Originally posted by Jigtieyes my learned friend you spoke truth, no doubt, however my statement is to the effect that it was not his religious convictions which caused this, but that if his religious convictions had any worth that they should have at least prevented it! so that either his convictions are false, or his religion is powerless, or both are equally ineffective!
Cause and effect. I am atheist. I smack down a priest unprovoked.
Therefore all atheists are idiots? I think not. What caused me to smack
down the priest is what you should look at, not my non-religious conviction.
Hence, you cannot proclaim that the religion of Islam made him do this,
unless you can prove to us that it is indeed his religious convictions that
caused him to behead his wife.
Yes?
Could be he's just an idiot.
Atheism gets a get out of jail free card, for when an atheist commits an atrocity, practically no one says, 'atheist beheaded wife', for in this context his ethical values have practically no relevance, which quite clearly is not the same for a religious person, is it?
why not, do we expect more from a religious person, is there piety in the profession of religion? even virtue? if so then the initiate is responsible and given that he is a sane individual, his actions are a reflection of his particular stance, is it not the case?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut atheism is a concept that counterbalances the concept of "religion", and it contains specific virtues too who are definately stated as clear as it gets -for example, we miserable atheists are aware of the fact that the secular law stands anyway above the so called "law of god". Therefore if an atheist commits a crime his ethical virtues do have practically a relevence. So give up this skoosh that drives you dizzy and enjoy the malt 100 straight from the cask😵
yes my learned friend you spoke truth, no doubt, however my statement is to the effect that it was not his religious convictions which caused this, but that if his religious convictions had any worth that they should have at least prevented it! so that either his convictions are false, or his religion is powerless, or both are equally ineffective! ...[text shortened]... a sane individual, his actions are a reflection of his particular stance, is it not the case?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs a gunshot murder really less wrong than a beheading? You can't be serious.
Although one must question the alleged method of execution! For is it not a particularly Islamic method or at very least an Eastern method. Yes it has been used in the west in past times, however if a dude wants to kill his wife, why behead her? is it not enough to shoot her? Yes he is guilty, boing boing!
3 edits
In the UK in 44% of the 187 offences of homicide against women in 2006/7 (*) the offence was committed by their partner or ex-partner.
Having relationships is a scourge and should not be allowed.
Adding in other family (12% ), or other known (12% ) women are far more likely to be killed by someone they know than someone they don´t know - deaths by stranger (20% ), no suspect (12% ).
Knowing people is a scourge - people should never be allowed to meet twice.
Of 547 men murdered 5% were killed by a partner or ex-partner, 8% killed by other family, and 31% killed by other known (total = 44% ). Stranger killings accounted for 39%, and there was no suspect in 18% of cases (total = 101% - rounding). This means that men are relatively safe from their partners, but are still more likely to be killed by someone they know than someone they don´t know.
This only strengthens the conclusion that people should not be allowed to meet more than once.
Of homicide victims under the age of 16 in the UK in the same time period, 49% were killed by a parent, 13% were killed by someone else known to them. Stranger killings accounted for 16% of them and there was no suspect in 22% of cases.
Parents are a scourge, children should be separated from their parents at the first available opportunity.
(*) Figures from Homicides, Firearm Offences, and Intimate Violence - 2006/7 which I downloaded from the Office of National Statistics www.statistics.gov.uk
The document counts offences initially recorded as homicides, this means that the offences are counted from when the police were involved. This means that some of the offences could have been committed long ago - for example in 2002 178 murders by Harold Shipman were initially recorded as murder, although the actual killings had been going on for a number of years.
Edits: 😵 ---> % ) + proof read...
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCould you please tell us what proportion of beheadings were committed by Muslims?
In the UK in 44% of the 187 offences of homicide against women in 2006/7 (*) the offence was committed by their partner or ex-partner.
Having relationships is a scourge and should not be allowed.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan't turn it around either. No religion has ever successfully managed to
yes my learned friend you spoke truth, no doubt, however my statement is to the effect that it was not his religious convictions which caused this, but that if his religious convictions had any worth that they should have at least prevented it! so that either his convictions are false, or his religion is powerless, or both are equally ineffective! a sane individual, his actions are a reflection of his particular stance, is it not the case?
prevent anyone from doing anything their madness provoked in them.
If anything, religion has been used time and again throughout history to
justify the madness. But then again, I suppose the legend of the little
white bunny rabbit who lived with only the knowledge of pure intention,
and exercised naught but good will throughout its existence, can be
used to that end.
A man's actions can't be satisfactory explained through only something
as one-dimensional and simple as religious conviction. Usually there's a
bloody lot of synapses firing off randomly in chaotic patterns due to a
whole host of reasons, which can only be determined through
investigations into the individuals past, present and thought.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut if your argument in any way supports the Docs claim, then surely SwissGambits examples just as effectively support the claim that Mormons, Christian-Americans and Christian-Canadians are a scourge.
