic law; the murder of apostates is wrong; ergo, islamic law is wrong.

Done and done. Do you follow now? You are coming from the preposition that islamic law is right. Clearly, as examples show, it is not.

So what are you saying apostates don’t commit crime?

Ugh. Red herring AGAIN. Why does he think this would apply? Where have I said this? Madness.

And that is wrong if he is killed for leaving Islam. No I never said filthy apostate maybe ignorant about Islam, but I wouldn’t go to the extent of calling them filthy. And if they break a law then they should be punished for it.

And now you're back on supporting the murder of apostates again, since apostacy is illegal in islamic nations - not blasphemy alone, but apostacy, period.

Iran is a Shia nation, Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Whabbi school of thought, Indonesia is hardly a model Islamic country, and Pakistan’s are inherited from the British and I not ruled by Shiara and I also happen to disagree with the death penalty for apostate in these countries.

Round and round we go; will Muslim have a consensus? Nobody knows.

I didn’t mean blasphemy in traditional sense, I meant if for the desecration of the Qu’ran because anyone who does that is just out to create civil unrest. But I mean in a sense of debating in a civil mannar then I am apposed to blasphemy in that sense. Actually do be honest with you I don’t really know about the blasphemy laws and this is just my opinion.

If you don't know, don't argue.

Which country actually implements Sharia Law? Can you tell me that? There is not even one Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia Law other then Saudi Arabia which is a contradiction and they are whabbis. Also the Sharia needs to be revised. Maybe Islamic form of Sharia democracy with it being revised.

This would come as something of a surprise to the 1.2 billion muslims who think that they're living in it - essentially every islamic nation in the world - and to all the religious minorities who live under it.

This clearly shows you’re intolerant towards Muslims.

This very clearly shows I'm intolerant to anyone who supports the murder of apostates, however obliquely.

NO it shouldn’t be punishable by death. I am playing the evils advocate with the evolution argument

What; by saying people should be hung? You've yet to offer anything of any substance on evolution.

OK. What ever you say obviously you’re the only person in the world and are the absolute holder off all truth because are an atheist.

Inferiority complex much? I wasn't the one who claimed I couldn't defend myself intellectually.