The adage comes to mind 'put your own house in order before you start criticising someone else'. I am by no means a friend of any Abrahamic faith. The trouble with criticising something alien is that as soon as you do out come the voices of ignorance. Such as Islam- I have heard about the Taliban. It's like saying every christian supports the murder of gynaecologists, its just stupid.

And what evidence do we need to see how stupid it is , look a this thread, Mysticknight has found himself in the position where he has been forced to defend what he himself rejects, madness!

(October 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm)jonb Wrote: Mysticknight has found himself in the position where he has been forced to defend what he himself rejects, madness!

Indeed!
He is a very confused person.

(October 27, 2012 at 10:59 pm)Spectrum Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm)jonb Wrote: Mysticknight has found himself in the position where he has been forced to defend what he himself rejects, madness!

Indeed!
He is a very confused person.

You are the cause thicko

(October 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm)jonb Wrote: You are the cause thicko

I am proud of revealing his true identity:

MysticKnight, Noble Muslim Warrior, Fake Agnostic Slayer of Whites and Islamophobes!

(October 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Spectrum Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm)jonb Wrote: You are the cause thicko

I am proud of revealing his true identity:

MysticKnight, Noble Muslim Warrior, Fake Agnostic Slayer of Whites and Islamophobes!

...no. The taliban is more prevelant than anything the Christians are doing now, but thay are not all of Islam. The 'Islamaphobia' comes from the taliban, and need not be extended to Islam in general. If it is, then it should also be extended to Christianity. The point I was trying to make was that Islam and Christianity are both quite immoral at heart, but only Islam is seeing people follow the extreme tenants (i.e. the taliban). Maybe I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that Islam advoxates the killing of non-believers; just like Christianity. Rationally disproving Islam will not be effective becasue those willing to listen are not the ones causeing the problem. Perhaps 'Islamaphobia' refers to extending the fear of Islamic roots to the moderate Muslims.

(October 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Spectrum Wrote: I am proud of revealing his true identity:

I have to admit you are right, you are proud of being a pillock.

---

(October 27, 2012 at 11:15 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Spectrum Wrote: I am proud of revealing his true identity:

MysticKnight, Noble Muslim Warrior, Fake Agnostic Slayer of Whites and Islamophobes!

...no. The taliban is more prevelant than anything the Christians are doing now, but thay are not all of Islam. The 'Islamaphobia' comes from the taliban, and need not be extended to Islam in general. If it is, then it should also be extended to Christianity. The point I was trying to make was that Islam and Christianity are both quite immoral at heart, but only Islam is seeing people follow the extreme tenants (i.e. the taliban). Maybe I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that Islam advoxates the killing of non-believers; just like Christianity. Rationally disproving Islam will not be effective becasue those willing to listen are not the ones causeing the problem. Perhaps 'Islamaphobia' refers to extending the fear of Islamic roots to the moderate Muslims.

You see bollocks, Islam is the only faith that accepts the existence of other religions in its central doctrine.

(October 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm)jonb Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Spectrum Wrote: I am proud of revealing his true identity:

I have to admit you are right, you are proud of being a pillock.

Oh, you're so cool, being the confederate here.
It's just so edgy to be both for and against Islam at the same time.

I never thought about it like that before... huh, wow.

Don't really understand how all you Yankie Doodles think it's the Taliban that somehow have something to do with "Islamaphobia". The Taliban were minding their own, they just want to control their land, not invade others. It was the blow-back of Al Qaeda (former CIA Mujahideen) that attacked the USA. That had nothing to do with the Taliban. People knew Bin Laden was in Pakistan and other linked attackers came from Saudi because of the US presence there. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the Taliban kept themselves to themselves and had nothing to do with it.

Here is the thoughts you are coming up with. We reasoned our morals from analysis. Islam doesn't have justifications for it's laws by detailed analysis. Therefore our morals are correct and superior to that of Islam. But I'm not sure morality even works that way. Morality is emotionally driven. I know you defined it as dry mathematical like principles but humans generally have not lived according to analytical principles. You are basically saying none of their good could be good, because their gut instinct was unjustified. But you haven't proven that gut instincts are necessarily unjustified. You haven't proven that moral truths cannot be properly basically justified. And it certainly seems to be the case for most humans, that they believe in morals first, and attempt to justify it later. And your first inference, that morality needs freedom, therefore freedom is greatest value, is not proven. Just because morality needs freedom to chose, doesn't mean we have to value freedom as the most important principle. Also, if I am forced to go to school, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the act of going to school for example. Education itself being forced is not a bad thing. Yes it would be praiseful to chose education as opposed to being forced to it, but I appreciate having been forced to education.

Perhaps learning without "tests" and without school, but self learning, is more praiseful, because it takes more will power, but very few people will learn seriously and not waste their time.

This is just one instance where "freedom" may not be the best thing.

Perhaps some things we should be forced to do, even if it goes against our will, because it's in our benefit.

Going back to the Hijaab, perhaps many people through their youth are more likely not be able appreciate the value of Hijaab. As such, they would not wear it through their youth.

However, once they grow up, they can realize a wisdom in it. If they appreciate being protected. At that time, they would definitely want to have worn it in the past.

Perhaps allowing freedom to be naked in the street. Some youths might feel incline to walk naked for fun. And then it becomes more of a norm slowly and slowly since there would be no punishment. It might be a cool thing through high school.

Also, the rest of society might not want to see naked people. They want to avoid that. In the case of Islam, they believe you should "guard your gaze" because it creates too much base desire. So why shouldn't the will of society be respected?

Your first principle is not even proven. Your inference is non-sequitur. I can say that morality needs emotion, therefore emotion is the most important principle. It doesn't make any sense.

As for the honor of the Hijaab, it would still be applicable if the person appreciated it, and was grateful for the law.

Likewise, I can appreciate society not allowing me to walk naked in the street, and there is then value in belief in that.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Here is the thoughts you are coming up with. We reasoned our morals from analysis. Islam doesn't have justifications for it's laws by detailed analysis. Therefore our morals are correct and superior to that of Islam.

Wrong. Here are the thoughts I'm coming up with. We reasoned our morals from analysis. Islam doesn't have justifications for its laws. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if any or all of Islamic morals are correct or not. But, because of detailed reasoning, we do have of knowing that our morals are correct. So, we can say that wherever Islam deviates from our morals (and it does so at many many places), it becomes incorrect and therefore inferior. Therefore, overall, Islamic morals are inferior.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: But I'm not sure morality even works that way.

One of the many things you are not sure about.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Morality is emotionally driven.

Not always - and therefore, no reason why it should be.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I know you defined it as dry mathematical like principles but humans generally have not lived according to analytical principles.

And the reason why they should not is...?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You are basically saying none of their good could be good, because their gut instinct was unjustified.

No, I'm basically saying that since their gut instinct was unjustified, they cannot know if their good was actually good or actually bad and therefore they have no position to dictate it to others.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: But you haven't proven that gut instincts are necessarily unjustified.

They're not. Except, apparently, in your case - where they are.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You haven't proven that moral truths cannot be properly basically justified.

Why would I prove that when I'm stating the opposite? I say that moral truths can be properly basically justified.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: And it certainly seems to be the case for most humans, that they believe in morals first, and attempt to justify it later.

Something to be corrected, to be sure.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: And your first inference, that morality needs freedom, therefore freedom is greatest value, is not proven.

Yes it is. Try going through my argument again. Take a day or two. Reread it a few times. You'll get it eventually.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Just because morality needs freedom to chose, doesn't mean we have to value freedom as the most important principle.

Why do you assume that that choice of value would be outside the purview of morality? Your very choice of values can be immoral as well.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Also, if I am forced to go to school, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the act of going to school for example.

If you appreciate it, then why do you need to be forced?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Education itself being forced is not a bad thing.

You really think you can forcefully educate someone who isn't willing to learn? You are providing an excellent example to the contrary.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Yes it would be praiseful to chose education as opposed to being forced to it, but I appreciate having been forced to education.

Did you appreciate it when you were being forced into it?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Perhaps learning without "tests" and without school, but self learning, is more praiseful, because it takes more will power, but very few people will learn seriously and not waste their time.

Relevance?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: This is just one instance where "freedom" may not be the best thing.

Nope. Still isn't.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Perhaps some things we should be forced to do, even if it goes against our will, because it's in our benefit.

Except, if it is for our benefit, then force should not be necessary.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Going back to the Hijaab, perhaps many people through their youth are more likely not be able appreciate the value of Hijaab. As such, they would not wear it through their youth.

Sounds about right.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: However, once they grow up, they can realize a wisdom in it.

You mean the brainwashing sinks in.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If they appreciate being protected. At that time, they would definitely want to have worn it in the past.

Except, they would not definitely want to do anything. You guys have some sot of crystal glass which tells you that they would "definitely want their past selves to wear Hijaab in future" and therefore we are justified in forcing them to do so today?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Perhaps allowing freedom to be naked in the street. Some youths might feel incline to walk naked for fun. And then it becomes more of a norm slowly and slowly since there would be no punishment.

My, my. How your imagination runs on? Do you really have so low an opinion of human beings that we just have to allow something to happen for it to become norm?

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It might be a cool thing through high school.

It won't. School property, school rules.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Also, the rest of society might not want to see naked people. They want to avoid that. In the case of Islam, they believe you should "guard your gaze" because it creates too much base desire. So why shouldn't the will of society be respected?

As you said, the society has an easy way of respecting its own will. They should "guard their gaze" or "avert their eyes" or "look away", if they do not want to look at naked people.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Your first principle is not even proven. Your inference is non-sequitur.

Read the argument again and try to understand it.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I can say that morality needs emotion, therefore emotion is the most important principle. It doesn't make any sense.

Actually, it would make sense, if morality actually needed emotion.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: As for the honor of the Hijaab, it would still be applicable if the person appreciated it, and was grateful for the law.

So, it should not be applicable to those who do not appreciate it.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Likewise, I can appreciate society not allowing me to walk naked in the street, and there is then value in belief in that.

You really need society to stop you from waking naked down the streets?