10 years in jail and 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he was an atheist

[Shiranu]

I really wonder how many other topics someone could get away with blatantly lying in 90% of his posts...

Also, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

"Woe to those... who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due"
â€" Quran (Surah 83, "The Dealers in Fraud", vv. 1â€"4)

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]"
â€" Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
â€" An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[36]

Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer."
â€" Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[37]

"That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind."[37]
"The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself."[37]

“None of you has faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbor what he loves for himself.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 72]

By Him in whose Hand is my soul, a servant does not believe until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself of goodness.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 12734, Sahih]

“None of you has faith until he loves for the people what he loves for himself; and until he loves a person only for the sake of Allah the Exalted.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 13463, Sahih]

“Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day, and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 6768, Sahih]

“You will not enter Paradise until you believe and you will not believe until you love each other. Shall I show you something that, if you did, you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves.”  [Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 96]

“Be kind to your neighbor and you will be a believer; love for the people what you love for yourself and you will be a Muslim.”[Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Book of Asceticism, Number 2305, Sahih]

“Worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him; establish the prescribed prayers; give the obligatory charity; (and I think he said) fast the month of Ramadan; and however you love for the people to treat you, then treat them that way; and however you hate for the people to treat you, then do not treat them that way.”[At-Tabarani, Al-Ma’jam Al-Kabeer, Number 15833, Sahih]

“That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 21627, Hasan]

It's almost like the Qu'ran is not one unified text but made of multiple opinions of multiple writers and thus open to interpretation and cherry picking... hmm... but that doesn't fit the narrative, so that can't be it.

[Kaleb5000]

Asking this question in the abstract is a cheap stunt. Provide two or more different ideas for what human rights should be and we can compare them.

But what if your comparison is different then someone else's? Who is right?

Going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy who is happy someone got murdered is wrong.

Who says he is wrong though? There has to be a rightness to compare the wrong to. Otherwise how would we know he is wrong.

I picture these bad things happening to me, and if I feel negatively about it I know it is wrong.

That's good that means you have a heart. But that doesn't make it wrong. You think it's wrong but the other guy doesn't so who is right.

No need for that. At all.

Because believers do not hold their fellow man in the same esteem that they hold god. In fact, they view their fellow man as wretches that only god can save. In the midst of such a dismal view of humanity, believers only move in favor of their fellow man to appease god in the hopes of being granted an afterlife.

Acting to appease god is incompatible with acting out of a sense of compassion for your fellow man. Once you act to appease god, the act becomes solely about you and your own self aggrandizement. Essentially, resume building for getting that sweet position behind the pearly gates.

   For Islam this may be true.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

None of them are right per se. Morals don't really exist. They're just convenient because they ensure a much more stable human society. I really don't want to get into epistemology and the philosophy about what exists.

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

That is one of the stupidest questions I've been asked. One element alone doesn't tell us what are morals, that is moronic. It is a combination of these that make DNA, it's natural selection which responsible for are morals therefore responsible for what our rights are.

I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pr126]

Here is just one example of Islamic "golden rule".

Zakat (charity) which is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.

It can only be distributed to Muslims, and no others.
Except when it is in the service of Islam i.e. persuade an infidel to convert. (see #4)

Scholars have traditionally interpreted this verse as identifying the following eight categories of Muslim causes to be the proper recipients of zakat:[18][51]

1   Those living without means of livelihood (Al-Fuqarā'),[18] the poor[51]
2   Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-MasākÄ«n),[18] the needy[51]
3   To zakat collectors (Al-Ä€milÄ«yn 'Alihā)[18][51]
4   To persuade those sympathetic to or expected to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu QulÅ«buhum),[18] recent converts to Islam[17][51][52] and potential allies in the cause of Islam[51][53]
5   To free from slavery or servitude (Fir-Riqāb),[18] slaves of Muslims who have or intend to free from their master by means of a kitabah contract[51][53]
6   Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-GhārimÄ«n),[18] debtors who in pursuit of a worthy goal incurred a debt[51]
7   Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (FÄ« SabÄ«lillāh),[18] or for Jihad in the way of Allah by means of pen, word, or sword,[54] or for Islamic warriors who fight against the unbelievers but are not part of salaried soldiers.[51][53][55]:h8.17
8    Wayfarers, stranded travellers (Ibnu Al-SabÄ«l),[18] travellers who are traveling with a worthy goal but cannot reach their destination without financial assistance[51][53]

Compare that with non-Muslims help to anyone such as in cases of natural disasters, earthquake, tsunami, floods, etc.

Also verses from the Quran

Dividing humanity between believers and unbelievers does not demonstrate a Golden Rule.
Not to mention how they treat women as possessions.
Islamic apologist pretend it doesn't exist.

https://youtu.be/BTxCTvOLST0

[DeltaEpsilon]

I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

[Baruch]

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parents spank.  Toddlers are not a good example of maturity.

[Baruch]

I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Faith in epiphenomenalism ... that atoms combining in one arrangement are meaningful, but other combinations are not.  Otherwise plastic wrap is alive (it is carbon based).  Also faith in natural law, a delusion of the 18th century.  Darwin and Marx pissed all over the Enlightenment, and not everyone has gotten the message yet.

[Baruch]

Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

My Y chromo genotype is G, and my mito genotype is H ... so that means my group is more just than your group ... nyanya ...

[DeltaEpsilon]

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I've explained, it's entirely biological. I suppose morals exist in that sense, but they are subjective.

[Baruch]

As I've explained, it's entirely biological. I suppose morals exist in that sense, but they are subjective.

Is psychology not part of biology??

[DeltaEpsilon]

Is psychology not part of biology??

Yes.

[Solomon Zorn]

I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?

An emotional response does not always equal a moral one.

I see two different ways of defining morals:emotionally; and rationally. They seem to take turns preceding each other. That is, sometimes I feel something is wrong, before I reason why. Other times, I have to think it over first. But you have to understand that all of that "thinking it over," is a biological process as well.

Morality comes from other people. It comes from our parents and teachers, as well as our friends and enemies, and all our direct experience with the world. When we learn the golden rule, morality moves from strictly emotional to something rational.

I compare my morality, to the morality of others, and find more similarity than difference. Even in the various self-contradicting holy books I can find examples of the golden rule, along side the many overt deviations from that principle.

That's why codification of morality has to be free to grow, as our consciousness of others expands. Free from static dogma. When you proclaim that God wrote your holy book, you lock into whatever mistakes that are in it, and you can't adapt as you learn from experience.

[Kaleb5000]

Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

You imagine we have a morality gene? I seriously doubt it. Because we would all have the same morals or we all are seriously mutated. It's not that we are mutated we are sinful and self seeking.  We measure our level of evilness against what is Good (God)


  Annnnnnnd attack me hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

Faith in epiphenomenalism ... that atoms combining in one arrangement are meaningful, but other combinations are not.  Otherwise plastic wrap is alive (it is carbon based).  Also faith in natural law, a delusion of the 18th century.  Darwin and Marx pissed all over the Enlightenment, and not everyone has gotten the message yet.

Doesn't being a atheist require much more faith then anything else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk