Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@CyberLN
You said: You don’t need an example to tell me what mechanism folks should use when there is a difference in interpretation resulting in multiple and differing paths of action.
The mechanism is this. The interpretation must be based on the moral principles set out in the Quran and expounded in the hadith.
You said: “Is there a mechanism? If so, what is it? Is it different based on the particulars of the dilemma?”
You will have to clarify this more. That’s why I asked for an example. Otherwise, I can only say that there will be no dilemma when the above mechanism is applied. Yes, there may be cases where two interpretations are equally valid – but that’s because there could be more than 1 way to do something.
Let me ask a different way...two people interpret a passage quite differently. Both are adamant that they are correct. The two interpretations will result in different outcomes. Who decides which one is correct?
@CyberLN
You said: “Let me ask a different way...two people interpret a passage quite differently. Both are adamant that they are correct. The two interpretations will result in different outcomes. Who decides which one is correct?”
Whichever of the two interpretations is in alignment with quranic principles will trump. But ket me add, ‘objectivity’ is not dependent on whether someone agrees with you or not. It depends on whose interpretation is loyal to the hermeneutics method.
Royism, you wrote, “Whichever of the two interpretations is in alignment with quranic principles will trump.”
WHO determines which is best aligned with quranic principles?
WHY are there so many differing interpretations if the standards for behavior are objective?
HOW do you know you are the one who is right?
@CyberLN
You said: “WHY are there so many differing interpretations if the standards for behavior are objective?”
You don’t judge the objectivity of something based on how many people agree with you or not. It’s more like this. How many people agree with the theory of evolution in this world? There are many people who bring their conflicting opinions to the table. There are atheistic scientists, there are religious scientists, there creationists, there is a large religious community and so on. All these people have a variety of ideas regarding the theory, from absolute faith to downright rejection.
Now, for an outsider, all these differing opinions seem like a medley of chaotic, random and subjective clash of ideas. However, for someone who appreciates the scientific methodology will find it easy to sift chaff from grain, right?
This is why I am saying, if you can bring an example, where there is difference of opinion between Islamic scholars, I can explain to you which one is the correct one and why it is objectively so, based on the hermeneutics.
To iterate:
WHO determines which is best aligned with quranic principles?
HOW do you know you are the one who is right?
@CyberLN
You said: “WHO determines which is best aligned with quranic principles?
Who determines which is the best scientific theory for evolution? Yes, it’s the people who do science. And when they differ, how do you as a normal person determine which of them is right? You go by which explanation best aligns with scientific methodology.
You said: “HOW do you know you are the one who is right?”
Because I am going by the principles of hermeneutics.
By and large, the VAST! majority of people that spend their lives in study of evolution and related fields do not "differ" on the overall theory. The base theory is extremely well evidenced and vetted, even most of the major religions in the world were forced to accept such a powerful theory, they just give the credit to "god" for the theory. Or they simply choose to ignore it, most of the higher ups in most religions realize they sound like idiots if they try to challenge the evolution theory. And then they just hope most of their followers don't notice it blows multiple large "holes" in the rest of the religious fantasy by accepting the evolution theory.
Your problem is Royism is you are still comparing religion "answers" to answers found via science. They are in many ways opposite, they cannot be compared. One is based on evidence, careful study and is open to change as new conflicting information comes in. The other (religion) is mostly closed, says it is the absolute involitale truth and does not deal in actual physical evidence, but instead convincing people, (often times in our bloody world history by violence!) that the god idea is absolute and not open to challenge or change and to even challenge it is hearsay, (which in the past often lead to death or exile - which was frequently death.) Science only requires solid vetted physical evidence and the change is accepted with eager open arms, as constant improvement to what is known is most welcome.
If it was not for the carefully organized brainwashing of the younger generations by the older, religion would cease to be in short order simply due to the fact that religion is mostly unchanging, only changing when it absolutely has to by outside forces far greater than the religious idea. Science and the methods to learn via science are superior to all religions in just about every way except it does not utilize fear to spread the ideas/knowledge like religion does, (both a good and bad thing.)
The internet is probably the worst thing that ever happened to most all major religions. It is of little surprise that some religions try to suppress access to the open internet as it represents an existential threat to the religion lie by providing better answers than religion could ever hope to do and actually stays current instead of being mired in the thinking of people that died 2000 years ago with their limited knowledge of the world then compared to today.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
You said: “Your problem is Royism is you are still comparing religion "answers" to answers found via science.”
I was trying to make Cyber understand how in spite of differences of opinion something can be objective. There could be differences of opinion among scientists over various theories, yet we call it objective because of a formal methodology that can be used as a point of reference to measure the validity of any argument.
This is how the hermeneutics in islam works. I am not saying the two are equal… the epistemologies are fundamentally different, I know. However, to the extent that both have a formal interpretive method, which can be used for objective inferences, they are alike.
At this point I doubt Royism is ever going to "get it" no matter how many examples or how specific you get.
And I even understand on some level where Royism is coming from, if a person truly believes in a particular "god" idea and the accompanying religion, pointing out and asking these kind of questions, you might as well be talking to a wall, every question already has an answer that is absolute and can not be challenged, "because god." Along with "we cannot understand something as great as god."
Even pointing out obvious flaws, (obvious to those not stuck within the religion,) will not be used by Royism as a possibility, because to Royism there is NO possibility, (to him,) that he is wrong about this. To royism it is we who are confused and wrong, and due to the human's brain capability to rationalize, Royism will likely rationalize away any opposing argument, no matter how absurd the rationalizations get. No matter how far from fact and objective evidence they get. Many religious ideas even have a built in defense for when a rationalization gets absurdly/comically wrong: "oh it was not interpreted correctly" which of course gives these people free licence to make up stuff as they go along as it suits them.
Religion, invented over and over by people that realized people are incredibly gullible in their search for answers. (Does not help that actual answers are often inconvenient to many people.)
Example: What is the meaning of life?
There is none, this should be obvious, but people do not want to hear it/contemplate on that, so they run headlong into the arms of religion for answer that they like. "ooh an all powerful sky daddy fairy figure that can make all your wishes come true if you follow the rules!" -- Rules written by humans often times 1000's of years ago in a completely different culture!)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
LogicFTW, you wrote, “At this point I doubt Royism is ever going to "get it" no matter how many examples or how specific you get.”
Of course you are right. My hope, though, is that lurkers on the fence will get it. :)
Either way, it’s definitely time to move on from this one...
So why are you behaving immorally then, and not marrying off your children at 6?
So the "rules" are an objective moral code....that changes according to context, and according to people's subjective interpretation of archaic superstitious texts, again priceless.
Though not when your anger seeks revenge for a murdered relative apparently?
Well we wouldn't want an omniscient omnipotent deity handing out unambiguous and definitive morals now would we, that would mean sexual predators in their 50's couldn't justify raping 6 year children, and people wouldn't be able to justify setting aside moral moratoriums on murder when they were seeking revenge against someone, ironically for murder.
I really need to thank you ROYISM, because as much as any theist I have seen post here, your posts are the best validation for secularism and atheism I have encountered.
Oh dear...another gem.
@Royism: Do you know who is the youngest mother in the world? She is Lina Medina – a Peruvian girl who delivered a baby when she was 5 years and 7 months old.
And what do you think should happen to the scum who impregnated that poor little child? Should we worship him as a messenger of god or throw the swine in jail forever?
why do we have to dispute about the sexual maturity of girls in those times, when Ayesha herself says it is 9?
Why do you think they call it the "age of consent"? Any child below a certain age is considered unable to give consent. A 9-year-old, whether today or 1,500 years ago, is too young to make that kind of decision. Any talk of a child "consenting" to sex is merely justification for perverted behavior.
So many religions seem designed to give lustful aging perverts access to innocent children.
Adults have a duty of care to guide and protect children, not to have sex with them. Some adults and religious leaders don't understand that, which is why we need age of consent laws.
@Algebe
You said: “And what do you think should happen to the scum who impregnated that poor little child? Should we worship him as a messenger of god or throw the swine in jail forever?”
This is a classical example of shifting goal posts. You challenge me on the age of maturity for girls insinuating that 9 is too early for puberty. It is in order to disprove that I bring the example of the Peruvian young mother. And then you turn around question the morality of it… and this in the middle of a discussion where we are trying to find out if there can be an objective universal standard for the age of consent!!!
NOTE: Old Man (the originator of this thread) has evaded that direct question of whether there can be one such universal standard, and is eager to end the discussion (for obvious reasons).
@Algebe Re: To Roy - "And what do you think should happen to the scum who impregnated that poor little child? Should we worship him as a messenger of god or throw the swine in jail forever?"
Hope you are not holding your breath waiting on any type of direct and honest answer from Roy. Whenever he is presented with a simple straightforward question, he prefers to play The Non-Sequitur Game. Please allow me to demonstrate what you should expect from him each and every time.
You: "So, Roy, do you think it is okay to use a hammer to bash the head of a defenseless little puppy just for shits and giggles?"
Roy: "Please explain to me what you would do if somebody used a chainsaw to cut down your Christmas tree. Because chainsaws could be considered much more dangerous than hammers, and you do not seem too concerned about puppies drinking water from the base of the Christmas tree."
Granted, Master Roy is much better at this game than I could ever hope to be. But with his astounding examples to study and absorb, and with diligent and dedicated determination, perhaps I may just reach a mildly respectable level of competence one day... *fingers crossed*...
@Royism: It is in order to disprove that I bring the example of the Peruvian young mother.
Are you seriously suggesting that this extremely exceptional case in Peru proves that girls are mature enough at 5 or 9 or whatever? And how can you separate sexual abuse of underage girls from morality? There is room for debate about whether the age of consent should be 16, 17, 18, but not whether it should be 5 or 9.
@Algebe
You said: “Are you seriously suggesting that this extremely exceptional case in Peru proves that girls are mature enough at 5 or 9 or whatever?”
I am just saying that it’s not impossible for a girl to mature at 9 or earlier.
You said: “And how can you separate sexual abuse of underage girls from morality?”
That’s the whole discussion of this thread. What is the age of consent? Is there a single universal standard that can be applied across time, cultures, place etc.?
You said: “There is room for debate about whether the age of consent should be 16, 17, 18, but not whether it should be 5 or 9.”
That’s a discussion in our times. Back in the 19th century the average age of consent in the US states was 12 and 13. Delaware was an exception where it was 7. So back then the discussion was whether it should be 7, 12 or 13.
And perhaps in the future the options would be 25, 28 or 30! Who knows? And how do you draw a single universal moral diktat?
@Royism
Please give me your objective standard you are using for the case discussed in this thread?
@ROYISM
Yes, actually there is a hard line you can draw. And 9 year old girls fall within that line. It is well known that girls often times DIE if they actually get pregnant under the age of 10 (Actually it is more like age 12-13 before risk of death actually drops to somewhat reasonable percentage!) This was ESPECIALLY TRUE ~1500 years ago. For ever girl that survives the intercourse and the birthing process back then I think it is likely at MINIMUM! 2 other similar age girls have died somewhere in this horrendous activity, or at the very least lost the child (still born/premature birth is also extremely elevated for this situation of extremely young pregnant mothers.)
Do you really expect a desert nomad with no formal education to be able to tell if a girl so happened to be one of the very rare girls that sexualy matured very early? Do you think you "god" concept told the guy: "oh hey, found you a special girl, I know you like em young, here you go, no worries I made sure she will survive it?"
Easy, don't inflict harm on others. And certainly do not engage in unnecessary activity that is of zero benefit to the little girl that likely (especially back then!) KILL the girl.
And this line does not even touch on the emotional damage this could and very likely inflict.
The simple fact you are even trying to argue this is astounding. I feel like local authorities of where you live should be informed you don't think it's morally wrong to marry 6 year olds, and it's okay to have sexual intercourse with 9 year olds in ANY era. If I knew your actual identity I would advise all friends and family that have little kids to keep them far away from you. It should be exceedingly obvious to you, as it is to almost everyone else, that this whole concept in repugnant and does not belong in an evolving civilized society that wishes to better itself as a whole where every individual's rights are protected and everyone has a shot at a decent, safe life, instead of a few old men.
I still hang on to hope you are simply trolling for responses and you don't actually believe what you type.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ Logic
As you can see, I have been trying to explain that very point to him. However he will not read the literature (knowing he will be exposed as a supporter of pedophilia if he does, and yet still continues his amoral assertions) that supports our argument.
He only responds with questions that are clearly answered, should he ever read them, in such documents as Rights of the Child, Early Childhood Development and all the others I linked for him..
And yes I agree, If he lived in my jurisdiction he would immediately be placed on the 'watch' list as he is a risk to children and their welfare. He would probably be subject to home visits both from the Child Abuse Unit and the regular Social Workers.
Fact is Royism is shit scared of his own shadow, he dare not admit that pedophilia is wrong and immoral and damaging to the child because it would bring his whole shaky edifice of 'the perfect man' and 'immutable law of god' tumbling down in pieces.
It would shatter him, and he knows if he was in any one of several Islamic States he would be summarily beaten at the very least, executed most likely, should he actually voice the rational, humane opinion that pedophilia is and was wrong.
That is why I will no longer engage with him. It turns my stomach and I enjoy my breakfasts.
@LogicFTW
What is the age of consent? Is there a single universal standard that can be applied across time, cultures, place etc.?
You said: “Yes, actually there is a hard line you can draw. And 9 year old girls fall within that line.”
Please stop reframing the question to suit the answer you have! I want you to answer the question I am asking you. The standard of 16 that Old Man mentioned, is that a universal standard? Would you consider every relationship with a girl under 16 throughout all times as rape?
You said: And how do you draw a single universal moral diktat? Easy, don't inflict harm on others.”
So are you saying that engaging in sex with a girl of 15 years and 10 months is harmful to her, whereas the same with a 16 year old is beneficial? Because 16 seems to be your universal diktar, right?
Rest of your post is mere emotional blah blah. So I am ignoring them.
@ROYISM
I will answer that below in this post.
You never asked me to answer your question, and I never addressed the question personally because others have already answered it.
I never mentioned the word 16 or 15 years and 10 months. So you do not know what my universal diktar is. I was talking about children under the age of 10. Which hopefully you agree is very harmful in many ways for a girl under the age of 10 to have sex with a 50+ year old man. (Or have sex with anyone really!)
It maybe emotional stuff to you, but to me it is simple fact, and responsible reaction, if I knew who you were, I would avoid you, and I would advise all my friends and family to do the same, especially if they had any little girls. I know nothing about you other then you state you are male and believe in islam, all else I have seen is: some man trying desperately rationalize that their idol, Mohammad of which you think speaks the word of god, and is your moral leader, marries 6 year old girls and rapes 9 year old girls. Your own precious book implicates Mohammad or you and everyone else in islam would simply dismiss it all as lies/slander. I see right through your childish attempt to somehow make it okay by pointing out an imperfect system that is in place today on a similar, related, but critically different subject.
============================
Now that we cleared that up I will answer your questions.
============================
No of course it is not, what a dumb question, we all know that it is not universal there are, (mostly in islamic majority countries,) girls that are getting married before they are even teenagers and getting pregnant all the time well before 16. To husbands that are sometimes decades older then the girl in question. You only ask this question to try to set up a response to this answer that you think will suit your argument well.
Legally, letter and definition of the law, if the law says that, then legally, yes in the area where the law in effect, legally that is rape. Once again simple. Outside of legal, it gets considerably more complex, open to subjective interpretation etc. I do however absolutely without a shred of doubt in my mind know that a 52 year old impregnating a 9 year old is very VERY! wrong on every level for anyone that cares at all about pain and suffering and life of other humans.
Ah finally a semi decent question, one that is incredibly hard to give a simple answer to. Most folks do not like to read a long explanatory post, but the short of it is: Every individual is unique, the circumstances, the age, the maturity, of both individuals all play a role. For instance: in the USA, generally it is not currently considered rape if a 16 year old has sex with a 16 year old. But it is considered rape if a 30+ year old has sex with a 17 year old. Unfortunately there is no easy answer, we try to do the best we can, old-man and others mentioned the current laws, etc in place and how they work and they are generally regarded as best possible solution to a very ugly problem, because we can not carefully litigate every single sexual encounter to determine a subjective opinion if the person is "old enough and mature enough to give consent in this particular encounter," after the sex already took place.
I already answered this, and you did not like the answer. Why? My guess because it spells out that your idol, spiritual leader and moral leader is a disgusting pedophile that hurts little girls for his pleasure and to impregnate. And because you hold his writings as central to your religion it threatens your entire way of thinking. Which scares me, you may not be trolling for responses, you may well be trying and rationalize and defend the act of a 50+ year old man marrying a 6 year old and having sex with the girl before she even turned 10.
I will answer again your question again, because apparently you only selectively read things before you spin off into rationalization mode of the indefensible:
Yes, there is a universal moral standard that can be applied across time, culture, place. It is called (in abrahamic speak) "thou shalt not harm." And having sex and impregnating a 9 year old is VERY HARMFUL in ALL SCENARIOS. The fact you try to deny this is truly abominable, trying to point out flaws in current laws trying to address this issue on girls nearly twice this age is a cheap childish diversion tactic that we all plainly see right through. A 50+ year old having sex with a 9 year old and impregnating her is wrong in every way, for you to try to rationalize this away through diversionary tactics speaks volumes on how your mind works, the very reason if I knew who you were, I would alert the local authorities to have you on a watch list.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ROYISM
You seem to either not know, or not care, that being physically mature doesn't protect children from the catastrophic emotional and psychological damage sexual abuse causes.
Then again you clearly don't want it for your own children, Which to me infers an even darker more worrying picture of your callous and immoral attitude towards consent.
I find your views on this quite nauseating.
If you look closely, you'll realize that Royism is suggesting using the moral principles in the Quran to interpret the moral principles in the Quran. That is a new one for me: recursive morality!
Hahaha...
@Nyarlathotep
The Qur'an is a complicated book. Not all laws and rules are listed and stated directly like in a law book. For instance there is no mention of the word "rape" in the Qur'an so some Islamophobics say it means rape is allowed in Islam; it hasn't been prohibited. But it is necessary in order to understand the Qur'an to read the entire Qur'an and never can some part of it be studied in contradiction to other parts. All parts of it complement each other. So, for instance, the fact that rape is prohibited in Islam is crystal clear from the Qur'an as a whole despite it not having been spelled out seperately.
@Leper: So, for instance, the fact that rape is prohibited in Islam is crystal clear from the Qur'an as a whole
Is it also crystal clear who should be punished when a rape occurs?
@Algebe
That isn't directly referred to in the Qur'an, but the answer is obvious and it is referred to that if a captive/slave is forced into prostitution she is forgiven.
@Leper: but the answer is obvious
Yes, of course. Obviously a woman who is raped must be punished for adultery.
The Quran appears to be as enlightened as Bible on the subject of slavery.
Pages