Islam is true path of our lives

[Dystopia]

No....

Everyone values life. Do you not value life? Humans value a sense of fairness and justice, this has been shown by studying infants. Humans value happiness and joy. These are OBJECTIVE HUMAN VALUES that all people can access. Building on this you could form an objective system of morality that bases itself on values that are available to all people.

Serial killers and suicide bombers value life also? Don't be silly. You're running into a dead end here.

A minority. Since when does the exception dismisses the entire general rule? It doesn't, the general rule prevails, just because there are some abnormalities that doesn't make the general rule invalid. Serial killers often lack morals or empathy, they are psychopaths or sociopaths, you cannot talk about any morals, not absolute, relative or objective, if they lack any morals we can't consider them valid to the numbers. And suicide bombers? That looks like a typical muslim thing, so you're saying muslims are the ones going against absolute morality? And why do you consider murder wrong? B sides your religion... Why do you consider it wrong? Tell me.

[Natachan]

"Serial killers and suicide bombers value life also? Don't be silly. You're running into a dead end here."

Serial killers generally know their actions are wrong. They do it anyway.

And suicide bombers... well those are generally Muslims who believe in everlasting life and are convinced, by their faith, that those people deserve death. Not a glowing endorsement for Islam.

[Esquilax]

Serial killers and suicide bombers value life also? Don't be silly. You're running into a dead end here.

Did you seriously just mention suicide bombers as a problem for everyone else, given your position?

You just proved atheists relativism once again again by stating you believe in a central minimum values. That's your belief, not everyone else's though.

Do you understand that "nuh uh!" isn't an argument? Saying that other people disagree isn't a problem; it's very possible to not be able to verbalize or even recognize processes as intuitive as our (secular) moral framework. Even if that wasn't the case, that other people are wrong doesn't mean that our case necessarily is either; you'd need to present argument and evidence why those other people are right in their disagreement, not merely point out that it's there.

[Brian37]

I ask you,

1. Mind your own fucking business. You do not own me.
2. Peace, yes, but through common law, not theocracy.
3. Don't attack physically, agree. But claims do not deserve taboo status.
4. You don't need a religion or god to take care of the poor and weak.
5. I have no questions about fictional sky heros other than to ask what year you think this is. We have telescopes and microscopes now.

Now do not throw a hissy fit because I picked on Allah. If you claimed your god was Vishnu or Thor it would mean exactly the same to me. I only owe you the value of non violence. I do not owe you, or even my fellow atheists claims blind value with no evidence.

Do not come in here thinking we are lost puppies to save. We don't like it when Christians do that either.

Thanks for making it clear I don't own you. I wanted to get this rational response of your cleared up. Thanks !

---

Your view is the one I completely corroborate, you expressed it better than I would have... I believe there is a central minimum core of human values, something that is highly related to human rights, we can have an idea of those by reading the declaration of HR... And I believe the rest of morals are relative values and people can make their judgement. For instance, many people consider murder immoral even in cases of self defense according to the requirement of necessity. I don't consider murder in cases of self defense, when it's the only available mean, something immoral, but a survival instinct

You just proved atheists relativism once again again by stating you believe in a central minimum values. That's your belief, not everyone else's though.

You made this post just like Christians do, with a self centered attitude.

Your first on your list was "worship Allah only".

Fuck you. If you admit you do not own me then dont fucking talk like you do.

That's your belief, not everyone else's though.

Take your own advice dipshit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I can't think of a society, off the top of my head, that isn't superior to one infected with the virus of Islam.

[OceanWave]

I think you like trying to go in circles without using common sense. On fact, that's been prescribed upon you. This ignorance. No verse suggest killing innocent polytheists. So you're simply stating a lie here.

You are either very dumb or refuse to read phrases fully... I will repeat it, common sense is not allowed in a rational debate. If you are saying your religion is the one because of common sense, then I could say the same about atheism... After all, isn't it common sense to lack belief in things that have never been proven?

For those with common sense it's clear why Islam is superior to Christianity. Bible has verses condoning killing babies, and infants. It also states Jesus ( their God) does not know the Day of Judgement, so they're worshipping somebody not All-Knowing . These are just two examples. Whether you choose to fail to understand these types of differences is solely on you.

Except that Islam is highly inferior to western values.

I think you are the one lacking common sense to not recognize His signs.
Holy Quran 14:52
"This [Qur'an] is notification for the people that they may be warned thereby and that they may know that He is but one God and that those of understanding will be reminded."

Holy Quran 27:93
"And say, "[All] praise is [due] to Allah . He will show you His signs, and you will recognize them. And your Lord is not unaware of what you do."


Based on your belief of relativity, I disagree with you about western believes and believe they are inferior. This is clear and obvious to those with understanding

---

Serial killers and suicide bombers value life also? Don't be silly. You're running into a dead end here.

A minority. Since when does the exception dismisses the entire general rule? It doesn't, the general rule prevails, just because there are some abnormalities that doesn't make the general rule invalid. Serial killers often lack morals or empathy, they are psychopaths or sociopaths, you cannot talk about any morals, not absolute, relative or objective, if they lack any morals we can't consider them valid to the numbers. And suicide bombers? That looks like a typical muslim thing, so you're saying muslims are the ones going against absolute morality? And why do you consider murder wrong? B sides your religion... Why do you consider it wrong? Tell me.

There is no "general rule" for atheists. I'm sire another atheists wouldn't like you deciding on the "general rule" for them

[Cyberman]

Why not? You did.

And you still haven't addressed my question.

[Brian37]

I can't think of a society, off the top of my head, that isn't superior to one infected with the virus of Islam.

Um lets be fair here. All the world's religions are poison because they are the product of human ignorance merely reflecting evolutionary tribalism.

But the big three which currently are the biggest trouble makers in the world cant even get along and they want to lecture the world about peace.

[Dystopia]

Good luck with your absolute morals

[OceanWave]

Serial killers and suicide bombers value life also? Don't be silly. You're running into a dead end here.

Did you seriously just mention suicide bombers as a problem for everyone else, given your position?

You just proved atheists relativism once again again by stating you believe in a central minimum values. That's your belief, not everyone else's though.

Do you understand that "nuh uh!" isn't an argument? Saying that other people disagree isn't a problem; it's very possible to not be able to verbalize or even recognize processes as intuitive as our (secular) moral framework. Even if that wasn't the case, that other people are wrong doesn't mean that our case necessarily is either; you'd need to present argument and evidence why those other people are right in their disagreement, not merely point out that it's there.

You proved that you lack common sense here and failed to understood wha I wrote. The user believes in "central minimum values" Not everybody believes that, not every atheists does. That's a version of relativity as not everybody believes that. Hope you understand this now