And while the Docs portrayal in itself does not establish that Islam is a scourge, it is never the less indicative of its practitioners!
Originally posted by black beetleoh wise and illustrious one, tis a privilege to have known you in this lifetime! atheism yes is well founded on clear principles, and undoubtedly contains virtue of a human nature, it being a product of the mind, but what i was drawing attention to was that in reporting it in common culture its relevance is diminished, for if this man had been of an atheistic disposition would it have been reported? thus atheism in itself has relevance to the practitioner, but its relevance in journalistic terms is debatable, unless of course the incident has relevance to the atheism of the perpetrator, thus if the man after having cut the head of his victim off then carved a large A for atheism on the forehead, then it would be deemed worthy of reporting, but as it is my lang leggedy beastie, you guys have a get out of jail free card!
But atheism is a concept that counterbalances the concept of "religion", and it contains specific virtues too who are definately stated as clear as it gets -for example, we miserable atheists are aware of the fact that the secular law stands anyway above the so called "law of god". Therefore if an atheist commits a crime his ethical virtues do have prac ...[text shortened]... So give up this skoosh that drives you dizzy and enjoy the malt 100 straight from the cask😵
Originally posted by SwissGambitit depends if the victim was beheaded while alive and with an implement such as a penknife, then this is surely much more distressing than a bullet through the head while one sleeps, is it not, but both are equally reprehensible.
Is a gunshot murder really less wrong than a beheading? You can't be serious.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPeople were more likely to be killed with a ¨sharp instrument¨ (34% of male and 39% of female victims). The document does not go into further details.
Could you please tell us what proportion of beheadings were committed by Muslims?
The next part is just copy and pasted from the document:
Start Quote:
A quarrel, revenge or loss of temper reportedly accounted for 40 per cent of homicides in 2006/07. Where the suspect was known to the victim, more than half the homicides (53% ) resulted from a quarrel, an act of revenge or a loss of temper, whereas when the suspect was unknown to the victim this circumstance accounted for just over a quarter (27% ) of the homicides. Three per cent of homicides occurred during robberies or burglaries and a further three per cent were attributed to irrational acts. As at 12 November 2007, the apparent circumstances were not known for 39 per cent of the homicides recorded in 2006/07.
End Quote.
My point was that statistics really aren´t going to improve a fallacious argument. Although beheading is associated with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists I really don´t think this has much to do with Islam. It is not clear from that article that that was how she died, the beheading may have been after death. The apparent motive (the divorce) is associated with marriage. The statistics show that the person most likely to murder a women is their partner or ex-partner, the article mentions several calls to their home connected with domestic violence. The real issue is the general one of violence towards women in relationships. I do not think that this has anything to do with Islam.
Originally posted by JigtieYes i agree, however a religious conviction that is in any sense a force for good, in that it restrains evil and leads a person to a path of virtue (if it does not then one must ask what is the point in adopting it) should permeate the adherents entire life and its tenets percolate deep into the initiates mind and heart and be a very real and spiritually tangible motivational force, otherwise it has proven false to its own power, is it not the case? thus i do not think that a religious conviction is one dimensional for this reason, on the contrary it would in practice be multifaceted, having a bearing on many aspects of a persons life, is it not the case? thus when under stressful conditions it should 'kick in', and lead the person from committing such an injustice, for if it does not, then one is entitled to ask questions with regard to its validity.
Can't turn it around either. No religion has ever successfully managed to
prevent anyone from doing anything their madness provoked in them.
If anything, religion has been used time and again throughout history to
justify the madness. But then again, I suppose the legend of the little
white bunny rabbit who lived with only the knowledge of pure intent ...[text shortened]... only be determined through
investigations into the individuals past, present and thought.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtit is well understood that the Koran and Islam itself gives a Muslim 'the right', to strike a wife!
People were more likely to be killed with a ¨sharp instrument¨ (34% of male and 39% of female victims). The document does not go into further details.
The next part is just copy and pasted from the document:
Start Quote:
A quarrel, revenge or loss of temper reportedly accounted for 40 per cent of homicides in 2006/07. Where the suspect was known ...[text shortened]... iolence towards women in relationships. I do not think that this has anything to do with Islam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7843909.stm
he later retracted the statement and said one could hit them in a metaphorical sense????
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024493.php
Originally posted by twhiteheadI dunno Whitey my friend, these incidents themselves named by Swiss Gambit seem isolated and unconnected in themselves, the one mentioned by the Doc may also be such, the difference being that Islam gives a pretext for violence, whether its domestic as in the case of a disobedient wife, or national as in the case of Jihad!
But if your argument in any way supports the Docs claim, then surely SwissGambits examples just as effectively support the claim that Mormons, Christian-Americans and Christian-Canadians are a scourge.