Do we need secularity (laïcité) in Morocco?

[7rani]

Originally Posted by Tetwani

L'athéisme est l'absence de religion.

Oui, mais l'homme a tendance à catégoriser donc, ils le considèrent comme une doctrine religieuse qui nie l'existence de la religion. si ce n'est pas religieux alors ça sera quoi? De toute façon, il y a la non religion parce qu'elle est définie par la religion. En fait, je n'ai que recopié la définition, et j'ai préféré de mettre celle-ci au lieu de la tienne

[botanika]

>Atheism is a religion
>Bold is a haircut

[Tetwani]

[7rani]

Originally Posted by botanika

>Atheism is a religion
>Bold is a haircut

Ah pardon, "Ils ont commis une faute de notion" Oui peut être, de toute façons ils ne peuvent pas comprendre l’athéisme mieux que toi parce que ceux qui en parlent, ne le connaissent que comme une notion abstraite dite par les athées ...

[Marock]

Hahahaha … You really must be one of the most interesting people I’ve ever spoken to.

Non, ce n'est pas possible!

To begin with, it seems that you really like to show yourself as a “scientist”. You like to claim that you don’t follow believe in “non-verifiable” things but the claims that you make are completely unscientific I mean I would honestly advise you to re-read what you have written. For example, in one part you just blantantly claim that it is not possible for a non-secular society to be dominant over others when you have no proof of what can happen in the future because it is the unseen and according to your own criteria you can not see the unseen which makes your argument completely irrational.
In fact, if you really believe that you have to see and feel everything to believe in them, then you must have no brain because I’m presuming that you haven’t seen it unless you drilled you skull and opened it to see how nice your brain looks in the mirror. In addition, you can’t feel your brain because you have no sensors in your brain unless you have supernatural Tetwani nevre endings. And don’t say that you feel headaches which helps you believe in having a brain because head aches are caused by muscle contraction in the neck and head.
So Tetwani although you may not believe that you have a brain because you can’t feel or see it, don’t worry, atleast I think you do have one.

Probably in the dark and backwarded middle ages, but they won't anymore.

This is another classic example of what I’m trying to say. You have baseless statements that really seem like a joke, I mean no statistics no nothing. This is part of why I said you may have an ego because there is no supportative argument, just claims and it really seems like you have faith in what you’re saying. Faith is something atheists like you consider irrational but you are demonstrating the exact same thing by believing in the unseen (the future).

Furthermore, your claim that secular societies are more successful doesn’t mean at all that non-secular societies aren’t because many of the leaders of lets say Muslim countries today are corrupt so you can’t base the religion on corrupt people. Technically I could claim the same thing if only corrupt people ruled secular governments and say that the secular system doesn’t work and which you would reject. So your argument doesn’t really hold much water because you wouldn’t accept the opposite form of your own argument.

In addition, you claim that there is no evidence of non-secular societies being successful during the 21st century but we’ve only been through less than 12 years of this century hahahahaha and even if we were to include the 20th century as well, thats only about a century which doesn’t proove anything really. If I were to tell you for example the weather seems very sunny for a week or so, I cannot just quickly come to the conclusion that it will be sunny for the rest of our existence….. If that doesn’t help you understand what I’m trying to say, I’ll give you another example. If a person has a diabetes problem and the level of insulin needs to be measured to see if he has a serious case or not, the experimenter will not just measure the amount of insulin in his blood for once or even twice because there may be other factors effecting the result. İnstead, he or she would have to repeat the test for separate and several times and get consistent results. That is much more conclusive than claiming that a person for example has daibetes just after one exam. I hope you don’t become a doctor using this method of testing or else you will probably have a lot of problems keeping your job.

In conclusion, it seems that you like to pride yourself as the”scientist” and “modern” man and that we are like the “old” people who follow “old tales” of religion and what not but it seems that you don’t use very much logic in your answers to be quite honest and that your claims are driven by emotion rather than reason perhaps because you have hate for God who has given you so much in your life that you take for granted. It seems that it pains you to believe that there is one who created you because you don’t want to admit that you are just a creation and naturally more inferior than our creator. In any case, I hope I have atleast convinced you to some degree although you probably won’t admit it to me because you wouldn’t want to admit to yourself that you aren’t making a lot of sense.
I would also refer you to the argument Mister79 has given because it is a fairly good one.
I think this will be my last reply to you in this discussion at least because I have exams to revise for but in any case I will say as the prophet you used to say to the unbelievers:
May Allah guide you and rectify your affairs.

[flyzone]

this thread rocks

[Tetwani]

Originally Posted by Marock

To begin with, it seems that you really like to show yourself as a “scientist”.

Tu vas me faire ma psychanalyse ou quoi?!
Tout le monde avec un peu de formation scientifique peut parler du point de vue de la science. Après tout, tu n'as pas besoin d'être Imam de mosquée pour parler religion, n'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by Marock

You like to claim that you don’t follow believe in “non-verifiable” things but the claims that you make are completely unscientific I mean I would honestly advise you to re-read what you have written. For example, in one part you just blantantly claim that it is not possible for a non-secular society to be dominant over others when you have no proof of what can happen in the future because it is the unseen and according to your own criteria you can not see the unseen which makes your argument completely irrational.

Je dis juste qu'aujourd'hui, les pays laïcs sont plus developpés, alors que les pays qui ont une religion d’État sont généralement arriérés, c'est un constat.

