I take my stand, you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As do they. How can you fault them for acting on what they deem true?

Then we have stuff like this from those that you apparently think should not be faulted for their beliefs and actions.They are muslims...



http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4849

PA honors terrorist serving 30 life sentences
for Passover murders
PA minister visits family of terrorist who planned
Passover Seder bombing that killed 30 Israelis

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack.

Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy.


OR THIS.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haria-law.html


Saturday, Sep 15 2012 6PM 59°F 9PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is threatening women and trying to ban gays in bid to impose sharia law
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 06:17 EST, 18 April 2011

..Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.
..

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26YaDudVl

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OR CONSIDER THIS FROM A MUSLIM THAT BECAME A CHRISTIAN.
I think he may know a lot about Islam.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ex-m...ians-and-jews/

If Islam has to prosper, be the superior religion, then certain steps must be taken by its followers, including spreading Islam at any cost, including the sword and killing any opposition.
So you learn all of these things and then of course you learn that the Koran tells you to hate the Christians and the Jews.”

It is these messages that al Fadi desperately wants Americans, among other Westerners, to better understand. To address these issues, he has written a book called ‘The Qur’an Dilemma.”
In particular, he believes that the West has been fed a more favorable, less volatile picture of Islam in its entirety. One subject he covers in-depth is the Koran’s call for jihad, or “holy” war, against non-believers.

“It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad – killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah,” he explains

[tailfins]

Islam is not a single unit or belief system. It is practiced differently by different tribes, sects and countries. Treating it as one evil system is proof that you err in judgement.

Confronting one evil system is a throwback from the Cold War.

[aboutime]

Confronting one evil system is a throwback from the Cold War.

Guess we can all agree to use that Excuse when talking to the relatives, and friends of those VICTIMS who have been killed?

That sounds just like another OBAMA EXCUSE, or method of BLAMING someone else for his Stupidity.

[Missileman]

I can and do because their agenda, their actions include murder and terrorism (Jihad)as the primary tool for advancement and enforcement of the religion. Ignoring the evil inherent in their actions may be convenient but is hardly rational , just, or wise!
Certainly not wise as it is in direct opposition to our Western values, Constitutional rights , the Rule of Law,and basic morality.

Take their honor killings for example and you will see perfectly well just what is wrong when ignorance and Islam are mixed together. And note the reasons given for such killing.

It's all just extremely sick and while you may come upon someone committing such here, and claiming to be Christian, this is so common among Muslims, that it has become a damn a broken record.

The US is letting down the system by not heavily screening people seeking entry into this country. This pertains to anyone, particularly Muslims, coming from Muslim dominated countries. Although the majority of Muslims have enough common sense not to indulge in such things. There are more than enough, who actually take such things on a Fundamentalist basis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You still don't get it. What if THEIR god and THEIR holy book IS the truth and they are indeed doing as GOD wants them to? IOW, what if YOU have it wrong?

[Missileman]

Then we have stuff like this from those that you apparently think should not be faulted for their beliefs and actions.They are muslims...



http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4849

PA honors terrorist serving 30 life sentences
for Passover murders
PA minister visits family of terrorist who planned
Passover Seder bombing that killed 30 Israelis

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack.

Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy.


OR THIS.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haria-law.html


Saturday, Sep 15 2012 6PM 59°F 9PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is threatening women and trying to ban gays in bid to impose sharia law
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 06:17 EST, 18 April 2011

..Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.
..

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26YaDudVl

Actually, I'm an equal opportunity non-believer...I think you're all full of shit. I would NEVER suggest that someone's actions can be justified because of their beliefs. I was asking YOU the question to see if you might grasp the hypocrisy of your position.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, I'm an equal opportunity non-believer...I think you're all full of shit. I would NEVER suggest that someone's actions can be justified because of their beliefs. I was asking YOU the question to see if you might grasp the hypocrisy of your position.

I may be full of shit if a man may have no absolute in either his principles or his morality. From the subject were are discussing morality hits a bit closer to home. So I will address from that perspective if you do not mind. The way I see it you pose the question that how do I know they are wrong and I am right? As if putting forth this query should prove something, exactly what you think it proves I havent a clue. Unless you think it proves there are no absolutes. Would there being no absolutes prove my beliefs to be hypocrisy? My answer is a simple question , are you sure that there are no absoutes!?? Sorry, just couldnt help tossing that one in here.
Can atheists justify any type of morality? Can water really be wet? Can monkees shine shoes?!!

In today's culture, the ideal of rejecting principled beliefs to be valid by presenting that there are no absolutes (which negates the entire concept of there being TRUTH) may be appealing to many and a defense against those taking a moral or highly principled stand! Yet, that fails to this old self evident truism. The truth, is the truth, is the TRUTH. Many people find this to be a VERY ENLIGHENING truism, they feel that there is something obvious and right about it and with just cause!

However, if you were to survey the latest philosophy journals, you would find no mention of absolute truths and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent "species of truth". The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the refutation of principled beliefs with ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers do not discuss "absolute truths" is that they find such talk to be the placing of circles into squares out of boredom IMHO!

The problem with the concept of "there are no absolute truths" is that it is a catchphrase under which several related but logically distinct ideas are collected. As such, whenever someone uses this concept it is unclear which (or which combination) of these logically distinct ideas they have in mind. Because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the notion absolute truth, contemporary philosophers prefer to avoid it and instead employ terms that capture with more precision the different ideas that people associate with absolute truth.

So can we jusify or prove these EXAMPLES (?),
- Anything that we take to be true is revisable
- We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe
- All truths are a matter of opinion
- Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
- All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
- There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Each of those examples have been discussed, at one point or another, in contemporary philosophy and each are held or denied with varying degrees of confidence. So my advice is, if every you are tempted to talk about absolute truths you should ask yourself which, if any, of the above ideas you have in mind.

All the those given, which are meant to express the negation of the existence of an absolute truth, does not actually refer to the existence of the absolute truth itself. Rather the expressions merely refer to the inability of humans to percieve or recognise absolute truths. I guess this has a lot to do with our semantic definition of what “truth” is though. Now I acknowledge that the concept of “truth” AS has been devised by humans is a very subjective phenomena. However, surely when we refer to “absolute truths” we are referring to the existence of objective facts, in other words, an “objective reality” that exists beyond the human mind.

We are not referring to a general consensus that all humans can agree upon to be true… Surely humans do not have to be aware of the existence of these absolute truths and objective facts in order for them to exist?
“We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe”!!!

My problem with the examples given that express the belief that “there are no absolute truths”. They all refer to our inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths. But our ignorance does not have anything to do with whether absolute truths actually exist. The truth, the true state of affairs, an objective reality could exist, without us being none the wiser. Or one may intuitively know it and act upon it without the need to prove it to anybody!

The existence of absolte truth does exist whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not. For example: It is true that either that man killed his wife, or that he did not. One or the other. Whether we know whether that man is guilty or innocent, he is definately one or the other.
The TRUTH is not dependent on our own personal, subjective opinions. If it were, everything we believe to be true, including whether that man was guilty or not, could be completely arbitrary!! In fact, if there was no “absolute truth”, or facts about the world, to correspond to our beliefs, then truth, absolute or relative, could not exist (according to the correspondance theory).

If you maintain that individual truth must a\lways be revisable, but does that really have any impact on the truth about truth? It seems to me, that the thesis for the argument that “there is no absolute truth” can not hold any weight at all.

Thus we have your "what if you are wrong" argument , its questioning of what is truth, and the "second guessing ourselves" taken down one of the many million of paths one can easily carry it...

