This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

agn's Profile

agn's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by agn

More Discussions by agn

Latest Comments by agn

Go to: Happy Birthday Richard Dawkins!

agn's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by agn

Bappy hearse-day!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:21:00 UTC | #452713

Go to: Independent Appeal: Saved from the agony of female circumcision

agn's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by agn

MuayThaiGuy:
" My father is uncircumcised yet I feel no remorse or anger that my parent had me circumcised. "

So?

1. Do you think you chuckled and laughed as a baby when your dick was cut?

2. Would you feel angry if your Dad had NOT had you circumcised?

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:19:00 UTC | #432097

Go to: Independent Appeal: Saved from the agony of female circumcision

agn's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by agn

MarkOnTheRiver:
"ALL non medical surgery, and especially this kind of mutilation, when carried out on children of either sex, should be classed as wounding with intent, and the perpetrators tried in the criminal court.
"

I used to think so myself, but I am no longer so sure, although I still think genital circumcision, whether male or female, should be criminalized unless it is performed on basis of informed consent from the one who is to be circumcised.

There are a few non-medical cases where I cannot see that the parents' opting for surgery should be criminalized:

a) Some babies are born with webbed hands and/or feet.

b) Others are born with sort of a tail
and similar conditions.

Such rare conditions, that cannot be said to be PHYSICALLY debilitating (and hence not MEDICAL conditions) would quite likely be socially debilitating for the individual, and the very minor surgery needed to remove the extraneous parts seems, to me, a legitimate practice.

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:53:00 UTC | #430567

Go to: List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

agn's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by agn

1. "Despite this quote, some Christians have not really followed that command"

Correct.

In any population, where there is some over-arching creed, or command, you can divide the population in (for simplicity) those who follow the command and those who don't.

Whereas a peaceful Christian who abhors the idea of spreading the faith with the sword is FOLLOWING the command from Jesus, a similarly peaceful Muslim would BREAK the command given by Muhammad.

Therefore, it is those who DO follow the creed of Muhammad who are the dangerous ones, the non-followers are not necessarily that.

Thus, the social dynamics are totally different.


Thus, to remain "true" to the core of Islam (i.e, reforming the religion) is the very WORST one can think of, in contrast of following the pacifism exhorted by Jesus (a pacifism I think is immoral, for other reasons)


2. "Plus, this is contradicted by parts of the Old Testament in which the government set up is clearly a theocracy with different treatment for people of other religions.
"

The whole message of Jesus (and notably Paul) is that the Old Pact is SUPERSEDED by the New Pact.

Thus, theologically, the OT has dominantly been regarded as a mere historical treatise of how God appeared to the Chosen Ones, how they broke his commands, and how he had to gradually "educate them".
At first with harsh punishments, and then later one, more mildly.


Islam, however, represented from its inception a barbaric regressivism to the very worst of OT, where it is gleefully pointed out in the Quran the hadiths that the "wicked" Jews of Muhammad's day were reluctant to carry out the punishment for adultery (i.e, stoning)

3. "Both Islam and Christianity, the religions themselves, don't contain religious freedom, since anyone who doesn't follow the right religion will be punished"
Sure, and that is the basic perversity in both religions.

In fact, Jesus was the FOUNDER of the Heaven/Hell-doctrine and should certainly be castigated, if not crucified, for that..

But, and this is very important:

It is crystal clear that Jesus reserves punishment to HIMSELF, i.e, the
"Vengeance is Mine"-doctrine.

In Islam, however, this has been warped into:
"Vengeance is Ours", and Muslims are licensed to deal out death and destruction to everyone not following the precepts of Allah.

In Islam, this is generally known as the "foretaste of Hell"-doctrine, where the unbelievers are to feel in THIS life what is waiting for them in the next.

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:25:00 UTC | #424785

Go to: List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

agn's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by agn

1. " but they actively make excuses for the violent content of The Bible, trying to explain why violence in the Bible is okay but violence in the Qur'an is wrong. If it's wrong to ignore violence in the Qur'an while noticing the violence in the Bible (as I've heard some people do), then it's wrong to do the opposite as well.
"

Superficially, and on some points substantially, I fully agree with you.

However, let's take the violence as perpetrated by Joshua and other Jewish leaders in the Old Testament.

At NO point is this violence given out to be an example for how FUTURE Jews ought to behave towards gentiles, it is (in my view, wholly misguided) violence to get a slice of the Earth as the Jews' "Holy Land". Nowhere is it stated that the Jews should continue to expand beyond those borders (quite the opposite, the legitimacy of continued non-Jewishness is fully accepted) , and THUS, the violence in OT cannot with reasonableness be utilized as some justification for world domination.
In complete contrast to the function of violence within the Islamic texts.

That I don't think Joshua's violence was any more justified is beside the point.

2. "I meant to say that Islam has not undergone a change that encourages Muslims to follow their faith in a more moderate or secular way. "

Since that would reject the basic message of the Quran, and example of Muhammad, such a "reformation" would actually involve the full-scale ABOLITION of Islam.

Again, in total contrast to Jesus' clever saying "Render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's", i.e, separation of Church&State as a core message of Christianity (well developed, for example, In Augustine's "City of God")

As it happens, this demanded cleavage between State&Religion is really a CHRISTIAN concept, unparallelled in any other cultures (it was notably absent, for example, in the Old Norse culture, where the chief was also the "godi", i.e, sacrificing priest, and for that matter, in ancient Rome)

Thus, there is no natural law saying that all religions or cuyltures will develop into secular cultures, and we make a huge mistake if we naively think so.


3. "The main point of both Islam and Christianity, the main goal of both of these religions, is that (at the end of the world) everyone will be killed and only the members of the one true faith will go to heaven, while everyone else will go to hell.
"

True enough.
But "divine punishments" are something much less frightening than being enjoined to emulate the actions of a human, moral monster like Muhammad.

Think what a terrible world it would be, if say, people strove to emulate the life of Guru Nanak instead?

4. As for whether the website idolizes and prettifies other faiths, I haven't checked up on that.
Maybe you are right on that score, and if the website does so, that is a blemish.

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:55:00 UTC | #424623

More Comments by agn