Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Qur'an forbids Muslims to self harm or harm those in their care or change their bodies in any manner even Tattoos, permanent hair coloring, cosmetic surgery and anything that causes harm to the body are forbidden.
At least this part is true. My first wife was Muslim. I would get zits on the back of my shoulders and trying to sit back felt like someone was poking me with a pin, so I did my best to get rid of them by squeezing them out. She insisted I was "making my skin sick". I had to do my level best to convince her that I was "curing a problem with my skin", but I don't think I ever got through to her.
Now, explain why so many Muslim women are "circumcised", which is a type of cosmetic surgery that is a change to the body.
At least this part is true. My first wife was Muslim. I would get zits on the back of my shoulders and trying to sit back felt like someone was poking me with a pin, so I did my best to get rid of them by squeezing them out. She insisted I was "making my skin sick". I had to do my level best to convince her that I was "curing a problem with my skin", but I don't think I ever got through to her.
Now, explain why so many Muslim women are "circumcised", which is a type of cosmetic surgery that is a change to the body.
That is a tribal custom that originated among some of the African and Mideast tribes. It is forbidden in Islam, but the tribes even though accepting Islam, continue with the practice. I guess you can call it a conflict of interest. They seem to know they are sinning in Islam, but they seem to feel going against the older tribal customs would be a greater sin, so they continue with the ancient practice of their old ways.
The only reason Muslim men are circumcised is because that is a direct commandment from God. It is commanded for all men who follow any of the Abrahamic Faiths. Jews, Christians, Sabians and Muslims. Some of the Christian denominations claim it was over ruled by Jesus(as) the rest of us disagree with that view.
The problem whoppers is that there is ...NO END to the insane things we see ...all which stem from the Islamic belief system..
There is a blood thirst which cannot be subdued among the mass's of Muslims. Sure, the True Islam is a good extraction, but how reasonable is it for the mass's of Muslims? There is no end to why, the approach to spirituality is on the wrong track, relative to what the human being is "collectively"
Even without sane overview the system will do nothing but war against each other for appropiate interpetation....all of which an emerging blood thirst will be significantly represented
Sounds like we need a religious "reboot".
Your words remind me of German Protestantism and its attempt at "rebooting" traditional dogmatic Christianity in the 1800s.
As for the other thing I'm hesitant to get into a debate on the Old Testament here. We're also getting a bit off-topic.
The off-topicness is the usual reault from sensationalized threads like this - and is usually the motive of the thread. Example:
1. Create thread about a social practice.
2. Make sure it is religious in nature, or at least practiced by religious people.
3. Include photo or detail that portrays extremist behavior as normative in the social practice.
4. Wait for the usual "yes-man" poster to conclude that particular the social practice proves that "religion is the root of all evil" and the further unrelated note (but the ulterior motive) that "atheists don't do this".
5. Sit back and enjoy the back-and-forth until the social practice is examined more closely, its sensationalized aspects revealed, and everyone gets angry or bored.
Typical American propaganda. The NL doesn't "grapple" with euthanasia, it is hardly controversial here and not a topic of debate. There are very strict regulations for the practice of euthanasia, it's not like any suicidal person can just go to the doctor and get some lethal pills. As for the Groningen Protocol, this is a more accurate description of how it works:
Quote:
The protocol, made up after extensive consultation between physicians, lawyers, parents and the Prosecution Office, offers procedures and guidelines how to achieve the correct decision and performance. The final decision about "active ending of life on infants" is not in the hands of the physicians but with the parents, with physicians and social workers agreeing to it. Criteria are amongst others "unbearable suffering" and "expected quality of life". Only the parents can start the procedure. The procedure is reported to be working well.[6]
For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled:
Doctors who end the life of a baby must report the death to the local medical examiner, who in turn reports it to both the district attorney and to a review committee. The procedure differs in this respect from the black letter law governing voluntary euthanasia. There, the medical examiner sends the report only to the regional review committee, which alerts the district attorney only if it judges that the physician acted improperly.
Quote:
In 2005 a review study was undertaken of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004.[6] All cases concerned newborns with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. In all cases, at least 2 doctors were consulted outside the medical team. In 17 of 22 cases, a multidisciplinary spina bifida team was consulted. All parents consented to the termination of life; in 4 cases they explicitly requested it. The mean time between reporting of the case and the decision concerning prosecution was 5.3 months. None of the cases led to prosecution. The study concluded that all cases of active termination of life reported were found to be in accordance with good practice.[6]
As you can see, it has nothing to do with killing children because they're not fully sentient yet and there is no connection to atheism. It only applies to children who suffer hopeless and unbearable pain and the parents must make the request. I don't see anything immoral about this practice. It is a humane thing to do and I admire the parents who have the courage to take this decision in the interest of their child, despite their own feelings.
It would have been nice if you had quoted the relevant part so we didn't have to read the whole article.
It looks like this is the passage you were referring to:
Quote:
So the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications, which we do not have the space to discuss adequately. Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.
Surely, you realize this guy holds extremist views and does not represent or speak for atheists. I don't know of anyone, atheist or religious, that agrees with him on this point. You have cherry picked one guy with extremist views, found that he is also an atheist, and tried to defame atheism and or atheists on the basis of this on guy. He is also a philosopher, should we attempt to defame philosophy and philosophers on the basis of this one extremist, too?
Oh, and don't try to excuse your bad behavior (trying to defame atheisms by citing one extremist) by pointing to the bad behavior of others (trying to defame religionists by citing one extreme cultural/religious practice. You are responsible for your own behaviors, regardless of what anyone else does. I am an atheist and you tried to defame me by citing this Peter Singer, and did not try to defame you or your fellow religionists.
Typical American propaganda. The NL doesn't "grapple" with euthanasia, it is hardly controversial here and not a topic of debate. There are very strict regulations for the practice of euthanasia, it's not like any suicidal person can just go to the doctor and get some lethal pills. As for the Groningen Protocol, this is a more accurate description of how it works:
As you can see, it has nothing to do with killing children because they're not fully sentient yet and there is no connection to atheism. It only applies to children who suffer hopeless and unbearable pain and the parents must make the request. I don't see anything immoral about this practice. It is a humane thing to do and I admire the parents who have the courage to take this decision in the interest of their child, despite their own feelings.
It's typical religious propaganda to make someone other than the Christian look bad. Even if lies are told, or assumptions are made.
"Men, women and children are forced to work seven days a week as slaves and eat 'rats, frogs, snakes, insects' and even faeces to battle starvation in the camps."
Eric Harris slapped the table under which Cassie Bernall was hiding and shouted “Peek-a-boo!” He pointed the gun at her head and asked, “Do you believe in God?”
She said, “Yes.”
He laughed, pulled the trigger and blasted her into eternity. She probably never heard his next question “Why?”
"Men, women and children are forced to work seven days a week as slaves and eat 'rats, frogs, snakes, insects' and even faeces to battle starvation in the camps."
Eric Harris slapped the table under which Cassie Bernall was hiding and shouted “Peek-a-boo!” He pointed the gun at her head and asked, “Do you believe in God?”
She said, “Yes.”
He laughed, pulled the trigger and blasted her into eternity. She probably never heard his next question “Why?”
So you just proved that religion and atheists can be violent. I personally believe anything that promotes violence should go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
