Case in Point...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner.

To quote a muslim cleric
"“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.
“The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Cats have moral agency?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451.

[Lestat]

Wait a sec... I thought you disagreed! Didn't you say in another thread (in response to chezlaw in fact), that ridicule should only match the severity of the dellusion?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font>

Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font>

Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anoint me King, Stat, and I will gladly judge and rule over my people.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.


[/ QUOTE ]

where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's Leviticus, dude. This discussion shouldn't be limited to Islam, which has historically been relatively peaceful. I know that there are some verses in the Koran that, taken literally, are pretty damning. But I don't want to discuss them, as I've never read the Koran and am ill-equipped to deal with arguments of context/etc.

[Lestat]

But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness.

Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner.

To quote a muslim cleric
"“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.
“The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Cats have moral agency?

[/ QUOTE ]The real victim here is the family of the young girl, and her husband/ future husband. That she was defiled makes her unfit for marriage, and if anyone has a right to moral outrage it is her family. She has disgraced her family and Muhamed, blessed be his name, and peace to those who hear it. These young men who have been tempted by her, have also be caused harm. For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons.