Islam is right about Women

Woodsie1

pinkyeye wrote: »

So you're admitting trolling? Go you. Hope it makes your weekend. :rolleyes:

How sad.

Another leftist triggered who cant read.
Im just laughing.

cloudatlas

padd b1975 wrote: »

Speaking as someone with an amazing ability to find psychotic women, I'm starting to come around to their way of thinking.

Probably down to your winning personality :rolleyes:

padd b1975

Zorya wrote: »

Its the constant bitchy snark and petty animus instead of offering opinions to be discussed that always makes me click unfollow.
Unfollows.

Flounce of the week right here folks.

padd b1975

cloudatlas wrote: »

Probably down to your winning personality :rolleyes:

Yes, and a schlong like a Portuguese fisherman's arm.

Beasty

Suttree wrote: »

A lot of the lads on this thread, including the OP, see themselves as some kind of alternative intellectuals sticking it to the "leftists" - the truth is they're just not all that bright, and they're lacking in a meaningful social circle.

Less of the generalisations, and in particular you are not in a position to make such statements as "truth"

Any questions, PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

Wibbs

Suttree wrote: »

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that rape within marriage wasn't illegal up until relatively recently

Which was the case throughout the western world, not just in the Ireland of the Catholic church. I seem to remember that it was Russia who were the first to specifically address it back in the 1930's(?). Indeed Ireland was ahead of a few European states in criminalising it.

- women in public sector jobs had to give them up on getting married - children out of wedlock were referred to as bastards and at times mother's ostracized - all in a country that took its social and moral queues from the Catholic Church. This is just the treatment of women, without getting into the fact that the Church rendered the rape of children into an industrial process (abetted by a compliant state).

I know it's dead popular these days to write the entire period of "catholic Ireland" off, but while the crimes of some members of the church and the church's ignoring even hiding of such abuse was and remains criminally appalling and I'm bloody glad we're well rid of that malignant influence, the line that "the Church rendered the rape of children into an industrial process" is the very definition of hyperbole. We also seem to have a blindspot about ourselves and our own people's compliance over the worst of these crimes and lump all our collective guilt onto the church as an almost separate boogyman. The laundries didn't run themselves, the kids didn't walk into them by themselves either. It was our grandparents and great grandparents who supported this indirectly or directly.

weldoninhio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Both religions talk sh about women

Is that the new or old testament?

Geuze

Wibbs wrote: »

The laundries didn't run themselves, the kids didn't walk into them by themselves either. It was our grandparents and great grandparents who supported this indirectly or directly.

Correct.

Families placed their own daughters in these laundries.

The way people talk about it now, you'd think the nuns were going around rounding people up!!!!

People willingly chose to place their daughter in these laundries, and were happy that the nuns would take care of their daughters.

Social services were not developed back then.

Geuze

Suttree wrote: »

getting into the fact that the Church rendered the rape of children into an industrial process (abetted by a compliant state).

This statement is utterly false.

1800_Ladladlad

Suttree wrote: »

Some Islamic countries and fundamentalist Muslims have attitudes towards women that largely in the West only misogynists (say those who think they're being funny by taking a username after a man accused of multiple accounts of sexual assault) would share - the poster in this case would be some alt-right chap thinking he's being exceedingly clever.

How did I do?

Thankfully as good Irish Catholics we have no recent history of ill-treatment of women.

Not very well.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

and I'm bloody glad we're well rid of that malignant influence, .

I'm glad too that we are no longer Church ridden, but the present day atheists are almost as insufferable as any earlier theocrats.

Agnosticism is credible and respectable as a position. It accepts the limits of knowledge. Atheism is a belief system unsubstantiated by definitive proof, and is as much a credo as any other belief system.

meeeeh

Zorya wrote: »

I'm glad too that we are no longer Church ridden, but the present day atheists are almost as insufferable as any earlier theocrats.

Agnosticism is credible and respectable as a position. It accepts the limits of knowledge. Atheism is a belief system unsubstantiated by definitive proof, and is as much a credo as any other belief system.

You do realise you have to prove that something exists not that it doesn't exist? Besides what people believe in or don't believe really doesn't matter. It's what people do that matters.

Biggest religious crimes tend to happen where people are poor, there is significant difference in power and wealth and so on.

Zorya

meeeeh wrote: »

You do realise you have to prove that something exists not that it doesn't exist?.

Do I? Who says? Have to? Its a rule somewhere, is it? Must have missed that one. Even in science they have unprovables which underlie certain theoroms.

Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem says that if you have a consistent mathematical system (i.e., a set of axioms with no contradictions) in which you can do a certain amount of arithmetic, then there are statements in that system which are unprovable using only that system’s axioms.

In other words, math is incomplete. It is impossible to prove everything.

I don't know if there is a divine reality behind everything. Or there is not. Nobody else does either. No matter how much they spout and mock people their religion, there is a lot that is unprovable, unknown, perhaps even unknowable. I know I feel over-powering awe. That makes me more inclined to believe in the existence of metaphysical reality. That is not a dumb position to incline towards - no matter what atheists say. Those who say I don't know make more sense to me than those who say I don't believe..It's allowed to think that without being brushed off.

meeeeh

You are equating lack of proof that something doesn't exist with lack of proof something exists. There is no proof that Cookie Monster doesn't exist, according to your logic it's just as likely it does exist.

To be clear I never ever said that someone is stupid because they believe in higher force and being atheist doesn't make you smart. But that doesn't make your statement any less ridiculous.

Zorya

meeeeh wrote: »

You are equating lack of proof that something doesn't exist with lack of proof something exists. There is no proof that Cookie Monster doesn't exist, according to your logic it's just as likely it does exist.

To be clear I never ever said that someone is stupid because they believe in higher force and being atheist doesn't make you smart. But that doesn't make your statement any less ridiculous.

The Cookie Monster does exist. It is a puppet. (Sorry to those who believe in him ) So there is no need for me to prove the Cookie Monster doesn't exist.

PS I am not ''equating'' anything. I am not talking about science at all.

Calling people's opinions ridiculous by the way is close enough to calling them stupid. Saying I do not agree with your opinion is a more temperate way of discussing things.

Cordell

Zorya wrote: »

Do I? Who says? Have to? Its a rule somewhere, is it? Must have missed that one.

Yes.

Zorya wrote: »

Even in science they have unprovables which underlie certain theoroms.

No.

Zorya

Cordell wrote: »

Yes.

No

Cordell wrote: »

No.

Yes

Suttree

Beasty wrote: »

Less of the generalisations, and in particular you are not in a position to make such statements as "truth"

Any questions, PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

Nah.

Cordell

Right
Burden of proof lies with the ones that claim the existence.
All scientific theories are proven, if not, they are hypotheses.

Zorya

Cordell wrote: »

Right
Burden of proof lies with the ones that claim the existence.
All scientific theories are proven, if not, they are hypotheses.

I did not claim the existence. You misread me.
Many scientific ideas are wholly based on hypotheses. A quick google of the unprovables in science or mathemathics will fill your weekend reading slots. Maths is kind of close to philosophy in some aspects.

Veritas Libertas

Zorya wrote: »

but the present day atheists are almost as insufferable as any earlier theocrats.

Agnosticism is credible and respectable as a position. It accepts the limits of knowledge. Atheism is a belief system unsubstantiated by definitive proof, and is as much a credo as any other belief system.

Isn't atheist just a lack of theistic religion?
Isn't agnostic the idea that it is unknowable?

So therefore you must be atheist to be agnostic. and all most(nearly all?) atheists are also agnostic.
You cannot be a theistic agnostic you see.

But I do see your point about how militant some of them are with their disrespect of other's beliefs; I used to be quite like that until I realized the utility in being more pragmatic.
This is an example of religion 'stumbling' across the profound idea that atonement actually makes people act righteously. (Great work by Dan Ariely)
E.g.

Skip to about 5:26

Cordell

Zorya wrote: »

I did not claim the existence. You misread me.

You claimed that agnostics' point of view is closer to science than atheists'. Which is not true.

Zorya wrote: »

Many scientific ideas are wholly based on hypotheses. A quick google of the unprovables in science or mathemathics will fill your weekend reading slots. Maths is kind of close to philosophy in some aspects.

Of course there are many unproven ideas and hypotheses, and until they are proven they are not proper science.

