When will people realize that there is a better way than religion's ancient superstitions to live by? This study shows that religious people are beating their wives, and religiously JUSTIFYING it (!), even today, because of what their "(un)holy" book says: http://allafrica.com/stories/201208290414.html When you step outside of reality (by religion), bad things happen. When will women realize that most all "prophets" were MEN, who made stuff up to increase their power, and also hated women? It's time to move beyond ancient superstitions, into reality-based belief systems, not superstition-based ones.
Incredible. Just incredible. Obviously modern Secular Humanism cares more for women than Mohammad did. And more than Jesus did (Mother Theresa will be TORTURED if she, say, became a Buddhist one month before here death.) Any more than the Hindu texts do.
Its Africa, and unfortauntely, in many - not all mind you - there are places that are highly mysogenistic. People often misquote ideology to justify their deeds - its part of being human. Now, are you saying that no secular humanist has ever beaten his wife and attempted to justify it? Are you saying that a billion Muslims, most of whom do not beat their wives, are all for this? That there are no clerics that are denying that this is the true interpretation of Islam? You are aware that suna Islam is highly decentralized, and in places where infastructure has basically cut off people, the failed state index is a good guide here, the local grab for power is important? And in many tribal societies, women are treated more as property than humans. Now, in an area where local power is paramount ... well, I am sure it is religion at fault - which is why the behavior is seen around the world in places where failed states exist. I am sure you knew all that where, once again, another atheist compares himself to others through denegration rather than explaining how his faith is actually correct. Secular humanism, the finger pointing religion of choice? Well, that is not what secular humanism is about is it? Maybe you should learn a bit more on your chosen faith then? THe false portrayal of different faith choice would not exactly que up with secular humanism outreach and call for honesty does it?
Modern Secular Humanism does not have in it's texts a command to beat your wife, but Qur'an 4:34 does, so it's far superior. If I didn't know better, it at least APPEARS that the 2 previous posters DO BELIEVE that Qur'an 4:34 is a good verse. Amazing. Do you 2 believe that Qur'an 4:34 is a good verse, or are you sickened by any "authoritative" texts that say to beat women?
It's not a "faith", because it relies on evidence, unlike "faiths" such as ones that rely on a talking snake in a magic garden somewhere 6000 years ago that have more inconsistencies in their texts than any book that would be written by a 7 year old child. I'm logical, they aren't. Religions HAVE to be called a "faith"....because they have no evidence.
They get that way because religion TEACHES them that! Religion is immoral, then. The Bible/Qur'an/Torah teach that women are vastly inferior to men....worth 1/2 a man. Mohammad said that the majority in hell (not just the 51% of the population, I'm sure) are women. Four male Muslim witnesses to prove rape also makes rapists happy and prolific. In one Islamic verse, it actually states (I'm not making this up) that the testimony of a woman in court is worth HALF that of a man (2 women vs. 1 man's testimony). So sickening. Women seem like fools staying in belief systems that hate them.
I'll show you were religions say to beat your wife (Qur'an 4:34), but you can't show me where modern Secular Humanists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) say to beat your wife. That's because Dawkins (for example) is more caring towards women than Mohammad was. Mohammad was not a prophet, but he was a wife beater. Aisha said he hit her, in a hadith, and Qur'an 4:34 likely shows that as well. Child-rapist, plundering war-lord, be-header of 600 captives at Banu Qurayza, terrorist's #1 role-model ("I have been made victorious through terror" he said), and wife beater. Satan would be so proud of his boy.
Oh it does? You can definitively prove that there is no God? Now, do you think you are the first atheist to make such a silly claim? Would you care to join the cult fully, and imply that your fully evidenced conclusion actually doesn't require any proof? Because its not a positive claim? Even though it is, you are claiming conclusively that there is no God, that the evidence supports such a conclusion ... yet, like so many of your peers, you present none. Typical. Yoru atheism is faith. Secular Humanism is faith. The idea that your choice somehow transcends the problem of humanity is simply arrogant. And it doesn't explain why you need to abandon all semblence of reason and integrity to malign someone else's faith.
It does does it? Then why are both the Christians and Muslims responding to this thread in disagreement that our faith teaches that? Tell me, hy in animistic South Sudan is mysogeny practiced? Tell me, why does Pashtunwali conflict with Islam if Islam is the main culprit? I could go on, but its clear that, as with so many of your peers, you are simply a comparative moralist. You see, you are not a good and righteous person because you do good things, but because you do not beat women ... exactly like the vast majority of religious people - people you have just accused of not just being criminal, but spreading criminality ... even as we clearly are not doing what you charge. Mysogeny is out there, and if you think religion is the main culprit behind that? Well, that makes you ignorant.
Maybe you shoudl read the rest of the Bible. But your atheist peers just told me that it was wrong to kill ... in war. You pick and choose your morality in a depserate plea to make yourself better than others by false accusation and insult? Well, I have never beat my wife, nor has OJ. Where does that leave your crappy little false accusation? Or is it paranoia that drives you to think that people not beating their wives are actually beating their wives? Besides, even in the sura you quote, it certainly doesn't say that you MUST beat your wife does it? In fact, in the time that it was written, it places strict limits on abusive practices wherein you could simply beat your wife to death prior to prophet's admonition. Where was secular humanism and atheism then? Which your peers constantly remind us has been around since befoe Christ? Right no where - NOW, it exists by running around maligning the innocent as wife beaters. Nice faith choice kiddo.
First, please prove to us that Bigfoot does not exist, and then we'll see what we can do. Also, please prove that Zeus is not the one true god, and then we'll talk.
Not the only culprit, but certainly very hurtful in the Secular Humanist goal of ending discrimination against women, gays, etc. The world would have been a better place if Mohammad had never existed.
Excellent. Then can you say that Mohammad was simply wrong if he hit Aisha, like the hadith says he did, and like the Qur'an likely implies? I bet you can't. I can: he was simply wrong. Can you say that?
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf There you go kiddo. I keep that one on hot button because so many of your fellow cult members literally regurgitate the exact same silly claims. Whose fault is it that you signed up for a faith without thinking? Allowed that blind silliness to lead you to denegrate other people's faith and utterly abandon logic? You claimed, like so many of your peers, that atheist was an evidenced conclusion, now you, not us, are talking about big foot? Unable to prove a negative? Unable to convincing prove or disprove God, inconclusive evidence, requires a leap of faith in either direction. That would include your precious atheism - otherwise, it requires evidence. But who need evidenmce when you can just blindly join a cult, regugitate tired, empty propoganda, reject both logic and civility, and applybland generalities that make over a billion people wife beaters? And just today I had several atheists lecturing me about how bad it is to make generalizations? At least about atheists anyway .... Now, are you attempting, by citing big foot of all things, to tell me that secular humanism supports the dishonest maligning of multiple faiths? Or is it about humanism? Hmmm .... well, at least one of us understands religion.
In the time period, your atheism was even more silent about such things than the Prophet. That is what I am saying. I am saying you are taking thousands of years of development for granted and falsely accusing people of wife beating. Its sad, disrespectful, and mean spirited. What a wonderful thing your secular humanism drives you to.