Ce n'est pas mon critère à moi, mais c'est quelque chose d'observable et de vérifiable (la liste est sur wikipedia)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

Originally Posted by Marock

In fact, if you really believe that you have to see and feel everything to believe in them, then you must have no brain because I’m presuming that you haven’t seen it unless you drilled you skull and opened it to see how nice your brain looks in the mirror. In addition, you can’t feel your brain because you have no sensors in your brain unless you have supernatural Tetwani nevre endings. And don’t say that you feel headaches which helps you believe in having a brain because head aches are caused by muscle contraction in the neck and head.

Ton argument ne vole pas haut

Le Cerveau et les organes sont visibles (par IRM par exemple) et ont peut les prouver facilement avec la dissection. Ce n'est rien de magique puisque c'est des neurones, des synapses et des connexions étudiées et bien connues. Or, prouver l'existence d'un Dieu implique de croire à la magie , au surnaturel et ça ne résout en rien la question de l'origine de l'univers, mais le repousse!

Originally Posted by Marock

This is another classic example of what I’m trying to say. You have baseless statements that really seem like a joke, I mean no statistics no nothing. This is part of why I said you may have an ego because there is no supportative argument, just claims and it really seems like you have faith in what you’re saying. Faith is something atheists like you consider irrational but you are demonstrating the exact same thing by believing in the unseen (the future).

Ce sujet a été discuté de nombreuses fois et j'ai déjà amené les arguments qu'il fallait.
En étudiant la théorie de l’Évolution, l'Astronomie et les Sciences de la vie, on comprend le fonctionnement de notre environnement et de notre organisme.

Concernant la foi ou dans ton cas, de la mauvaise foi je n'ai jamais cru à quelque chose juste parce qu'on me la dit. Simplement parce que je fais appel à mon bon sens et à mes connaissances avant d'accepter ou pas.

Originally Posted by Marock

Furthermore, your claim that secular societies are more successful doesn’t mean at all that non-secular societies aren’t because many of the leaders of lets say Muslim countries today are corrupt so you can’t base the religion on corrupt people.

Mon argument quant à la laïcité c'est qu'on ne peut pas baser une constitution et des lois sur des croyances non vérifiables et irrationnelles!!!
Un État doit être pragmatique et s'adresser sans distinction à tous ses citoyens et ne pas inclure dans son code civil la réincarnation par exemple pour un pays hindouiste.

Originally Posted by Marock

Technically I could claim the same thing if only corrupt people ruled secular governments and say that the secular system doesn’t work and which you would reject. So your argument doesn’t really hold much water because you wouldn’t accept the opposite form of your own argument.

La laïcité a elle seule ne suffit pas, je les dit à plusieurs reprises et je n'ai cessé de le répéter.

Originally Posted by Marock

In addition, you claim that there is no evidence of non-secular societies being successful during the 21st century but we’ve only been through less than 12 years of this century hahahahaha and even if we were to include the 20th century as well, thats only about a century which doesn’t proove anything really.

Tu as raison un pays qui autorise de couper la main aux voleurs, de donner la moitié de la part d'héritage du garçon à sa sœur, de tuer pour apostasie, de lapider pour adultère, d'interdire de manger en public pendant un mois dans l'année et de sanctionner les homosexuels et les buveurs d'alcool ne peut être que très développé!!

D'autre part, les pays qui vont promouvoir l'égalité des sexes, qui dépénalisent l'homosexualité, qui encouragent les arts et qui donnent des libertés à leurs citoyens ne peuvent que revenir en arrière.

BTW, your logic eats itself!

Originally Posted by Marock

If I were to tell you for example the weather seems very sunny for a week or so, I cannot just quickly come to the conclusion that it will be sunny for the rest of our existence….. If that doesn’t help you understand what I’m trying to say, I’ll give you another example. If a person has a diabetes problem and the level of insulin needs to be measured to see if he has a serious case or not, the experimenter will not just measure the amount of insulin in his blood for once or even twice because there may be other factors effecting the result. İnstead, he or she would have to repeat the test for separate and several times and get consistent results. That is much more conclusive than claiming that a person for example has daibetes just after one exam. I hope you don’t become a doctor using this method of testing or else you will probably have a lot of problems keeping your job.

In conclusion, it seems that you like to pride yourself as the”scientist” and “modern” man and that we are like the “old” people who follow “old tales” of religion

ça va de soi malheureusement et à mes dépens.

[lamaza77]

sacré Tétwani!toujours égal à toi même.
mais je te comprend,dans un sens.

[7rani]

Originally Posted by Tetwani

qu'on ne peut pas baser une constitution et des lois sur des croyances non vérifiables et irrationnelles!!![/B]

Dis moi, tu pense qu'un argument non vérifiable, est irrationnel?? non vérifiable dans quel sens?

[flyzone]

Originally Posted by 7rani

Dis moi, tu pense qu'un argument non vérifiable, est irrationnel?? non vérifiable dans quel sens?

il a dit croyance non vérifiable , pas argument non vérifiable

exemple de croyance non vérifiable : "il faut couper la main du voleur parce que dieu nous a dit ainsi" bien évidement personne ne peut vérifier si dieu vous a dit ça ou pas

[Tetwani]

Originally Posted by flyzone

il a dit croyance non vérifiable , pas argument non vérifiable

exemple de croyance non vérifiable : "il faut couper la main du voleur parce que dieu nous a dit ainsi" bien évidement personne ne peut vérifier si dieu vous a dit ça ou pas

+1

Non vérifiable: Aucun moyen de le vérifier (l'existence de Dieu, Dieu a écrit le Coran, Les jnouns existent...sont toutes des choses non vérifiables)

Irrationnel: Ne fais pas appel à la raison => Ex: Faire 5 prières par jour et essayer de communiquer par "télépathie" à un Dieu qui n'existe probablement pas.

[Marock]

Je dis juste qu'aujourd'hui, les pays laïcs sont plus developpés, alors que les pays qui ont une religion d’État sont généralement arriérés

No. I'm pretty sure you said a non-secular society "will never be more dominant again". If you want I can even repost your quote as I did before.

Probably in the dark and backwarded middle ages, but they won't anymore

In addition, you said:

Le Cerveau et les organes sont visibles (par IRM par exemple) et ont peut les prouver facilement avec la dissection. Ce n'est rien de magique puisque c'est des neurones, des synapses et des connexions étudiées et bien connues. Or, prouver l'existence d'un Dieu implique de croire à la magie , au surnaturel et ça ne résout en rien la question de l'origine de l'univers, mais le repousse!

That's true Tetwani I'm not saying that they haven't discovered that the brain exists through recent technology like the MRI but I'm asking if your own brain exists in your own case. I'm saying this as a parabole because we always use a method of looking at signs to determine causes for certain things in life like diseases and sicknesses. And we apply this same method when we look at why we are suddenly alive and also when looking at the complexity of this world and that it couldn't have been such a coincedence. So there must be a creator and it cannot just come from nothing and that is the first law of thermodynamics which many atheists like yourself accept. That is why I gave you the example of the brain because you want proof for every single thing rather than looking at signs and clear patterns when talking about the existence of God. But when it has to do with the existence of your own brain, you have no problem using other people's observations to come to your own conclusion that you yourself have a brain too. This means that you're are using inconsistent methods of trying to find the truth. I hope you understand that point and I can clarify it more if you want.

En étudiant la théorie de l’Évolution, l'Astronomie et les Sciences de la vie, on comprend le fonctionnement de notre environnement et de notre organisme.

Here, I'm not exactly sure why you're talking about evolution and all these subjects, why I said was that you were trying to make a clear statement about the future when you have no ability to know the future, thats why I said that you have faith in what you're saying and that faith is something that atheists like you consider irrational but you seem to demonstrate the same thing.

Concernant la foi ou dans ton cas, de la mauvaise foi je n'ai jamais cru à quelque chose juste parce qu'on me la dit

Why are you sarcastically telling me that I believe something just because other people told me to? Are you assuming that all people who believe in a certain religion believe in one because they are just told to? That is a very quick assumption you made about me and a pretty big stereotype and is also one that is not backed up by anything just like your last statements.

Un État doit être pragmatique et s'adresser sans distinction à tous ses citoyens et ne pas inclure dans son code civil la réincarnation par exemple pour un pays hindouiste.

I think this may be one thing we may both agree on. It's true there must be pragmatic decisions made and I also agree that in religions like Hinduism, including reincarnation as a civil code is non-sense. But once again you have generalized this to all religions including Islam. If you have an example of non-pragmatism about Islam or it being unpractical, share an example with us if you can.

La laïcité a elle seule ne suffit pas, je les dit à plusieurs reprises et je n'ai cessé de le répéter

So then you have admitted yourself that secularism is not a practical solution for all the problems within a society because it doesn't solve every problem and is thus not a complete solution.

Tu as raison un pays qui autorise de couper la main aux voleurs, de donner la moitié de la part d'héritage du garçon à sa sœur, de tuer pour apostasie, de lapider pour adultère, d'interdire de manger en public pendant un mois dans l'année et de sanctionner les homosexuels et les buveurs d'alcool ne peut être que très développé!!

I am completely aware of the fact that some atheists like to look at these "aggressive" and "inhumane" punishments as you would like to put them. But you are using your emotions first before your logic. Islam is a religion that aims at protecting the family and discourages acts within societies that harm family life. If we take for example punishment of having sex before marriage which is 100 whips, this avoids potential dangers of having babies born on wedlock. If you look at America for example, you will see that over half of the babies born today to women under 30 are born out of welock (to couples that are not married). Research also suggests that these babies that are born out of wedlock experience generally more emotional and behavioral problems due to the collapse of family ties. These results are from this source which is a reliable website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-wedlock.html

In addition, couples who are not married and born out of wedlock today in western societies for example are not educated and mature enough to parent and don't have the financial support they need in order to provide their children a healthy lifestyle. In addition, people who have had sex before marriage also suffer when they are married because they have taken the curiousity of the other sex away and life after marriage seems "boring". By separating the different sexes more and preventing illicit sex, we also enhance the conditions of family life. This is just one example but this is why people shouldn't be emotional first when they see the severity of punishments in Islam but should also look at the benefits and the weigh the outcomes and then see which one is best. I hope you understand this point and also that societies that have more illecit sex like in western countries tend to have less marriages and less babies born. This means that demographically, the society is unsustainable because the population would shrink as it is happening in several European countries. Family life is key to not only happiness success in the long-term but is also key to growth and the economy and thus influence around the world and Islam encourages this among the Muslims. So my logic isn't eating itself as you claim, you just have to take the time to be honest with yourself and think deeper about the rulings. I hope this helped.

And Allah knows best

[Marock]

It's also important to mention that a significant number of people who are married after they have illicit sex are not interested in their partners as much and feel like they are "stuck" with them for the rest of their lives which leads them to cheat on their wives as well which then leads to more family disintegration which leads to more depression and more psychological suffering.

[Tetwani]

Originally Posted by Marock

No. I'm pretty sure you said a non-secular society "will never be more dominant again". If you want I can even repost your quote as I did before.

Et je persiste et signe.

La France ne reviendra pas à la monarchie de droit divin de Louis XIV ou au système consulaire de Napoléon, même si elle était un grand pays à l'époque. Tout simplement parce qu'au 21ème siècle ça serait inefficace d'avoir un tel système, une France démocratique et laïque est bien plus efficiente en termes administratifs, de droits de l'Homme, de libertés, d'économie et en termes militaires...

Même chose pour la Chariâa, qui était peut être bien pour le 7ème siècle où c'était normal du punir l'adultère de coups de fouet!! mais qui semble aujourd'hui dépassée et barbare (parce que l'être humain a évolué et est devenu plus sophistiqué)

Originally Posted by Marock

That's true Tetwani I'm not saying that they haven't discovered that the brain exists through recent technology like the MRI but I'm asking if your own brain exists in your own case. I'm saying this as a parabole because we always use a method of looking at signs to determine causes for certain things in life like diseases and sicknesses.

On n'a pas besoin de voir systématiquement les choses pour affirmer qu'elles existent.

Exemple: On ne voit pas les ondes de réseaux téléphoniques, mais on sait qu'elles existent et c'est vérifiable.

On ne voit pas l'intérieur de l'ordinateur mais on sait qu'il y a un disque dur... c'est vérifiable

Par contre, comment prouver l'existence d'une ligne de communication entre le croyant et le Dieu!? si ce n'est par magie!!

Originally Posted by Marock

And we apply this same method when we look at why we are suddenly alive and also when looking at the complexity of this world and that it couldn't have been such a coincedence.

Qui te dis qu'un monde sans Dieu ne serait pas complexe? Tu tires des conclusions hâtives qui ne sont basées que sur ta croyance et pas de la raison.

Originally Posted by Marock

So there must be a creator and it cannot just come from nothing and that is the first law of thermodynamics which many atheists like yourself accept.

Un début à tout! ok, et Dieu il vient d'où alors? de nulle part!
Le monde a besoin d'un Dieu mais Dieu n'a besoin de rien?

Renseignes-toi sur la théorie de multiverse (multiples univers) et de la théorie cyclique qui veut que notre univers démarre par des big bang et meurt dans des big crunsh...

Originally Posted by Marock

Here, I'm not exactly sure why you're talking about evolution and all these subjects, why I said was that you were trying to make a clear statement about the future when you have no ability to know the future, thats why I said that you have faith in what you're saying and that faith is something that atheists like you consider irrational but you seem to demonstrate the same thing.

Je pense comme beaucoup de gens, qu'un système égalitaire, qui donnent des libertés et respecte les droits de l'Homme peut être beaucoup plus efficace qu'un système totalitaire qui ne fait pas appel à la raison.

Peut être que le futur me donnera tort, mais ça sera un jour triste pour l'humanité

Originally Posted by Marock

Why are you sarcastically telling me that I believe something just because other people told me to? Are you assuming that all people who believe in a certain religion believe in one because they are just told to? That is a very quick assumption you made about me and a pretty big stereotype and is also one that is not backed up by anything just like your last statements.

Tu peux dire ce que tu veux! mais les études scientifiques prouvent que tu n'es musulman que parce que tes parents le sont et très rares sont ceux qui changent de religion dans leur vie adulte.

En effet, la religion de ton enfance et souvent celle que tu gardes toute ta vie. Pourquoi tu n'es pas scientologue, ou mormon, ou hindouiste, shintoïste ou chrétien? pourtant il existe plus de chrétiens dans le monde que de musulmans! La réponse est simple: parce que tes parents sont musulmans!

Originally Posted by Marock

I think this may be one thing we may both agree on. It's true there must be pragmatic decisions made and I also agree that in religions like Hinduism, including reincarnation as a civil code is non-sense. But once again you have generalized this to all religions including Islam. If you have an example of non-pragmatism about Islam or it being unpractical, share an example with us if you can.

C'est pas un thread pour attaquer l'islam, mais juste pour séparer la religion et l'Etat dans notre cher pays qu'est le Maroc.

Pour répondre à ta question, il y a beaucoup de règles non pragmatiques dans la religion, en voici quelques exemples:

- Les femmes (qui représentent la moitié de la population ont moins de droits que les hommes) et il est même autorisé de les frapper, de se marier avec plusieurs ou de leur donner moins pour leur héritage -> C'est pas pragmatique, c'est discriminant et injuste!

- Les homosexuels sont punis de mort! (sachant que ce n'est ni un choix ni une maladie mais on né ou pas avec)

- L'apostasie est punie de mort! => Un manquement flagrant à la liberté de religion!

- L'enfant mâle doit perdre sont prépuce

- Le Porc est interdit!! (On se demande toujours pourquoi!)
.
.
.

Encore une fois, le croyant est invité à ne pas poser de questions sur la raison de ses règles non pragmatiques, il doit juste les appliquer à la lettre

Originally Posted by Marock

So then you have admitted yourself that secularism is not a practical solution for all the problems within a society because it doesn't solve every problem and is thus not a complete solution.

Its the best solution we know

Originally Posted by Marock

I am completely aware of the fact that some atheists like to look at these "aggressive" and "inhumane" punishments as you would like to put them. But you are using your emotions first before your logic.

I'm human, i use emotions and common sense.

Originally Posted by Marock

If you look at America for example, you will see that over half of the babies born today to women under 30 are born out of welock (to couples that are not married). Research also suggests that these babies that are born out of wedlock experience generally more emotional and behavioral problems due to the collapse of family ties. These results are from this source which is a reliable website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-wedlock.html

From the dailymail!! come on! thats the most unreliable source ever.
Don't use tabloids as a source (juste an advice)

Originally Posted by Marock

In addition, couples who are not married and born out of wedlock today in western societies for example are not educated and mature enough to parent and don't have the financial support they need in order to provide their children a healthy lifestyle.

The President of France is not married!
I know many people who have babies without being married and they are educated, have a good life and good health.

Originally Posted by Marock

In addition, people who have had sex before marriage also suffer when they are married because they have taken the curiousity of the other sex away and life after marriage seems "boring".

WTF is this! I'm not a bar tender this is not an argument its a bar talk

Originally Posted by Marock

By separating the different sexes more and preventing illicit sex, we also enhance the conditions of family life. This is just one example but this is why people shouldn't be emotional first when they see the severity of punishments in Islam but should also look at the benefits and the weigh the outcomes and then see which one is best.

Illicit sex? What is that?

Le sexe est le résultat de l'amour qu'entretiennent deux personnes. Et l'amour est la plus belle chose qu'on peut avoir, il n'y a rien d'illicite la dedans.

Originally Posted by Marock

I hope you understand this point and also that societies that have more illecit sex like in western countries tend to have less marriages and less babies born.

Ok, and what about africans and brazilians! they have a lot of babies

Originally Posted by Marock

This means that demographically, the society is unsustainable because the population would shrink as it is happening in several European countries.

C'est valable dans l'autre sens aussi!

Des femmes qui deviennent des poules pondeuses et une démographie qui explose n'est pas un bon moyen non plus. Mais il y a des outils de régulation des naissances et chaque pays est différent.

[Marock]

Et je persiste et signe.

La France ne reviendra pas à la monarchie de droit divin de Louis XIV ou au système consulaire de Napoléon, même si elle était un grand pays à l'époque. Tout simplement parce qu'au 21ème siècle ça serait inefficace d'avoir un tel système, une France démocratique et laïque est bien plus efficiente en termes administratifs, de droits de l'Homme, de libertés, d'économie et en termes militaires...

Même chose pour la Chariâa, qui était peut être bien pour le 7ème siècle où c'était normal du punir l'adultère de coups de fouet!! mais qui semble aujourd'hui dépassée et barbare (parce que l'être humain a évolué et est devenu plus sophistiqué)

First I have to say you've made some good points in your responses but here for example is another example of how you are using opinion rather than objective facts. you can even see that when you use "it seems". so that demonstrates the point I've been making.

Par contre, comment prouver l'existence d'une ligne de communication entre le croyant et le Dieu!?

This doesn't prove that a connection between God and his slaves doesn't exist. If I told you 1000 years ago that we would be able to communicate with each other while we are thousands of miles apart from each other you would have probably said it is magic so just because we don't know of something now due to our ignorance doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and is not possible.
What I'm trying to say is that the chances of the world coming to existence in my opinion are none without a creator but don't take my word for it. Look at the words of people who think more like you: According to Harold Morowitz who is a biophysics professor at Yale, he said that the chances of the simplest life-forms ever coming to existence is 1 out of 10^340,000,000 which is neglectable. In addition, according to Carl Sagan who is a very popular evolutionist of Cornell University claimed that the chances of life ever forming on a planet like Earth is 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Think about it: first you have the chances of us finding a planet like ours is already small enough; then you have to add the chance of life ever happening and that makes it worse!! Of course I don't believe there is the slightest chance anything can happen from nothing but in any case, I don't think there is any need for any other argument against atheists on this issue. I mean if you really believe that life formed by itself for no apparent reason, you must have more faith than I do which is something you claim you don't have and that is irrational. But it is something you have displayed before several times. Just accept the fact that you don't know everything!

Je pense comme beaucoup de gens, qu'un système égalitaire, qui donnent des libertés et respecte les droits de l'Homme peut être beaucoup plus efficace qu'un système totalitaire qui ne fait pas appel à la raison.

Peut être que le futur me donnera tort, mais ça sera un jour triste pour l'humanité

But the fact remains the same and that's that you don't know the future although you claim what will happen in the future and then you say maybe I will be wrong which means you are contradicting yourself in the same point so make up your mind. And just because many people believe a certain thing doesn't mean it's true.

Tu peux dire ce que tu veux! mais les études scientifiques prouvent que tu n'es musulman que parce que tes parents le sont et très rares sont ceux qui changent de religion dans leur vie adulte.

En effet, la religion de ton enfance et souvent celle que tu gardes toute ta vie. Pourquoi tu n'es pas scientologue, ou mormon, ou hindouiste ou shintoïste? pourtant il existe plus de chrétiens dans le monde que de musulmans! La réponse est simple: parce que tes parents sont musulmans!

You raise an important point that many atheists talk about. You say that if I was born a Christian I wouldn't be Muslim. So then that means that I have to prove to you that even if I was born a Christian, the chances of me dying as a Muslim doesn't change. And I will prove it to you. First of all the number of true Muslims shouldn't differ that much from one country to another and also the Muslim who counts at the end as a Muslim is one who dies as a Muslim and doesn't just call himself a Muslim like many in the world do today. So then actually, if we look at many Muslim countries, the number of true muslims is a fraction of the total. So first all let's take a muslim country like Libya for example, any person who willingly disbelieves in only one verse of the Quran or one authentic hadith should not be considered a Muslim under the definition of Islam. So already, a large portion of so called Muslims are actually just calling themselves Muslims but they aren't if they die in that state. In addition, the one who gives up on prayer according to scholars is not a Muslim so then you would have to shave a large portion of the population that dies having given up on prayer. So actually, these "studies" don't take into account who a Muslim really is and so if you look at it from a criterial point of view, the number of true Muslims in an Islamic country when compared to a non-islamic country should be closer than you think because many people who follow Islam in the US for example believe in the religion because they have knowledge and don't disbelieve in one portion and believe in another, so many actually follow the true path once they convert.

C'est pas un thread pour attaquer l'islam

You say that that is not your intention but the quote you have on all your comments prove otherwise and I am really asking you politely to take it off just for the sake of respect and tolerance between one another. Please.

Les femmes (qui représentent la moitié de la population ont moins de droits que les hommes) et il est même autorisé de les frapper

Stop trying to depict Islam as religion that was meant to suppress women. If that was true hypothetically speaking, then Islam wouldn't have protected women from the ignorant people that were during the prophet's time. Before the prophet began spreading Islam, the people used to bury their daughters alive and do very bad things to them. If indeed, Islam was meant to suppress women, then it would have at least made conditions worse than the time before the prophet Muhammad.
In Islam, men are not allowed to beat their wives, this is the way of the ignorants who don't know the sunnah of the prophet. What is allowed is to hit the wife softly as a symbolic gesture only after other methods don't work. The Quran doesn't permit husbands to beat their wives, infact Allah (swt) says:
“and live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allaah brings through it a great deal of good”

[al-Nisa’ 4:19]

The prophet also said regarding women:
“The best of you are those who are the best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi
He also said:
“You never spend anything but you will be rewarded for it, even the morsel of food that you lift to your wife’s mouth.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari

“As to those women on whose part you see ill‑conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

So here according to the Quran and Sunnah, beating them doesn't mean making the have a a black and blue eye but should be soft without causing pain or injury and as a symbol of unhappiness if it is useful but unfortunately people have taken this verse and the sunnah and claim that Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives severely. If you think that the people who came up with the Women's Liberation are very nice and kind people, stop being naive and think twice. Although this movement was meant to let women have jobs and equal pay with men, it was funded by the Rockefellers and was actually meant to double the amount of tax the government could get. Before this movement, the government could not collect tax from women.

L'apostasie est punie de mort! => Un manquement flagrant à la liberté de religion!

First of all, this is another misconception about Islam. There is a difference in scholarly opinion about this because it cannot be considered a standard procedure in Islam because it was reported that the prophet allowed an apostate to leave Islam without killing him. However, when for example someone claims to people that he is God which did happen, in these types of cases, killing the person in the shariah is required. So killing every apostate is not from the sunnah but this is another misconception.

L'enfant mâle doit perdre sont prépuce

It is true that this happens in Islam and I won't deny it but it is not a fradh or an obligation, it is a sunnah and mustahab according to one scholarly opinion. But once again, instead of going straight to emotions, one must look at the advantages of this practice which are huge.
1. There is better and enhanced pleasure during sex
2. The chances of having carcinoma of the penis is significantly less.
3. It can cause prepucitis and inflammation in the penis if one goes to answer the call of nature and some urine is left in the foreskin of the penis.
4. Less irritation
5. Less chances of having HIV!!
6. More than 50% of Americans are circumcised when they are born because parents know that it is of benefit to them.
There are also benefits in female circumcision but not the way some muslims circumcise today which is removing the entire clitoris which is genital mutilation, this is the way of the ignorants.

Le Porc est interdit!!

Maybe you know the saying "you are what you eat". If you eat an animal that eats shit, then you're eating shit. I don't think I need to go further because it's clearly not clean to eat this animal not to mention the extra cholesterol from bacon strips.

Encore une fois, le croyant est invité à ne pas poser de question sur la raison de ses règles non pragmatique, juste de les appliquer à la lettre

If you're asking key questions there is nothing wrong with it in Islam rather in Christianity it can be different. If you asking stupid questions like what is God doing right now, then in Islam, these questions are not useful and are just leading you astray.

Its the best solution we know

Speak for yourself...

I'm human, i use emotions and common sense.

Me too, but use common sense before emotions.

From the dailymail!! come on! thats the most unreliable source ever.
Don't use tabloids as a source (juste an advice)

There are many sources that indicate the same thing including new york times and cnn:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/l...s?_s=PM:LIVING
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

In addition, couples who are not married and born out of wedlock today in western societies for example are not educated and mature enough to parent and don't have the financial support they need in order to provide their children a healthy lifestyle.

This was a typo sorry about that, I should have written "couples who are not married and give birth out of wedlock today..."

Le sexe est le résultat de l'amour qu'entretiennent deux personnes. Et l'amour est la plus belle chose qu'on peut avoir, il n'y a rien d'illicite la dedans.

You're right love is beautiful but when you talk about sex it is not only the result of love but of lust and there is a big difference betweent the two.

Ok, and what about africans and brazilians! they have a lot of babies

HAHAHAHAHAHA thats an excellent point and true. But the trend I'm trying to demonstrate is that the rate of birth even in Brazil is decreasing. So it is true that they have a lot of babies but the rate was much higher before and the rate is now decreasing and at this rate, the population cannot sustain itself which is the point I've been making all along. African countries probably have slowing birth rate as well but I don't think it has gotten to the extent that the population cannot replace itself. In any case, one trend is clear and that is that with lesser marriages happening, the birth rate is decreasing. Here is a source about the Brazil's low fertility rate:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world...zil_08-30.html
Don't worry it's not a tabloid.
If there's one last thing I want to ask you kindly, not only in respect to my belief and to others who unfortunately don't have the courage to say, it is please take off that quote you have.
Thank you

[Marock]

any person who willingly disbelieves in only one verse of the Quran or one authentic hadith should not be considered a Muslim under the definition of Islam.

Sorry I mean "any person who willingly disbelieves in only one verse of the Quran or one authentic hadith should not be considered a Muslim under Islamic criteria.

[Tetwani]

Originally Posted by Marock

This doesn't prove that a connection between God and his slaves doesn't exist. If I told you 1000 years ago that we would be able to communicate with each other while we are thousands of miles apart from each other you would have probably said it is magic so just because we don't know of something now due to our ignorance doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and is not possible.

Tu es sérieux là?

Originally Posted by Marock

What I'm trying to say is that the chances of the world coming to existence in my opinion are none without a creator but don't take my word for it. Look at the words of people who think more like you: According to Harold Morowitz who is a biophysics professor at Yale, he said that the chances of the simplest life-forms ever coming to existence is 1 out of 10^340,000,000 which is neglectable. In addition, according to Carl Sagan who is a very popular evolutionist of Cornell University claimed that the chances of life ever forming on a planet like Earth is 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000.

Je ne sais pas d'où tu sors ces chiffres. Saches que l'univers compte quelques trillions de planètes et que l'existence de la vie sur d'autres planètes est possible.

Les scientifiques qui soutiennent cette thèse sont bien plus nombreux (dont le célébrissime Stephen Hawking)

Originally Posted by Marock

You raise an important point that many atheists talk about. You say that if I was born a Christian I wouldn't be Muslim. So then that means that I have to prove to you that even if I was born a Christian, the chances of me dying as a Muslim doesn't change. And I will prove it to you. First of all the number of true Muslims shouldn't differ that much from one country to another and also the Muslim who counts at the end as a Muslim is one who dies as a Muslim and doesn't just call himself a Muslim like many in the world do today. So then actually, if we look at many Muslim countries, the number of true muslims is a fraction of the total. So first all let's take a muslim country like Libya for example, any person who willingly disbelieves in only one verse of the Quran or one authentic hadith should not be considered a Muslim under the definition of Islam. So already, a large portion of so called Muslims are actually just calling themselves Muslims but they aren't if they die in that state. In addition, the one who gives up on prayer according to scholars is not a Muslim so then you would have to shave a large portion of the population that dies having given up on prayer. So actually, these "studies" don't take into account who a Muslim really is and so if you look at it from a criterial point of view, the number of true Muslims in an Islamic country when compared to a non-islamic country should be closer than you think because many people who follow Islam in the US for example believe in the religion because they have knowledge and don't disbelieve in one portion and believe in another, so many actually follow the true path once they convert.

According to you nobody is muslim, and that's biggotery.

Originally Posted by Marock

Stop trying to depict Islam as religion that was meant to suppress women. If that was true hypothetically speaking, then Islam wouldn't have protected women from the ignorant people that were during the prophet's time. Before the prophet began spreading Islam, the people used to bury their daughters alive and do very bad things to them. If indeed, Islam was meant to suppress women, then it would have at least made conditions worse than the time before the prophet Muhammad.

Times before the "prophet" were probably worse just in backwarded arabia, but not in Morocco who was under Roman empire rule. But the situation haven't changed much in Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by Marock

In Islam, men are not allowed to beat their wives, this is the way of the ignorants who don't know the sunnah of the prophet. What is allowed is to hit the wife softly as a symbolic gesture only after other methods don't work. The Quran doesn't permit husbands to beat their wives, infact Allah (swt) says:
“and live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allaah brings through it a great deal of good”
[al-Nisa’ 4:19]

Ils ne sont pas autorisés à les frapper...mais juste un peu quand les autres techniques ne marchent pas!!!

Tu prends les femmes pour tes enfants ou quoi?
Le mari n'est pas sensé éduquer sa femme!! Elles sont aussi éduquées voir plus que les hommes.

Originally Posted by Marock

The prophet also said regarding women:
“The best of you are those who are the best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi
He also said:
“You never spend anything but you will be rewarded for it, even the morsel of food that you lift to your wife’s mouth.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari

“As to those women on whose part you see ill‑conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

Je dois en conclure que les croyants sont vraiment aveugles face au machisme des versets. Chacune de tes citations parle des femmes comme si c'était des gamines à éduquer!

Normal puisque ça a été écrit par l'homme et non pas par une divinité qui n'aurait aucune raison de traiter les femmes et les hommes différemment.

Originally Posted by Marock

If you think that the people who came up with the Women's Liberation are very nice and kind people, stop being naive and think twice. Although this movement was meant to let women have jobs and equal pay with men, it was funded by the Rockefellers and was actually meant to double the amount of tax the government could get. Before this movement, the government could not collect tax from women.

Lol
Payer des taxes!! quel malheur
C'est le ministère des finances qui était derrière tout ça alors!?

Pauvres femmes, elles ont gagné de l'argent pour payer des impôts, c'est injuste.

Originally Posted by Marock

First of all, this is another misconception about Islam. There is a difference in scholarly opinion about this because it cannot be considered a standard procedure in Islam because it was reported that the prophet allowed an apostate to leave Islam without killing him. However, when for example someone claims to people that he is God which did happen, in these types of cases, killing the person in the shariah is required. So killing every apostate is not from the sunnah but this is another misconception.

Killing the apostate is in the Sunnah and its not a msiconception. Stop denying!! If its from your God you should be proud of it instead of being ashamed.

Originally Posted by Marock

It is true that this happens in Islam and I won't deny it but it is not a fradh or an obligation, it is a sunnah and mustahab according to one scholarly opinion. But once again, instead of going straight to emotions, one must look at the advantages of this practice which are huge.
1. There is better and enhanced pleasure during sex
2. The chances of having carcinoma of the penis is significantly less.
3. It can cause prepucitis and inflammation in the penis if one goes to answer the call of nature and some urine is left in the foreskin of the penis.
4. Less irritation
5. Less chances of having HIV!!
6. More than 50% of Americans are circumcised when they are born because parents know that it is of benefit to them.
There are also benefits in female circumcision but not the way some muslims circumcise today which is removing the entire clitoris which is genital mutilation, this is the way of the ignorants.

Scientific and reliable sources please?

Originally Posted by Marock

Maybe you know the saying "you are what you eat". If you eat an animal that eats shit, then you're eating shit. I don't think I need to go further because it's clearly not clean to eat this animal not to mention the extra cholesterol from bacon strips.

Eats shit? How can you believe this bullshit (C'est le cas de le dire )
Le Porc mange ce que les autres animaux de la ferme mangent, c'est à dire du tourteau, céréales... Et concernant le cholesterol, il y en a beaucoup plus dans le mouton de l'Aîd que dans le porc.

http://www.leporc.com/alimentation-du-porc.php

Originally Posted by Marock

HAHAHAHAHAHA thats an excellent point and true. But the trend I'm trying to demonstrate is that the rate of birth even in Brazil is decreasing. So it is true that they have a lot of babies but the rate was much higher before and the rate is now decreasing and at this rate, the population cannot sustain itself which is the point I've been making all along. African countries probably have slowing birth rate as well but I don't think it has gotten to the extent that the population cannot replace itself. In any case, one trend is clear and that is that with lesser marriages happening, the birth rate is decreasing. Here is a source about the Brazil's low fertility rate:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world...zil_08-30.html
Don't worry it's not a tabloid.

The birth rate in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria is also decreasing. I guess its because nobody is muslim for you.

[7rani]

Originally Posted by Tetwani

+1

Non vérifiable: Aucun moyen de le vérifier (l'existence de Dieu, Dieu a écrit le Coran, Les jnouns existent...sont toutes des choses non vérifiables)

Irrationnel: Ne fais pas appel à la raison => Ex: Faire 5 prières par jour et essayer de communiquer par "télépathie" à un Dieu qui n'existe probablement pas.

Tu veux philosopher Oui tu as le droit, mais tu dois développer ta pensée pour arriver à des résultats et non pas rester sur le même point, on entend parler des philosophes qui commencent par l’athéisme, et qui enfin conclut l'existence d'un Dieu comme Voltaire ... En plus, ces philosophes étaient avant tout des Mathématiciens, c'est à dire, "chb3o logique". Alors, tu viens pour dire peut être qu'il n'existe peut être pas de Dieu ... Dieu, est absolou, c'est difficile pour ton esprit tout impuissant de discuter son existence ...Tout ce que tu peux faire c'est de penser sur l'homme, la société ... Quand tu l'imagine, tu discute son existence, c'est que tu l'humanise. Qui te dit que Ce monde de la divinité ressemble à celui où on vit HHH. que la logique humaine est parfaite pour conclure sur Dieu. HH on ne peux même pas s'accorder, différence d'opinions, Alors pense tu que notre logique contradictoire est capable de discuter Dieu ....
Nombreux sont ceux qui se trompent en menant des raisonnement qui utilisent le principe de la projection ...

[botanika]

Stop trying to depict Islam as religion that was meant to suppress women. If that was true hypothetically speaking, then Islam wouldn't have protected women from the ignorant people that were during the prophet's time. Before the prophet began spreading Islam, the people used to bury their daughters alive and do very bad things to them. If indeed, Islam was meant to suppress women, then it would have at least made conditions worse than the time before the prophet Muhammad.
In Islam, men are not allowed to beat their wives, this is the way of the ignorants who don't know the sunnah of the prophet. What is allowed is to hit the wife softly as a symbolic gesture only after other methods don't work. The Quran doesn't permit husbands to beat their wives, infact Allah (swt) says:
“and live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allaah brings through it a great deal of good”

" وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلاً إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيّاً كَبِيراً"
nissa2 -34

[flyzone]

Originally Posted by 7rani

Tu veux philosopher Oui tu as le droit, mais tu dois développer ta pensée pour arriver à des résultats et non pas rester sur le même point, on entend parler des philosophes qui commencent par l’athéisme, et qui enfin conclut l'existence d'un Dieu comme Voltaire ... En plus, ces philosophes étaient avant tout des Mathématiciens, c'est à dire, "chb3o logique". Alors, tu viens pour dire peut être qu'il n'existe peut être pas de Dieu ... Dieu, est absolou, c'est difficile pour ton esprit tout impuissant de discuter son existence ...Tout ce que tu peux faire c'est de penser sur l'homme, la société ... Quand tu l'imagine, tu discute son existence, c'est que tu l'humanise. Qui te dit que Ce monde de la divinité ressemble à celui où on vit HHH. que la logique humaine est parfaite pour conclure sur Dieu. HH on ne peux même pas s'accorder, différence d'opinions, Alors pense tu que notre logique contradictoire est capable de discuter Dieu ....
Nombreux sont ceux qui se trompent en menant des raisonnement qui utilisent le principe de la projection ...

sur ce que t'as ecrit en gras tout le monde est d'accord meme la religion elle meme je pense mohamed a dit : "méditez dans ce que dieu a créé pas en dieu lui meme" , d'où la necessité de séparer ce qui est humain de ce qui est divain, la foi de la raison , le coeur du cerveau le spirituel du matériel... je veux dire par séparation aussi vivre en harmonie .