Zorya

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Isn't atheist just a lack of theistic religion?
Isn't agnostic the idea that it is unknowable?

So therefore you must be atheist to be agnostic. and all most(nearly all?) atheists are also agnostic.
You cannot be a theistic agnostic you see.
[Quotye]

Yes, an atheist does not hold with theism or the existence of any god.

An agnostic says such is unknown or / and unknowable. The possibility remains.
One does not therefore have to be atheist to be agnostic - one simply accepts one does not know without the addition of the belief structure of the atheist. Some obviously are also atheists as they say they not only do not KNOW but also do not BELIEVE.

Vocal Atheists don't generally present publicly as agnostic, in my observations, as they believe they know, thus they say everything is known or knowable. And they believe this. A belief which is in my opinion unknowable.

Zorya

Cordell wrote: »

You claimed that agnostics' point of view is closer to science than atheists'. Which is not true.

In your opinion.

Cordell wrote: »

Of course there are many unproven ideas and hypotheses, and until they are proven they are not proper science.

Hypotheses are fundamental to science.

Justin Credible Darts

For the record I despise the church, and do not believe in an invisible man, but have no problem with those that believe in God, santa claus, unicorns, fairies, goblins, buddah, big foot , allah, the tooth fairy, and the rest of the made up delusional beings. as long as that opinion is not forced upon me, or impedes upon my beliefs.

That said I hate how any person who mocks the catholic church, islamic beliefs etc is suddenly deemed an atheist.
Some people need to be aware you can utterly despise the church but believe in God, they are 2 separate things.

WB Yokes

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

For the record I despise the church, and do not believe in an invisible man, but have no problem with those that believe in God, santa claus, unicorns, fairies, goblins, buddah, big foot , allah, the tooth fairy, and the rest of the made up delusional beings. as long as that opinion is not forced upon me, or impedes upon my beliefs.

That said I hate how any person who mocks the catholic church, islamic beliefs etc is suddenly deemed an atheist.
Some people need to be aware you can utterly despise the church but believe in God, they are 2 separate things.

Each to their own I say.

Zorya

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

For the record I despise the church, and do not believe in an invisible man, but have no problem with those that believe in God, santa claus, unicorns, fairies, goblins, buddah, big foot , allah, the tooth fairy, and the rest of the made up delusional beings. as long as that opinion is not forced upon me, or impedes upon my beliefs.
.

Grouping God with santa and goblins, which people often do as a way of dismissing awe, presupposes God can only be apprehended as some kind of anthropomorphic being. It is a limiting way of envisioning or bracketing possibilities. Dare I say it is (ironically) parochial?

Veritas Libertas

Zorya wrote: »

Yes, an atheist does not hold with theism or the existence of any god.

The possibility remains.
One does not therefore have to be atheist to be agnostic - one simply accepts one does not know without the addition of the belief structure of the atheist.

Atheist don't have a belief structure. It literally means without Theism
A(Without) - Theist(Theism)
To your part in bold, is it possible to be a theistic agnostic?

You see you can't be a deist and an agnostic.
You also can't be a theist and an agnostic.
But you can be an atheist and a deist.

Your belief that atheism is a belief is wrapping you in knots

Zorya

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Atheist don't have a belief structure. It literally means without Theism
A(Without) - Theist(Theism)
To your part in bold, is it possible to be a theistic agnostic?

You see you can't be a deist and an agnostic.
You also can't be a theist and an agnostic.
But you can be an atheist and a deist.

Your belief that atheism is a belief is wrapping you in knots

It IS a belief system. It requires faith in an unproven credo.

topper75

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What exactly does Islam say about women? I don’t believe in Islam so I don’t claim to know everything it says about women.

Islam doesn't say anything weird about women at all. Those letterbox things that women from Islamic countries wear is just what happens to be on the catwalks in Kabul this season.
And last season. And the season before that...:P

I don't have much of a beef with Islam if practiced as a personal faith without imposition on others. I certainly don't have a beef with the rights of one entire half of my own species.

However there are ludicrous incongruities in the thinking of a self-styled 'progressive' left movement that claims to be the champions of the 'downtrodden', well, downtrodden as they perceive them. That is the joke here.