paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Atheism requires absolutely no knowledge, any ignorant person could become an Atheist, nobody could deny him of this "privilege", if it is one. I know that.
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quran and women
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
I simply don't understand why paarsurrey think that atheists must always bring up science in relation to the topic of women or the topic of religion.
You don't need science if you are talking about the relationship between a man and a woman, about marriage.
Why would any atheist need sources from science?
Always hard to answer for others, but my working assumption is that when working from a position that a key plank in decision-making and morality is dogma, it's very hard to accept that there are others who don't simple use a different form of dogma. Start with that, then equate atheism with religion, and you're pretty much there.
Atheists can be dogmatic, of course. But not because of atheism.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I don't like that "obedient" part it mentions.
gnostic
The Lost One
Right now, you are talking about a different type of thread.
I am talking about this thread, here, on the Qur'an and Women. And I was referring to the OP of this thread. You wrote:
What make you think that science is the only topic that atheists are interested in.
Your thread about the Qur'an providing the guideline of how male Muslims should treat women, but for silly reason, you want us to believe that atheists can only talk of science.
You are generalising about atheism and atheists. You have only just ONE view about atheists, and it is terribly flawed.
This is flawed thinking. I have many cousins who are atheists, but WHO ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. Most of my cousins don't have careers in science, so what make you think they would use science as guideline to life in general, eg social life between a man and a woman, or their family, or between friends.
Atheists are just like anyone else. They study, work, and have leisure, spending time with family and friends, just as any Christian or Muslim would.
AGAIN, I will repeat not all atheists are interested in science. Some would study or work in the fields of building, accounting, plumbing, cooking, cleaning, acting, art, music, gardening, etc.
Atheism, only deal with the question about THEISM (the existence of divine being(s)), and nothing else. They simply don't believe in god's existence. This has nothing to do with science.
Atheism doesn't equal to science or vice versa, paarsurrey. Atheism is a theology subject, not a science one. You are mixing atheism and science, when they are completely unrelated.
And atheism have nothing to do with the subject of morals, right and wrong. Again, it is just about the question of the existence of a god.
Atheism is also not a subject about a man and a woman, or between husband and wife. Atheists simply just don't believe in theism.
Look up the definition to atheism. All atheism will say is that atheists don't believe in god. NO WHERE in any definition say that atheism is about science, or about relationship between men and women or about moral or ethical issues.
Can you learn this?
I don't think you can, because I believed that I repeated this same argument to you before.
I would ask to stop generalising about atheists.
Are you going to admit that you have been generalising about atheists or atheism?
Again, more generalising and flawed thinking from you.
What make you think atheism have no knowledge?
You have been around atheists long enough in these forums, that you should know that some atheists were former Christians or former (religious) Jews, and even a few ex-Muslims. They understand the scriptures and teaching of the respective religions they were brought up in, but left their faith, because they can think for themselves, and not believe everything they read.
For you to say that they have no knowledge, only showed your biased and your own ignorance for every one to see.
You are still generalising.
I am agnostic, but I have read a number of different of scriptures, and though the majority of these Abrahamic sources, I have also read literarture from polytheistic and non-Abrahamic sources. I may not be expert in Islam, but I know enough to compare Islam with other religions. Would you say I have absolutely no knowledge?
Ask some of the atheists here about what religions they formerly followed, and you would find that they have plenty of knowledge.
And again, you are confusing knowledge with belief. Knowledge and belief are not the same things. You stated that atheists are ignorant people, and anyone can become atheists. I think the opposite is more likely true. Anyone can believe, because religious belief is akin to belief in superstition. Belief in a god or spirit is the source of superstition, and superstition is based on fear of what they don't understand, which is ignorance.
gnostic
The Lost One
No one does...except for some people who take great joy in being - "bossy".
Useless2015
Active Member
So you admit that women and men are different right. Why would you discard a religion that teaches the same thing?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And the next verse of Quran:
[4:37]And worship Allah and associate naught with Him, and show kindness to parents, and to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the neighbour that is a kinsman and the neighbour that is a stranger, and the companion by your side, and the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess. Surely, Allah loves not the proud and the boastful,
Everything is for both men and women equally in this verse also.
One should note here that the verse stresses men and women here to inculcate in their selves to be compassionate with everybody and not to be proud or boastful to anybody.
Regards
[4:37]And worship Allah and associate naught with Him, and show kindness to parents, and to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the neighbour that is a kinsman and the neighbour that is a stranger, and the companion by your side, and the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess. Surely, Allah loves not the proud and the boastful,
Everything is for both men and women equally in this verse also.
One should note here that the verse stresses men and women here to inculcate in their selves to be compassionate with everybody and not to be proud or boastful to anybody.
Regards
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
You know very well what I am talking about, I am talking about equality as a human being, can't you see that ?.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Useless2015 said: ↑
So you admit that women and men are different right. Why would you discard a religion that teaches the same thing?
Regards
So you admit that women and men are different right. Why would you discard a religion that teaches the same thing?
Equality as a human being of women and men is OK.
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
Which doesn't exist in the Qur'an.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Useless2015 said: ↑
So you admit that women and men are different right. Why would you discard a religion that teaches the same thing?
Equality as a human being of women and men is OK.
Regards
Nov 3, 2015#153 Nov 4, 2015#159 Saturday at 10:32 AM#182 Sunday at 7:15 PM#193 Monday at 7:21 PM#206 Wednesday at 3:54 PM#213 Yesterday at 3:32 PM#230
Regards
Useless2015 said: ↑
So you admit that women and men are different right. Why would you discard a religion that teaches the same thing?
Equality as a human being of women and men is OK.
Regards
It is there in Quran, please read my following posts in this connection:
Nov 3, 2015#153 Nov 4, 2015#159 Saturday at 10:32 AM#182 Sunday at 7:15 PM#193 Monday at 7:21 PM#206 Wednesday at 3:54 PM#213 Yesterday at 3:32 PM#230
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
You posted a lof of craps, paarsurrey.
Equality in a marriage is about shared responsibility, not about woman must obey her husband, or getting punished for being disobedience. Equality is about them being partners, not master and slaves.
Qur'an 4:34 said:
And Qur'an 4 clearly demonstrated that women and girls have least rights to inheritances, because the Qur'an view women, not just wives, but daughters too, as "properties", and men (husbands, fathers or any male guardian) as owners or masters.
If a man is in charge in the a marriage than there is already inequality.
The fact that man can have as many as four wives, but a woman can't have four husbands, just showed the misogynistic double standard present in your holy book.
Do you even understand what "equality" means, paarsurrey?
There are no equality between husband and wife in the Qur'an.
Last edited:
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
Yes, I am with you on this proposal
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
And Qur'an 4 clearly demonstrated that women and girls have least rights to inheritances, because the Qur'an view women, not just wives, but daughters too, as "properties", and men (husbands, fathers or any male guardian) as owners or masters.
If a man is in charge in the a marriage than there is already inequality.
The fact that man can have as many as four wives, but a woman can't have four husbands, just showed the misogynistic double standard present in your holy book.
Do you even understand what "equality" means, paarsurrey?
There are no equality between husband and wife in the Qur'an.[/QUOTE]Women in Islam no human value to them
In the Koran there are no equal among women and faeces
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And the next verse of Quran:
[4:38]Who are niggardly and enjoin people to be niggardly, and conceal that which Allah has given them of His bounty. And We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment,
Everything is for both men and women equally in this verse also.
One should note here that the verse stresses men and women here to inculcate in their selves to be compassionate with everybody and not to be proud or boastful to anybody. Being conjugal partners they should not treat one another miserly and should be generous. That which G-d has given one of them should ,while living together, be enjoyed by the family.
Regards
nig·gard·ly
ˈniɡərdlē/
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
synonyms: cheap, mean, miserly, parsimonious, close-fisted, penny-pinching,cheeseparing, grasping, ungenerous, illiberal; More
in a stingy or meager manner.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nigg...rome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
[4:38]Who are niggardly and enjoin people to be niggardly, and conceal that which Allah has given them of His bounty. And We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment,
Everything is for both men and women equally in this verse also.
One should note here that the verse stresses men and women here to inculcate in their selves to be compassionate with everybody and not to be proud or boastful to anybody. Being conjugal partners they should not treat one another miserly and should be generous. That which G-d has given one of them should ,while living together, be enjoyed by the family.
Regards
nig·gard·ly
ˈniɡərdlē/
- adjective
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
synonyms: cheap, mean, miserly, parsimonious, close-fisted, penny-pinching,cheeseparing, grasping, ungenerous, illiberal; More
- adverb
in a stingy or meager manner.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nigg...rome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One is wrong here again.
There is no value of a thing, however one may boast about one's product, unless it is fetched to the market, where its price is determined by its usefulness by the society. Atheism/Agnosticism/Skeptics/Humanism however they may boast about their ideology, they have never in this planet earth ever been able to establish any society/culture/civilization worth the names. They have no norms, just wayward opinions made in utmost confusion. All cultures/civilisation so far since inception have been established by the religions, and they have the scriptures that have done this marvellous job and the heroic characters/deeds of the religions founders. It is for this splendid service of the humanity that the religions quote from there scriptures. Quran/Islam/Muhammad/Mirza-Ghulam-Ahmad has established the practice to not only quote from the scripture one believes in but the gist of the reason as well, so that others could make the comparison and find the truth.
Atheism/Agnosticism/Skeptics/Humanism happened to be deprived of this advantage, I have therefore provided them a convenience:
"The Atheists and their like, should quote from a text book of science, as the these people so often fall back on science as an ideal for humans, though science does not cover these aspects of human life and science is a common product of religions and non-religions in physical and material fields .
The Atheists and their like could also quote from one ideal book on these matters written by Atheists etc in the times of religious Heroes namely Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, for the purpose of comparison.
I hope, if one is not short of rich arguments, one would be respectful to the friends here and would not indulge in derision, ridicule so that the discussion is not disrupted. So kindly remain focused on the topic of the thread and good arguments."
It is in the spirit of comparison and not for victory.The Atheists and their like could also quote from one ideal book on these matters written by Atheists etc in the times of religious Heroes namely Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, for the purpose of comparison.
I hope, if one is not short of rich arguments, one would be respectful to the friends here and would not indulge in derision, ridicule so that the discussion is not disrupted. So kindly remain focused on the topic of the thread and good arguments."
Isn't it "original"? Please
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
My agnosticism is neither a boast, nor is an ideology, paarsurrey.
My agnosticism is just that the concept of the existence or nonexistence of deity or supreme reality is unknowable or unknowing, but unless there are evidences to support the deity's existence, I would be personally skeptical of the deity being "real".
This is not ideology, but more of skepticism.
Skepticism is not so much having disbelief, as to having expression of "doubts".
There is no such things as having IDEAL for something like "doubts" or "uncertainties".
Do you even know what "ideology" is?
The crux (meaning) to "ideology" is having like having systems of ideas or set of ideals (like Islam or Christianity as a system of belief, or communism, capitalism, democracy or nationalism as in a political system), and having set imaginary relation of ideas or ideals to real conditions of existence.
Do you understand what I had just written above?
It mean trying to make ideals and ideas (which are abstract), into something real.
This don't apply to agnosticism, because it is not trying to make any abstract idea or belief into reality.
Agnosticism deal with the questions of theism and atheism; it has nothing to do with moral (right and wrong).
Agnosticism is a different or separate subject to morality, ethics, code of contact.
Religions, like to integrate moral or ethic to their religion, but it is not necessary to be one and the same.
Any political system can also administer some sorts of policy with regarding to law, moral, etc, as well as at workplace or at education.
Just because I don't have a religion, it doesn't mean I don't have more morals or ethics or codes.
In fact the earliest any one can learn about right and wrong, actually come from parents, and often these lessons (of right and wrong) are the same, regardless of whether one's parents are religious or not. I did not find what my parents taught me to be confusing.
You are generalising again, about atheists and agnostics. You are assuming that just because they don't have religion to speak of, they are immoral.
For me, and I am referring to my own personal experiences of how I learn right from wrong, I knew about moral long before my sister introduced me to the bible when I was 16, when she became a Christian.
First, it was my parents, who gave me the basic of distinguishing right and wrong, then later my sense of morality have expanded at schools, but generally it was the same as what my parents have already taught me; what the schools taught me was a bit more refined. The values taught at schools only just reinforced what my parents have taught me.
So I didn't need the bible to teach me about not to murder or kill, not to steal, not to lie, and to treat others with respect and understanding. The Ten Commandments and what Jesus taught in the gospels were really nothing new to me.
You don't need religion to teach values.
And beside all that I find the religious values are outdated any way.
Religions, especially the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) don't teach real tolerance or real equality, because some of the things are outdated.
For instance, the Qur'an teach that woman must obey man. Man is strong, woman is weak, therefore he is protector of woman. But as we can see today, well at least in the western societies, that women can do anything and everything a man can do, and can learn to protect themselves.
According to 4:34, a wife must be obedient to her husband, or else she would be punished for being disobedience, and that would including striking her. That's not a relationship that I would define as equality.
Basically, your God is giving the husband to punish his wife, because of "disobedience" to the husband; this is a relationship similar to that of master and slave.
The verse is not clear in what constitutes as being "obedient" to her husband. All that's clear is the husband is in charge, and she must obey him. And it is also clear that a husband should punish her if she disobey him, and that would include striking or beating her. What is not clear the circumstances for her disobeying him. There could be all sorts of circumstances that are different.
But what if she was disobedience was because her husband is wrong and stupid. Should she obey him even if he is wrong?
Not all man are smart or wise, especially those who are supposedly "in charge".
Basically, your precious scripture have just give him carte blanche for husband to punish his wife in any way he see fit. This verse clearly demonstrated inequality between husband and wife, but it is also give a green light to any husband for committing domestic violence upon his partner, simply because God view man to be stronger.
So the protector can instantly become the oppressor.
To me, 4:34 is archaic and oppressive, and not to forget - outdated.
If there were equality, there would be no one person being in charge, while the partner being subservient; instead that they are both are in charge - shared responsibilities. If there are disagreements, communicate, and they still disagree, then they should compromise, find the middle ground. No nonsense like - "obey or be punished" mentality.
I preferred to follow my moral or ethic than that of indicated by the Qur'an, any day of the week. I need no God to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
Last edited: