Islam Discussion (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

ok what if you were financially secure, and you were in love? NOW

A moot point because I don't believe in love and my gf doesn't believe in marriage.

 

[zahid]

A moot point because I don't believe in love and my gf doesn't believe in marriage.

You two are meant for eachother. so did you ever compare her to a summers day?

 

[zahid]

Committing yourself to a long term relationship is not a romantic act, zahid?

Ahh, Generator there are many that would agree with you, and perhaps many that would agree with me in that it is the ultimate romantic act (apart from well u know).

 

[Generator]

Ahh, Generator there are many that would agree with you, and perhaps many that would agree with me in that it is the ultimate romantic act (apart from well u know).

The ultimate act is to commit yourself to the relationship, be it one that is defacto in nature or one that is marked by a marriage.

I find it rather offensive to have people such as yourself belittle the strength of a couple's relationship given the simple fact that they are not married. Tell me, zahid, why is their commitment to a relationship any less than that of a married couple?

 

[zahid]

The ultimate act is to commit yourself to the relationship, be it one that is defacto in nature or one that is marked by a marriage.

I find it quite offensive to have people such as yourself belittle the strength of a couple's relationship given the simple fact that they are not married. Tell me, zahid, why is their commitment to a relationship any less than that of a married couple?

Sorry If I offended you Generator, it was certainly not my intention to do so. But having bangladeshi influences in my life just made marriage seem so romantic to me, cultural influence perhaps. But certainly you are right in saying that a commitment to a relationship is the catalyst for marriage and I hold that in the greatest regard, for if there was no commitment then there would be no marriage...but I always view marriage and as a celebration of this commitment and nothing less, so to answer your question it is certainly not less than marriage.

 

[mr EaZy]

On scientific evidence, very earlier on someone mentioned the accuracy of the quarans description of embryonic development - something which no human had discovered before?. However, what is said in the quaran (surprisingly?) mirrors what Galen said some 500-600 years earlier (which naturally isnt entirely accurate anyways), and what scientists had known for even longer than that.

Really like what? So Galen's views were prevalent in arabia? or that Muhammad read his works and plaigarised it from ancient Greek?

Anyways... this site explains what islam says about the subjects at hand

http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

[veterandoggy]

Really like what? So Galen's views were prevalent in arabia? or that Muhammad read his works and plaigarised it from ancient Greek?

Anyways... this site explains what islam says about the subjects at hand

http://www.islam-guide.com/

hmmm, someone has posted this site before. i guess not many people read that far...

 

[Riqtay]

Not-That-Bright's argument that moral guidelines doesn't require a diety. Well I'll ask you this, would a country run properly without a president? In a country, the law is considered the moral guidelines of a society and if there is people who make the laws.

In a religion, moral guidelines have to be constructed by a supreme being. This being is God. If, these moral guidelines were created by man then there would be inconsistencies as everyone would have a different idea of whats morally correct. Needless to say there would be chaos.

With an absolute figure (ie God) the moral guidelines would be consistant and abosolute rather than relative. These moral guidleines would also be coming from an infinitely wise source.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Not-That-Bright's argument that moral guidelines doesn't require a diety. Well I'll ask you this, would a country run properly without a president? In a country, the law is considered the moral guidelines of a society and if there is people who make the laws.

Yes, in a democratic society the elected representatives of the people make the laws, indirectly supported by the people.

In a religion, moral guidelines have to be constructed by a supreme being. This being is God. If, these moral guidelines were created by man then there would be inconsistencies as everyone would have a different idea of whats morally correct. Needless to say there would be chaos.

1. That assumes that God actually exists.

2. Of course there are inconsistencies, but that is because people have different priorities. That is why we have debate and rational discussion -- to determine what is in the best interests of all.

3. You again assume that there is such a thing as morality. I've got news for you: there may be no such thing as objective morality. What we can do, though, is nut out what will produce the greatest happiness for all. This in no way requires a deity.

With an absolute figure (ie God) the moral guidelines would be consistant and abosolute rather than relative.

1. Most 'moral guidelines' as determined by law are fine as they are.

2. They may be more consistent, but that alone is pretty useless. If the rules are wrong then it does not matter how consistent they are.

3. Your argument implies adhering to religious beliefs because of wishful thinking - that is, so that we may have moral guidelines that are fixed rather than relative. Personally I go for truth above comfort.

These moral guidleines would also be coming from an infinitely wise source.

Three very bad assumptions:

1. That god exists.
2. That it is infinitely wise.
3. That we can know the will of such a God even if it did exist. Certainly an old book is the last place on Earth one would start.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

(I also note Riqtay, you have failed to deal with my counter-arguments here and here, which address a lot of what you have been saying.)

 

[Riqtay]

"Pleasure for human beings is not dangerous, if we maximise pleasure for everyone".

"There is nothing wrong with being attracted to the same sex. I do not know where you got that from".

"You think if everyone is allowed to have sex before marriage they will start having sex with animals? Newsflash: most people do have sex before marriage. They do not engage in bestiality. (And additionally, there are quite logical arguments that contend that there is nothing morally wrong about bestiality so long as the animal consents".

For all of the above arguments that you have put up, I would like if you explain and prove why they are correct. As far as I'm concerned you are asking me to prove the validitiy of my claims rather than explaining the validity of your claims.

Also, I believe that I was correct in claiming that it would be deemed acceptable for unnatural behavious (ie beatality which you consent to). I think that I have impressed upon to you the danger of pursuing VAIN pleasure, be it physical, psychological or whatever. I also would like to understand how an animal would consent to a sexual act with a human when it cannot even communicate with us?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

For all of the above arguments that you have put up, I would like if you explain and prove why they are correct. As far as I'm concerned you are asking me to prove the validitiy of my claims rather than explaining the validity of your claims.

I will do so, but they are pretty obvious points.

Pleasure for human beings is not dangerous, if we maximise pleasure for everyone.

Justification: pleasure is good. Therefore, if we maximise it for all people, where is the danger?

There is nothing wrong with being attracted to the same sex. I do not know where you got that from.

Justification:

1. You have provided no reason for the proposition that attraction to the same sex is wrong. There is no reason to believe such a proposition. Therefore, you must show why it is wrong.

It would be like me asking you to prove why being attracted to the opposite sex is permissable. All the answers to that question are are applicable to same-sex attraction.

2. The onus is on you to refute my point. We do not make everything that is not recognised as legal, illegal. Instead we select certain things to be prohibited. It is up to you to show why there is anything wrong with people being attracted to the same sex.

You think if everyone is allowed to have sex before marriage they will start having sex with animals? Newsflash: most people do have sex before marriage. They do not engage in bestiality. (And additionally, there are quite logical arguments that contend that there is nothing morally wrong about bestiality so long as the animal consents.

Self explanatory.

Also, I believe that I was correct in claiming that it would be deemed acceptable for unnatural behavious (ie beatality which you consent to). I think that I have impressed upon to you the danger of pursuing VAIN pleasure, be it physical, psychological or whatever.

I already responded to your points here (regarding pleasure) and here regarding homosexuality, and also beastiality -- which you have failed to address.

I also would like to understand how an animal would consent to a sexual act with a human when it cannot even communicate with us?

If it is obvious that it is willing to participate in the act.

 

[Riqtay]

I still believe that if my arguments for homosexuality are limited, then the onus is on you to explain why it is acceptable.

I will attempt to argue against your quote.

"Pleasure is good. Therefore, if we maximise it for all people, where is the danger?"

I believe that pleasure is a good thing to pursue. I am only against the VAIN prusuit of pleasure, which looks appealing in the short run, yet there are associated long term negative consequences.

I am assuming that you are athiest since you don't believe in the existence of God.

Take alcohol for example. It is very appealing. You can get drunk and have more fun at parties. It also makes you feel relaxed as it is a depressant. Recent studies have also shown that a glass of wine daily is very good for your heart. Indeed Alcohol is very pleasurable.

However, it is very obvious what the social, psycological and physical effects of alcohol can have on humans in the long run.

Alcohol has been associated with many car crashes where victims have been injured and killed and their families as a result go through trauma. Alcohol also kills brain cells and in turn is detrimental to your mental health. Also recent studies in New Zealand have proved that despite alcohol having some nutritious content, overall it is very dangerous to your health as it negatively affects other organs in your body including the liver and intestines. Clearly Alcohol is a vain pleasure indeed as there are many more disadvantages than advantages.

Also, gambling is pleasurable in the short run when you win a decent amount of money at the pokies. Yet it is also quite obvious what the long run impacts are, be it financial, social or physical. People become financially unstable because of gambling and thus become unable to pursue other forms of pleasure which are not detrimental to oneself. Gamblers arn't the only victims. Their families are also affected and there are known cases of suicide related to gambling problems.

Fornication is also a VAIN pursuit. Surely one cannot argue against the fact that sex before marriage is very pleasurable indeed. It is also healthy to engage in sex on a daily basis as it is beneficial to your heart. However, fornication destroys the social fabric of a society. Fornication, destroys the purpose of having an intimate relationship and love with only one person. Also, there have been many cases of unwanted pregnancy and most importantly the production of the AIDS virus due to multiple partners etc. Fornication is truly a VAIN pursuit of pleasure.

