They're the ones in need of leaders and decision makers whether on the battlefield or when they perceive home to be a battlefield of the sexes, and that's evidenced by such oft-made statements of bewilderment as to "what women really want" as if just asking the individual woman was to be avoided. Another one: "what do you want me to do?" when the issue on the table is a statement of fact and a request for HIM to make the decision. Nada.
Dads of a certain age in the workplace won't hesitate to show pictures of the grandkids but don't have a lot to say about their own kids, or their wives. The guys that are younger than that certain age invariably talk trash about their wives, causing one to wonder why they got married to the women they're trashing in the first place. It has always boiled down to posturing to fellow males just how "in charge" they are at home when she's the one making the decisions and he's always asking her "what do you want me to do?", whine about being henpecked, then go to work and tell the crew how he told her where to go.
Guys, you don't fool anybody. Happy Fathers' Day.
MAN I totally love that new Hyundai commercial!!!
One of my Sunni Facebook friends did it again--posted a YouTube debate between religionists and atheists, and I'm about to smack him down again. Will post that here ere long.
WARNING: this is a two hour debate
Below are counterpoints to each point made in the video.
Below are counterpoints to each point made in the video.
The proceedings begin with mention of God the Compassionate and Merciful. Current events with Muslim on Muslim violence belie that, so the proceedings begin with a falsehood.
Point two: the mediator says it's a debate of Islam OR atheism while the person who posted the video on YouTube falsely claims that it's Islam VS atheism. The mediator says that both sides are respected, but clearly not by the person who posted the video on YouTube. FAIL
Point three: It's false to claim that both sides make a claim to "the truth" in the context of explaining any purpose to human existence. The claim of the atheist is that even those who claim to know via a deity don't really know, and no human being is in a position to know the mind of any deity, if one exists...and no deity does
Point four: the stated goal is to arrive at an informed position on Islam, on atheism, when it's always been the case that Sunnis refuse to recognize Shiites and Shiites refuse to recognize Sunnis, all the while Sufis try to rise above the rift by claiming a more divine orientation than either of those factions. Sunnis won't volunteer the information that they're Sunnis, nor will Shiites, for the purpose of assisting the nonbeliever to be more informed.
Point five: One comment by the mediator was pertinent to my first point: He urged the audience not to heckle the speakers and be polite at all times; "...we don't want any blood or any fights, okay--I'm sure that you guys, you understand why I'm saying that."
Point six, neither here nor there: it's cute how the moderator said "without further adieu"...coming from an Irish ex-Catholic convert to Islam. :D
Point 7: RE: "Islam makes sense of the universe". Every religion has their own origin stories that make sense of the universe and Islam is not distinct among them. Atheism is distinct among all because it knows that nobody knows, especially the people who claim to know. Sense made out of the universe has invariably been rationalization, not reason.
Point 8: RE: "Islam makes more sense of the Quranic discourse": It has a vested interest in doing that to the exclusion of others, and yet Shiite Islam doesn't make the same sense of Quranic discourse that Sunnis do, and even Sunni factions do not agree on the sense of the Quranic discourse. And Sufis have yet another sense of the Quranic discourse. Therefore the statement that all of Islam makes more sense of the Quranic discourse is patently false. Atheists agree that only science can make sense of the universe and not all the facts are in--which makes more sense than the disparate conflicting senses that Islam comes up with, depending on sect.
Point 9: Claiming that the infinite doesn't exist means that an infinite God can't exist, so the proponent of Islam just argued against the existence of an infinite God. I got a chuckle out of that one.
Point 10: using pseudomathematics to treat infinity as a finite quantity using mathematical logic. File this one under "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS". It's a false equivalence worthy of another chuckle.
Point 11: Was the universe created from nothing, or something? If it was created from nothing then God = nothing. If there was nothing in the beginning, then even God wasn't there either. A universe is either eternal, or finite with a beginning, but it can't be both.
Point 12: using the answer to the question "can your mother give birth to herself" as proof that the universe didn't create itself is ludicrous. Mom never was a universe even if you think she's that fat. Non sequitur.
Point 13: Hamza takes issue with interpretations of Occam's Razor by creating his own interpretation using undefined abstractl terms which leaves only himself to define He then launches into a series of false equivalencies I'll not itemize due to the number of them.
Point 14: RE: the nature of the Quran as a series of questions talking to each person is belied by the different interpretations committed by different Islamic sects and the different schools within the sects. FACT: the nature of the Quran is a recitation, not a book, and to hold the book holy is to create an idol of the book and the sanctification of the book is idolatry. It is false pretense to pretend that Islam is monolithic with only one school of thought.
Point 15: Definition of a miracle--Hamza misuses the terms inductive and deductive and deliberately commits a convoluted fog of obfuscation far astray from any point at hand.
Point 17: Hamza departs from the topic entirely by his discourse on Quranic Arabic but still not acknowledging that the nature of the Quran is necessarily an Arabic recitation that isn't on paper. The type of Arabic that the Quran uses is NOT a miracle, and as a recitation, the Quran never was a literary discourse. Claiming that it is a miracle is n't proof that it makes more sense either. FAIL
If, as Hamza claims, the literary form of the Quran falls outside of the capacity of the Arabic language, what this proves is that it does NOT make more sense; in fact, it makes less sense, as discourse that utilizes the language most effectively also makes the most sense.
Point 18: Yeah, what about Shakespeare? What the hell does Shakespeare prove or disprove about either atheism or Islam? Absolutely nothing! Actually no--we are NOT talking about the parameters of the Arabic language or any other language parameters either, for that matter. Having proven nothing that made sense, Hamza relinquishes the microphone to Lawrence.
No comments:
Post a Comment