If we were to talk about religious morality, I would say that relativism only has one place: it determining which things are okay outside of whatever determines one’s moral code. However, I am of the thought that there is only one correct moral code. Now I realize that there will be many that are within this school of thought that have different moral codes. This is a seemingly a paradox. However, the clear solution is that we must realize that when examined from a pure secularism view, our moral code might be the wrong one. So then debates must be done between the different moral codes to determine which one is the correct one. However, the idea of one person determining morality for themselves and another determining morality for themselves when the two moralities might disagree means that we have actually done away with morality and that we have just welcomed in every person being a walking moral code, which means that morality can never be determined. This means we could never say an action was actually immoral, because to the other person it could have been one of the most moral things they could have done!! This is chaos. Reality does not lend itself to this paradox being valid IMHO.
I hereby certify my "absolute belief" that Islam is not right by the ONE TRUE GOD!
Or as was cited before by my previous vote...--Tyr

[tailfins]

Guess we can all agree to use that Excuse when talking to the relatives, and friends of those VICTIMS who have been killed?

That sounds just like another OBAMA EXCUSE, or method of BLAMING someone else for his Stupidity.

Bad information yields bad results. As far as I'm concerned America is the focus. All I care about is properly protect the American people. I don't care about all the strange religions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bad information yields bad results. As far as I'm concerned America is the focus. All I care about is properly protect the American people. I don't care about all the strange religions.

Nothing wrong with that as a sole pursuit IMHO..---Tyr

[Missileman]

I may be full of shit if a man may have no absolute in either his principles or his morality. From the subject were are discussing morality hits a bit closer to home. So I will address from that perspective if you do not mind. The way I see it you pose the question that how do I know they are wrong and I am right? As if putting forth this query should prove something, exactly what you think it proves I havent a clue. Unless you think it proves there are no absolutes. Would there being no absolutes prove my beliefs to be hypocrisy? My answer is a simple question , are you sure that there are no absoutes!?? Sorry, just couldnt help tossing that one in here.
Can atheists justify any type of morality? Can water really be wet? Can monkees shine shoes?!!

In today's culture, the ideal of rejecting principled beliefs to be valid by presenting that there are no absolutes (which negates the entire concept of there being TRUTH) may be appealing to many and a defense against those taking a moral or highly principled stand! Yet, that fails to this old self evident truism. The truth, is the truth, is the TRUTH. Many people find this to be a VERY ENLIGHENING truism, they feel that there is something obvious and right about it and with just cause!

However, if you were to survey the latest philosophy journals, you would find no mention of absolute truths and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent "species of truth". The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the refutation of principled beliefs with ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers do not discuss "absolute truths" is that they find such talk to be the placing of circles into squares out of boredom IMHO!

The problem with the concept of "there are no absolute truths" is that it is a catchphrase under which several related but logically distinct ideas are collected. As such, whenever someone uses this concept it is unclear which (or which combination) of these logically distinct ideas they have in mind. Because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the notion absolute truth, contemporary philosophers prefer to avoid it and instead employ terms that capture with more precision the different ideas that people associate with absolute truth.

So can we jusify or prove these EXAMPLES (?),
- Anything that we take to be true is revisable
- We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe
- All truths are a matter of opinion
- Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
- All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
- There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Each of those examples have been discussed, at one point or another, in contemporary philosophy and each are held or denied with varying degrees of confidence. So my advice is, if every you are tempted to talk about absolute truths you should ask yourself which, if any, of the above ideas you have in mind.

All the those given, which are meant to express the negation of the existence of an absolute truth, does not actually refer to the existence of the absolute truth itself. Rather the expressions merely refer to the inability of humans to percieve or recognise absolute truths. I guess this has a lot to do with our semantic definition of what “truth” is though. Now I acknowledge that the concept of “truth” AS has been devised by humans is a very subjective phenomena. However, surely when we refer to “absolute truths” we are referring to the existence of objective facts, in other words, an “objective reality” that exists beyond the human mind.

We are not referring to a general consensus that all humans can agree upon to be true… Surely humans do not have to be aware of the existence of these absolute truths and objective facts in order for them to exist?
“We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe”!!!

My problem with the examples given that express the belief that “there are no absolute truths”. They all refer to our inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths. But our ignorance does not have anything to do with whether absolute truths actually exist. The truth, the true state of affairs, an objective reality could exist, without us being none the wiser. Or one may intuitively know it and act upon it without the need to prove it to anybody!

The existence of absolte truth does exist whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not. For example: It is true that either that man killed his wife, or that he did not. One or the other. Whether we know whether that man is guilty or innocent, he is definately one or the other.
The TRUTH is not dependent on our own personal, subjective opinions. If it were, everything we believe to be true, including whether that man was guilty or not, could be completely arbitrary!! In fact, if there was no “absolute truth”, or facts about the world, to correspond to our beliefs, then truth, absolute or relative, could not exist (according to the correspondance theory).

If you maintain that individual truth must a\lways be revisable, but does that really have any impact on the truth about truth? It seems to me, that the thesis for the argument that “there is no absolute truth” can not hold any weight at all.

Thus we have your "what if you are wrong" argument , its questioning of what is truth, and the "second guessing ourselves" taken down one of the many million of paths one can easily carry it...

If we were to talk about religious morality, I would say that relativism only has one place: it determining which things are okay outside of whatever determines one’s moral code. However, I am of the thought that there is only one correct moral code. Now I realize that there will be many that are within this school of thought that have different moral codes. This is a seemingly a paradox. However, the clear solution is that we must realize that when examined from a pure secularism view, our moral code might be the wrong one. So then debates must be done between the different moral codes to determine which one is the correct one. However, the idea of one person determining morality for themselves and another determining morality for themselves when the two moralities might disagree means that we have actually done away with morality and that we have just welcomed in every person being a walking moral code, which means that morality can never be determined. This means we could never say an action was actually immoral, because to the other person it could have been one of the most moral things they could have done!! This is chaos. Reality does not lend itself to this paradox being valid IMHO.
I hereby certify my "absolute belief" that Islam is not right by the ONE TRUE GOD!
Or as was cited before by my previous vote...--Tyr

Their conviction is as strong as yours. Yours and their conviction is as strong as that held in the past by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norsemen, etc.

Hypothetically, if Islam is the truth and they are indeed following god's directive, are they acting morally?

If it turns out that both Christianity and Islam are fairy tales, is your Christian morality superior to Islam's?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Their conviction is as strong as yours. Yours and their conviction is as strong as that held in the past by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norsemen, etc.

Hypothetically, if Islam is the truth and they are indeed following god's directive, are they acting morally?

If it turns out that both Christianity and Islam are fairy tales, is your Christian morality superior to Islam's?

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

We have prisons chock full of people who have done the same thing in America. Can't rattle off the stats for ya but I'm batting a majority are listed as having no religion or Christians. It's criminal behavior, not a religion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We have prisons chock full of people who have done the same thing in America. Can't rattle off the stats for ya but I'm batting a majority are listed as having no religion or Christians. It's criminal behavior, not a religion.

Good to know that doing those things to further a religion is "just" criminal behaviour. Tell me how many ordinary run of the mill criminals are actively carrying a prayer rug, murdering innocent people and chanting Allah Akbar?
According to you one can not murder for a religious cause!! They are lying bastards when citing why they are doing that! Got a link to support in anyway this amazing revelation?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Good to know that doing those things to further a religion is "just" criminal behaviour. Tell me how many ordinary run of the mill criminals are actively carrying a prayer rug, murdering innocent people and chanting Allah Akbar?
According to you one can not murder for a religious cause!! They are lying bastards when citing why they are doing that! Got a link to support in anyway this amazing revelation?-Tyr

Sure they can. Remember the Crusades ?

[Missileman]

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

Assuming of course that they aren't actually acting under divine guidance. Under those circumstances, their actions would be moral, no?