Everyone undoubtedly has sexual desires, and I believe that it is important to channel this desire through marraige to keep society clean and free from disease etc.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I believe that pleasure is a good thing to pursue. I am only against the VAIN prusuit of pleasure, which looks appealing in the short run, yet there are associated long term negative consequences.

Well then if you are truely pursuing pleasure would it not be in your best interest to not pursuit a pleasurable thing which will lead to worse pain?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I still believe that if my arguments for homosexuality are limited, then the onus is on you to explain why it is acceptable.

1. Prove that heterosexuality is acceptable.

2. As I already stated, we don't make everything that is not explicitly recognised under law, illegal. Just because there is no law saying it is okay to play golf does not mean that golf is illegal. Everything that is not prohibited by law is legal. So prohibiting something is the positive act, it is a step above the default position of an act being legal. Thus, anything being deemed illegal must be justified. You are trying to argue the opposite, that something must be justified for it to be legal. Subsequently that position is against common sense and the way our society is set up legally.

I will attempt to argue against your quote.

"Pleasure is good. Therefore, if we maximise it for all people, where is the danger?"

I believe that pleasure is a good thing to pursue. I am only against the VAIN prusuit of pleasure, which looks appealing in the short run, yet there are associated long term negative consequences.

When I mean pleasure, I mean long and short term pleasure. So your point has no relevance.

I am assuming that you are athiest since you don't believe in the existence of God.

I am an agnostic. I believe it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

Take alcohol for example. It is very appealing. You can get drunk and have more fun at parties. It also makes you feel relaxed as it is a depressant. Recent studies have also shown that a glass of wine daily is very good for your heart. Indeed Alcohol is very pleasurable.

However, it is very obvious what the social, psycological and physical effects of alcohol can have on humans in the long run.

Alcohol has been associated with many car crashes where victims have been injured and killed and their families as a result go through trauma. Alcohol also kills brain cells and in turn is detrimental to your mental health. Also recent studies in New Zealand have proved that despite alcohol having some nutritious content, overall it is very dangerous to your health as it negatively affects other organs in your body including the liver and intestines. Clearly Alcohol is a vain pleasure indeed as there are many more disadvantages than advantages.

Then your argument is that it does not maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number. That is a reasonable argument. But it has nothing to do with religion.

Also, gambling is pleasurable in the short run when you win a decent amount of money at the pokies. Yet it is also quite obvious what the long run impacts are, be it financial, social or physical. People become financially unstable because of gambling and thus become unable to pursue other forms of pleasure which are not detrimental to oneself. Gamblers arn't the only victims. Their families are also affected and there are known cases of suicide related to gambling problems.

Same as my previous comment.

Fornication is also a VAIN pursuit. Surely one cannot argue against the fact that sex before marriage is very pleasurable indeed. It is also healthy to engage in sex on a daily basis as it is beneficial to your heart.

Good.

However, fornication destroys the social fabric of a society. Fornication, destroys the purpose of having an intimate relationship and love with only one person.

Um, why must we only have an intimate relationship with one person in our lives?

Also, there have been many cases of unwanted pregnancy and most importantly the production of the AIDS virus due to multiple partners etc. Fornication is truly a VAIN pursuit of pleasure.

You have yet to show this. Also, the factors that you mentioned come from either (a) failing to use protection; (b) having sex way too much (extreme promiscuity); or (c) bad luck.

Everyone undoubtedly has sexual desires, and I believe that it is important to channel this desire through marraige to keep society clean and free from disease etc.

Your arguments have no basis, because the only reason you claim sex before marriage is bad is that it "destroys the purpose of having an intimate relationship and love with only one person." The obvious premise that is controversial there is that we must only have an intimate relationship with one person. But you fail to explain why.

 

[zahid]

Your arguments have no basis.

I am sorry but I believe they do.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I am sorry but I believe they do.

Yea well... since you believe it and all.

 

[SashatheMan]

I am sorry but I believe they do.

zahid the only reason you object homosexuality is becuase the quran does. Even if the person is a muslim you would still object to it.

if it was up to you this is what you would promote
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/8341/ogrishdotcomgayteensexecutedin.jpg

 

[xeuyrawp]

if it was up to you this is what you would promote
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/8341/ogrishdotcomgayteensexecutedin.jpg

Fuck, that picture destroys me every time I look at it.

Imagine how scared those CHILDREN would be before their necks snapped or they chocked to death.

 

[soha]

Fuck, that picture destroys me every time I look at it.

Imagine how scared those CHILDREN would be before their necks snapped or they chocked to death.

wtf
i refuse to look at the picture
and after hearing u say that im thinking to myself wtf?