Terror attacks in Paris.

[jeremyp]

Yet alter it he did!!

Which supports my point. 

[jakswan]

Dear World,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34903407

Gonnagle.

The terrorists do claim to represent Islam though you think more Muslims would be campaigning against such misrepresentation. Maybe ISIS should learn to draw cartoons because that seems to really hit home.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

More than 'a few'.

Have no interest in arguing about your definition of the word "few" in relation to the Paris attack.
 

No, it can't. It's not a sovereign defence against totalitarianism, by any stretch, but you can't get from 'I don't find a god' to 'therefore I have instructions from an absolute authority that you all have to follow'.

But that's not springing from their atheism, but from their sociological view of the ills of religion.

Yes it can. Atheists can believe there is a moral or ethical imperative to control the actions of others that over rides other considerations of individual personal autonomy  - that belief can be the atheist's absolute authority. Unless you have evidence that a theist's belief in God and God's wishes is something more than a belief? Do you think there is a God or absolute authority directing the theist's thoughts or do you think the thoughts are based on beliefs about right and wrong?

The majority of the laws that are discussed and enacted are to do with governing people's, companies' and the nation's financial interactions. Even when there are criminal laws enacted they integrate financial penalties.

Another assertion so nothing to discuss. You think the purpose of laws is financial, I think the purpose is moral - based on maintaining peace through concepts of equality, justice, protecting the vulnerable, directing rights and responsibilities so we'll agree to disagree on this thread.

We want people to adequately establish the change in their status - yes. Does that constitute a 'fault', I don't think so. Does it place any extra burden on them - no, if they're separating anyway. The courts want the efficiency of not having to flip-flop back and forward with every drama-seeker's change of heart.

It does seem as though we both understand the law's details and simply have a different impression of what that constitutes as a personal impact.

Yes it places an extra burden to have to refrain from having dinner together to prove I am serious about getting divorced. If I was divorcing my husband that wouldn't stop me sharing meals with him or sharing household chores with him, especially if we both remained in the marital home because of recession and housing cost issues or providing stability for children, rather than because of a change of heart.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jakswan,

Listening to your link, Christian twats

Muslims would be campaigning against such misrepresentation.

They are, the two Muslim gentlemen on your link are doing a fine job.

I love books but if I had to burn one it would be the tripe that those so called Christians have written, how to respond to Islam, bullshit.

And it is nice to hear from the Muslims reminding us that we in the west are not blameless, of course they are polite about it, me, Blair is a warmongering wanker.

And from my link, nice to read that the children are referring to the terrorists as daesh ( my confirmation bias again ).

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Yes it can. Atheists can believe there is a moral or ethical imperative to control the actions of others that over rides other considerations of individual personal autonomy  - that belief can be the atheist's absolute authority.

That's not because of their atheism, though. 'I don't believe in God' can't lead to 'therefore the world has to follow my lead', whereas 'I believe in God' can lead through 'I know what God wants' to 'therefore do as I say'.

Do you think there is a God or absolute authority directing the theist's thoughts or do you think the thoughts are based on beliefs about right and wrong?

No, I think that religion claims a source of absolute moral justification, whereas atheism explicitly (and solely) rejects that claim. It doesn't prevent other types of claim of absolute moral justification, but it also doesn't lead to them.

O.

[jakswan]

Listening to your link, Christian twats

Harsh!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's not because of their atheism, though. 'I don't believe in God' can't lead to 'therefore the world has to follow my lead', whereas 'I believe in God' can lead through 'I know what God wants' to 'therefore do as I say'.

No, I think that religion claims a source of absolute moral justification, whereas atheism explicitly (and solely) rejects that claim. It doesn't prevent other types of claim of absolute moral justification, but it also doesn't lead to them.

O.

If you think "I don't believe in Allah but do believe in Shiva" can lead to the totalitarian mindset of "I should stop the worship of Allah" and l"the world should follow my lead", then it seems inconsistent to argue that "I don't believe in God/ gods / Thor / Zeus / Ganesh /" cannot lead to "I believe those people who do believe in God/gods/Thor / Zeus etc are "infecting" and "corrupting" young minds with their unevidenced theist beliefs and I believe these people should be stopped and the world should follow my lead"

I think some people claim their moral values to be a source of justification for their actions - not quite sure what,in practice, you think the word " absolute" adds to this.

[Spud]

Which supports my point.

Not really. By giving himself as a once for all sacrifice Jesus made the sacrificial aspect of the law unnecessary; similarly many of the ceremonial laws were no longer needed. They did not change, rather he fulfilled them.

The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that the West is founded on Christianity, the belief that Christ fulfilled the law. Muslims however do not recognize this and so it still imposes five-times-daily prayer on people, and flogs and kills people for non-capital offenses.

The danger for the West is that if it becomes too liberal (easy divorce, gay marriage for example) Muslims will be more determined to dominate it and ultimately impose sharia law.

[floo]

Not really. By giving himself as a once for all sacrifice Jesus made the sacrificial aspect of the law unnecessary; similarly many of the ceremonial laws were no longer needed. They did not change, rather he fulfilled them.

The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that the West is founded on Christianity, the belief that Christ fulfilled the law. Muslims however do not recognize this and so it still imposes five-times-daily prayer on people, and flogs and kills people for non-capital offenses.

The danger for the West is that if it becomes too liberal (easy divorce, gay marriage for example) Muslims will be more determined to dominate it and ultimately impose sharia law.

Extreme Christianity is very nasty just like extreme Islam!

[Spud]

Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?

[BashfulAnthony]

Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?

Come on, Spud:  don't embarrass Floo!

[floo]

Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?

Sharia law is not pleasant, but then nor is extreme Christianity which requires wives to be submissive and obey their husbands, among many other unpleasant things!

[BashfulAnthony]

Sharia law is not pleasant, but then nor is extreme Christianity which requires wives to be submissive and obey their husbands, among many other unpleasant things!

Are you kidding? Do you really think that is in any way common.  Even of it was, it does not in any sense compare with Sharia Law.  Do you understand what Sharia Law entails?

[Outrider]

Are you kidding? Do you really think that is in any way common.  Even of it was, it does not in any sense compare with Sharia Law.  Do you understand what Sharia Law entails?

I'm sure we had this discussion somewhere else earlier - there's a difference between the word of law and the interpretation and application of the law.

How we currently - when we do - interpret the frankly disturbing instruction that women should be submissive doesn't change the fact that it's open to a far stricter interpretation. Similarly, the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine is equally as open to interpretation, which is why Muslims with a less rigid view of their religion don't necessarily need to hide their women behind sheets.

All laws are applied, and in the application there is subjective interpretation.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm sure we had this discussion somewhere else earlier - there's a difference between the word of law and the interpretation and application of the law.

How we currently - when we do - interpret the frankly disturbing instruction that women should be submissive doesn't change the fact that it's open to a far stricter interpretation. Similarly, the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine is equally as open to interpretation, which is why Muslims with a less rigid view of their religion don't necessarily need to hide their women behind sheets.

All laws are applied, and in the application there is subjective interpretation.

O.

Somebody once said I was expecting my wife to be submissive to me because she was always walking three steps behind.  But as I pointed out, anybody would be three steps behind if they had to carry all those bags.   (After Omid Djalili. )

[Spud]

I was thinking more of practices such as flogging a thief, for example. I know the Mosaic law was similar to Sharia law in this respect, but my point to jeremy was that Christianity changed society because of the mercy God showed us in sending his son. From the shopkeeper's perspective the thief might deserve to be flogged, but because of mercy he will be spared that and instead serve time in prison.

[floo]

I was thinking more of flogging a thief, for example. I know the Mosaic law was similar to Sharia law in this respect, but my point to jeremy was that Christianity changed society because of the mercy God showed us in sending his son. From the shopkeeper's perspective the thief might deserve to be flogged, but because of mercy he will be spared that and instead serve time in prison.

You are JOKING!  ::)The deity should have killed its flipping self if that was necessary rather than its offspring, the evil so and so!

[BashfulAnthony]

You are JOKING!  ::)The deity should have killed its flipping self if that was necessary rather than its offspring, the evil so and so!

Such a joy to watch the great intellects in action.
   

[Shaker]

Let's hope at least a little rubs off on you, Bashers

[BashfulAnthony]

Let's hope at least a little rubs off on you, Bashers

Eh, what?  Oh, it's Shaky  (by name and by posting style!)  Just back from your afternoon nap then.  Let's hope you are refreshed enough to post something akin to good sense, eh?

[Leonard James]

Eh, what?  Oh, it's Shaky  (by name and by posting style!)  Just back from your afternoon nap then.  Let's hope you are refreshed enough to post something akin to good sense, eh?

Don't blame other people for your inability to understand.

[BashfulAnthony]

Don't blame

Cutting comment, but so harsh.