Hated Religon

MTA99 said:
Perhaps some of our muslim members could confirm this but I thought if you took it as being Halal in good faith then you have not sinned if it subsequently turns out it was not the case.
Click to expand...

Spot on. It's ignorance on the part of the muzzies who say this. Heck, you could even eat pork if you life depended on it.
 
Dolph said:
I would have said so, because I don't question everything with the scientific method when it's used within context. I have said many times that science and the scientific method is amazing when used correctly. The problems come when people expect it to do something it was never designed to do, or take the assumptions used to make the method predictively useful to be useful outside of that context.

I'm a scientist by education, which is partly why I don't like seeing science misused.
Click to expand...

I presume you are familiar with Russell's orbiting teapot? Are you saying that by using the scientific method on God that I'm being unreasonable?

I'm also a scientist by education and grew up in a half Methodist, half Humanist household.
 
LOL, either way it's barbaric!

Are you saying she should be lashed for being with a man who she isn't related too
 
MTA99 said:
I presume you are familiar with Russell's orbiting teapot? Are you saying that by using the scientific method on God that I'm being unreasonable?
Click to expand...

If I may jump in for a second and give my answer also.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. Unreasonable is surely a measure of degrees however you are applying the scientific method outwith its area (namely that of prediction based on previous observations since that is what it is designed to do). Do I think there is an orbiting teapot - probably not but I don't know and the answer is unimportant to me until and unless it is about to crash into the Earth or into me - therefore I am agnostic about about Russell's teapot since I would never concern myself with the question except in such discussions.

//edit and this is why I'm basically agnostic about every religion I've ever heard of, some of them have what seem like nice ideas but they barely impact on my life in any way so why bother concerning myself with them aside from the fact I love a good debate. :)
 
I have relationship problems caused by my partner, would I like her stoned to death, no, would even lift my hand to hit her, no. Because it is babaric and less than human to do such things Thieves have stolen from me before would I need their hands cut off, no. We do not live in the middle ages and if you have to have religion it should never have any part in law or government because its ideas of punishment are out dated and barbaric.
 
HITMAN_LEON said:
I have relationship problems caused by my partner, would I like her stoned to death, no, would even lift my hand to hit her, no. Because it is babaric and less than human to do such things Thieves have stolen from me before would I need their hands cut off, no. We do not live in the middle ages and if you have to have religion it should never have any part in law or government because its ideas of punishment are out dated and barbaric.
Click to expand...

Islamic Law, in fact Islamic Society in general has been pretty much stagnant for the last 4-500 years, which is one of the reason's why everything seems so bleak to those looking from the outside - esp. when using lenses prescribed by the flood of propoganda, mis-information and not forgetting misrule by the Muslim's in question.
 
HITMAN_LEON said:
We do not live in the middle ages and if you have to have religion it should never have any part in law or government because its ideas of punishment are out dated and barbaric.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the way a lot of these middle eastern countries still live, so to them it still makes sense as much as English law does to us.
I say let them get on with it and do their own thing in their own countries but if they choose to live here, then they respect all our laws instead of us bending over backwards so as not to offend their faiths etc.
 
I think a major problem is that their law is defined by their religion, while law in western cultures had been influenced by religion it's no longer defined by it.
 
semi-pro waster said:
If I may jump in for a second and give my answer also.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. Unreasonable is surely a measure of degrees however you are applying the scientific method outwith its area (namely that of prediction based on previous observations since that is what it is designed to do). Do I think there is an orbiting teapot - probably not but I don't know and the answer is unimportant to me until and unless it is about to crash into the Earth or into me - therefore I am agnostic about about Russell's teapot since I would never concern myself with the question except in such discussions.

//edit and this is why I'm basically agnostic about every religion I've ever heard of, some of them have what seem like nice ideas but they barely impact on my life in any way so why bother concerning myself with them aside from the fact I love a good debate. :)
Click to expand...

Haha nice edit ;)

You are fortunate that you live in a mostly secular society so you can be both teapot and religion agnostic. For the sake of debate lets say that aspects of Shira law that would impact on your life (perhaps the sale of pork products and you luuuuuuuve bacon ;)) were to be introduced. Now you have to make a decision, do you allow someone else's faith in a God to influence how you live?
 
Oxy said:
I dont know what Sharia law is, frankly I should not need to! You should follow British law or move to another country.

If you want to follow Sahria law go to Iran and practice it.
Click to expand...


Neither do I, yeah I should follow british law where a drug dealer get 6 months for selling drugs, a murderer gets 3 years for kiling someone, and teenagers get a caution for beating an old man. Some law.

Anyway I wasnt talking about law until you bought it up.

Some of the countries have taken Islam in to their own hands and make a simple law look so bad
 
I think the major factor is they believe in a load of old gobbeldygook, it's just a shame it's not more peaceful "love thy neighbour" gobbeldygook than "your neighbour may have looked at your wife/camel in a funny way so you better stone the MOFO"!
 
MTA99 said:
I presume you are familiar with Russell's orbiting teapot? Are you saying that by using the scientific method on God that I'm being unreasonable?
Click to expand...

Russell's teapot primarily revolves around the idea that it's down to the proposer, not the skeptic, to provide evidence. In other words, it backs up the idea of logical positivism being appropriate (ie absence of evidence is evidence of absence).

This is designed to suggest that the default status of any untested or untestable hypothesis is that it's false, which isn't very scientific. A better stance is that if a hypothesis is unknown, the results, in most contexts, is that the status is irrelevant.

The problem is that in order to be able to test of a diety, you have to first develop a testable hypothesis, if you can't do that, you can't use the scientific process to evaluate the status of the hypothesis.

I'm also a scientist by education and grew up in a half Methodist, half Humanist household.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom