• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran court convicts Christian pastor convert to death

Cephus said:
Who says self-empowerment is automatically best in every case? The world needs leaders and followers.
.
Click to expand...

When it comes to decisions like who I worship? Yep.

Yes I am and frankly, I'm not necessarily impressed with everything he says. A lot of his philosophy, and Hobbes, are just pie-in-the-sky nonsense that cannot be defended rationally.
Click to expand...

You get an Amen. I hate political theory (it isn't really philosophy), but certain things they are say ARE the basis of Western politics...and pretty "self evident" as it were. Like the idea "inallienable" human rights.

Rights come from society.
Click to expand...

Thank you Thrasymachus.

If society says you have no rights, you have no rights.
Click to expand...

I think it is more like: If society wants to violate your rights...they WILL violate your rights. It doesn't make it right or excusable to murder someone for being a non-believer. This isn't a unique philosophy to one country. Every civillized nation on Earth has these laws. Even China has a very basic form of Freedom of Religion (sort of).

They are not some magical, mystical things that float around in the ether
Click to expand...

No they aren't. Freedom of religion, freedom from persecution, and generally life, liberty, and pursuit of happieness.

doesn't prove our ways are any better,
Click to expand...

Sure it does. At least that is what you are justifying because that is EXACTLY what Iran is doing.

Every nation should be held responsible for human rights. When a nation willfully violates human rights (in a legal sense)...then it is wrong. It is one thing for a criminal element to do something...it is another for there to be state sanctioned executions of people for renouncement of their faith.

Honestly how can anyone defend Iran here? It is CLEARLY wrong.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
Well yes if they let you go and you decide to stay and get raped out of your own free will, yes. It becomes consensual.
Click to expand...

.........What kind of cosmic bunny hole did your logic just jump through? Do you not understand this? I can't argue with you anymore. You are justifying rape and murder by placing the blame upon the victim. BTW I have some rocks if you would like to stone the rape victims as well. That is pretty popular in Iran as well.
 
Cephus said:
Says who? Back it up.
Click to expand...

That is a cop out. You really don't think it is a basic human right? Never mind that it is an accepted right in EVERY civilized nation on Earth.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely, it's based largely on enlightened self-interest. People want to be treated certain ways, thus they recognize that, being social creatures, they need to treat others the way they themselves want to be treated. That's where right and wrong come into the picture and ultimately, morals. However, different groups of people may have different views on what they want and therefore, the concept of right and wrong may vary from place to place, culture to culture and across time. Once you pile things like religion on top of basic human nature, you get some of the religious stupidity that we see in the Middle East. Doesn't significantly change anything though.
Click to expand...

The Golden Rule (which you have described) is the finest description of morality ever given.

Luke 6:31 - "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." - Jesus

I don't see how you can embrace it on the one hand, and decry religion on the other. Where do you think the idea originated?

Cephus said:
In your opinion, I'm sure you think so. The people of Iran don't or the government wouldn't be doing it. Stop pretending that your opinions are superior to everyone else's, just because they're yours.
Click to expand...

Good people around the world will see this story for what it is; a story of a man unjustly executed for his religious beliefs, and a story of his courage in holding to those beliefs.
 
stonewall50 said:
I absolutely am 100% being objective on this. Do you see me pressing a gun to an atheist's head saying, "You better believe Jesus is the son of God or I'm gonna *****ing blow your head off!"

NO. I would NEVER do that. I would NEVER EVER FORCE my belief in Jesus on them. That is not only a violation of the VERY FIRST Amendment of the Nation of which I reside and take VERY much pride in living, but it is also a fundamental violation of a VERY basic human right. ON TOP OF THAT: I think that is against my religion. I don't think it is AT ALL what Jesus wants me to do. I think he wants me to "Love thy neighbor."

Do NOT support these wretched people. They are murdering this man because his religion is different. Don't try to compare me. I would NEVER do such a thing.

Edit: Now that I have thought about it. I am not objective. I am not objective because I believe whole heartedly in the fundamental rights of human beings. And this is a clear violation of that right. So yes I am biased from a very Human, American, Lockeian, whatever perspective.

Edit Edit: I might add that it has nothing to do with the fact that these monsters happen to be Muslims. It has to do with the fact they are Monsters.
Click to expand...
set atheists aside,our topic is believers.
you judge according to your precision about your belief ,and you think muhammed is not a fact and prophet ,and this is how iranians think and why they will sentence that man to death.my perception of you is like this..i dont like islamist regimes,either but its reason is not my belief in another religion.
 
stonewall50 said:
That is a cop out. You really don't think it is a basic human right? Never mind that it is an accepted right in EVERY civilized nation on Earth.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. You make a claim, you can't back it up and you resort to a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).
 
stonewall50 said:
When it comes to decisions like who I worship? Yep.
Click to expand...

How about worrying if what you believe is actually true instead.

You get an Amen. I hate political theory (it isn't really philosophy), but certain things they are say ARE the basis of Western politics...and pretty "self evident" as it were. Like the idea "inallienable" human rights.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy. Doesn't matter how many people accept an idea, that doesn't make the idea factually true.
 
Cephus said:
Logical fallacy. Doesn't matter how many people accept an idea, that doesn't make the idea factually true.
Click to expand...

Then what, pray tell, makes something factually true? What you just said could be applied to ANYTHING to denounce it as untrue. Which, while I'm no expert on "logical fallacies," seems pretty fallacious to me.
 
Harbinger said:
Then what, pray tell, makes something factually true? What you just said could be applied to ANYTHING to denounce it as untrue. Which, while I'm no expert on "logical fallacies," seems pretty fallacious to me.
Click to expand...

A proposition is true or untrue based entirely on it's own merits, not on how many people believe it or how emotionally satisfying it is. Lots of people once believed the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. The claim here is that these rights exist and are universal. They apply whether people want them to or not. A direct case has to be made for these propositions. Where do these rights come from? How do we determine what they are? How do we determine their reach? These things need to be backed up with evidence. Of course, when I ask for such evidence, all I get is a bunch of hand-waving nonsense because believers know they have nothing and are desperately trying to rationalize their faith. It's no different than religion, which acts the same way. They both make claims (natural rights/gods exist), both cannot produce any direct evidence for their claims, both resort to logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum (lots of people believe it) and the argument from authority (Rand/Locke/Hobbes said so/The Bible says so) and both shuck and jive when backed into a corner. Both are entirely emotional positions, they are demanded because people *WANT* them to be true, whether they are demonstrable or not and neither set of believers is intellectually honest enough to admit that their faith simply cannot be rationally justified.
 
Cephus said:
A proposition is true or untrue based entirely on it's own merits, not on how many people believe it or how emotionally satisfying it is. Lots of people once believed the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. The claim here is that these rights exist and are universal. They apply whether people want them to or not. A direct case has to be made for these propositions. Where do these rights come from? How do we determine what they are? How do we determine their reach? These things need to be backed up with evidence. Of course, when I ask for such evidence, all I get is a bunch of hand-waving nonsense because believers know they have nothing and are desperately trying to rationalize their faith. It's no different than religion, which acts the same way. They both make claims (natural rights/gods exist), both cannot produce any direct evidence for their claims, both resort to logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum (lots of people believe it) and the argument from authority (Rand/Locke/Hobbes said so/The Bible says so) and both shuck and jive when backed into a corner. Both are entirely emotional positions, they are demanded because people *WANT* them to be true, whether they are demonstrable or not and neither set of believers is intellectually honest enough to admit that their faith simply cannot be rationally justified.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see were getting philosophical here. How then, do we determine the merits of a proposition? The "world being flat" seems too simple of an answer, because it can be qualified as wrong easily. This is assuming of course that everyone has the same accepted definitions for flat and round, but the merits of these definitions can be questioned as well. Though I don't want to come off as "that philosophy guy" that argues semantics, and I'll say this: qualifying the rights of man cannot be done as easily as determining the shape of the earth, because a simple observation wont suffice. You ask for empirical evidence for a highly philosophical, and wide reaching proposition, and there indeed may be none, but where does that leave us? Are we just to become like animals? You denounce, yet provide no viable alternative. Therefore all we are left to do is to reach a consensus on philosophical matters.

On religion, keep it separate from political ideals. There is no direct evidence for faith, hence it being called faith. It may seem illogical and wrong to you, but therein lies your choice to not associate.
 
Medusa said:
set atheists aside,our topic is believers.
you judge according to your precision about your belief ,and you think muhammed is not a fact and prophet ,and this is how iranians think and why they will sentence that man to death.my perception of you is like this..i dont like islamist regimes,either but its reason is not my belief in another religion.
Click to expand...

Medusa...it wouldn't matter if I believed in the flying spaghetti Monster or nothing at all. I care NOTHING about what religion is in charge of that nation. My problem is the people in charge of Iran. They are murdering innocent people for no reason. They hang gays, stone rape victims, hang people of different religions, and so on. Iran is a disgusting example of blatant violations of human rights.

You are stuck on the fact that I am not Muslim and that I criticize them. You do NOT see me calling for the Death of Muslims. You do not see my calling on any Muslim nation that isn't violating human rights. You see me exclusively talking about how Iran is violating a most basic human right. My "judgement" has NOTHING...NOTHING AT ALL...to do with religion. Except that I believe of course everyone should be free to worship at their own choosing. It doesn't matter what the Iranians" believe. It is a blatant violation of human rights. You are Muslim correct? You don't support what they are doing. You don't like them for the same reason I don't like them. They are violating human rights.
 
stonewall50 said:
Medusa...it wouldn't matter if I believed in the flying spaghetti Monster or nothing at all. I care NOTHING about what religion is in charge of that nation. My problem is the people in charge of Iran. They are murdering innocent people for no reason. They hang gays, stone rape victims, hang people of different religions, and so on. Iran is a disgusting example of blatant violations of human rights.

You are stuck on the fact that I am not Muslim and that I criticize them. You do NOT see me calling for the Death of Muslims. You do not see my calling on any Muslim nation that isn't violating human rights. You see me exclusively talking about how Iran is violating a most basic human right. My "judgement" has NOTHING...NOTHING AT ALL...to do with religion. Except that I believe of course everyone should be free to worship at their own choosing. It doesn't matter what the Iranians" believe. It is a blatant violation of human rights. You are Muslim correct? You don't support what they are doing. You don't like them for the same reason I don't like them. They are violating human rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with you,but if you say muhammed is not a historical fact during the discussion,maybe ,this makes me think this way about you,i am stuck on that statement :),anyway we agree that we must criticize them for acting against human rights.
 
Cephus said:
A proposition is true or untrue based entirely on it's own merits, not on how many people believe it or how emotionally satisfying it is. Lots of people once believed the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. The claim here is that these rights exist and are universal. They apply whether people want them to or not. A direct case has to be made for these propositions. Where do these rights come from? How do we determine what they are? How do we determine their reach? These things need to be backed up with evidence. Of course, when I ask for such evidence, all I get is a bunch of hand-waving nonsense because believers know they have nothing and are desperately trying to rationalize their faith. It's no different than religion, which acts the same way. They both make claims (natural rights/gods exist), both cannot produce any direct evidence for their claims, both resort to logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum (lots of people believe it) and the argument from authority (Rand/Locke/Hobbes said so/The Bible says so) and both shuck and jive when backed into a corner. Both are entirely emotional positions, they are demanded because people *WANT* them to be true, whether they are demonstrable or not and neither set of believers is intellectually honest enough to admit that their faith simply cannot be rationally justified.
Click to expand...

cephus ,i never try to rationalize my belief and claim it is an emotional case but you still want evidence for god,sorry but there isnt such an evidence but we just refer to holy books and some other teachings to get an opinion about the creator.
 
Harbinger said:
Okay, I see were getting philosophical here. How then, do we determine the merits of a proposition? The "world being flat" seems too simple of an answer, because it can be qualified as wrong easily. This is assuming of course that everyone has the same accepted definitions for flat and round, but the merits of these definitions can be questioned as well. Though I don't want to come off as "that philosophy guy" that argues semantics, and I'll say this: qualifying the rights of man cannot be done as easily as determining the shape of the earth, because a simple observation wont suffice. You ask for empirical evidence for a highly philosophical, and wide reaching proposition, and there indeed may be none, but where does that leave us? Are we just to become like animals? You denounce, yet provide no viable alternative. Therefore all we are left to do is to reach a consensus on philosophical matters.
Click to expand...

We can simply example cultures throughout history and across the world and it becomes obvious where rights have always come from: society. Take American slavery. At one point in time, blacks had no rights. They could be bought and sold or killed at a whim, they were property. Then people decided that they ought to have rights. We fought a war to free them. Over time, their rights gradually grew until they were fully as equal as everyone else. Today we take that for granted. Natural rights advocates would argue that blacks always had rights, they were simply being taken away, but that really makes no logical sense. That's like saying we have a right to flap our arms and fly, but gravity is just taking our right away. It's idiotic.

I'm not asking for empirical evidence, I'm asking for objective evidence. There is a difference. See, libertarians are assuming without a shred of evidence or logical backing that natural rights exist, then building this entire house of cards, along with a massive range of rationalization, on top of that empty foundation. You need to go back and directly support that original assertion before you can build on it, otherwise when that one bad assertion fails, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

On religion, keep it separate from political ideals. There is no direct evidence for faith, hence it being called faith. It may seem illogical and wrong to you, but therein lies your choice to not associate.
Click to expand...

But the problem is, it's not any different. Libertarians have faith in natural rights, just as theists have faith in gods. Both are faulty foundations for the same reason, both cannot be justified rationally. Take away the bad assumptions and you're left with a disaster.
 
Medusa said:
cephus ,i never try to rationalize my belief and claim it is an emotional case but you still want evidence for god,sorry but there isnt such an evidence but we just refer to holy books and some other teachings to get an opinion about the creator.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, every time religion comes up, you make it an emotional case. Are you so blind that you can't see that?
 
Cephus said:
We can simply example cultures throughout history and across the world and it becomes obvious where rights have always come from: society. Take American slavery. At one point in time, blacks had no rights. They could be bought and sold or killed at a whim, they were property. Then people decided that they ought to have rights. We fought a war to free them. Over time, their rights gradually grew until they were fully as equal as everyone else. Today we take that for granted. Natural rights advocates would argue that blacks always had rights, they were simply being taken away, but that really makes no logical sense. That's like saying we have a right to flap our arms and fly, but gravity is just taking our right away. It's idiotic.

I'm not asking for empirical evidence, I'm asking for objective evidence. There is a difference. See, libertarians are assuming without a shred of evidence or logical backing that natural rights exist, then building this entire house of cards, along with a massive range of rationalization, on top of that empty foundation. You need to go back and directly support that original assertion before you can build on it, otherwise when that one bad assertion fails, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.



But the problem is, it's not any different. Libertarians have faith in natural rights, just as theists have faith in gods. Both are faulty foundations for the same reason, both cannot be justified rationally. Take away the bad assumptions and you're left with a disaster.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. I asked you what gave a proposition merit.

I appreciate and on some level agree with your "Rule by agreement" citation of Hobbes, but it has its holes as well. For instance, by what notion can we consider slavery bad? I assume you agree that it is, but if we are given rights by our peers who agree with us (society), then what is moral is what we decide, including genocide. While it makes logical sense, it puts you in a sort of moral conundrum.

It seems that some level of faith is required, unless you wish to condemn humanity to a darwin based existence of survival of the fittest.
 
Well, since we're pointing out each other's logical fallacies....

Cephus said:
We can simply example cultures throughout history and across the world and it becomes obvious where rights have always come from: society.
Click to expand...

Logical Fallacy - Invalid appeal to common knowledge: "everyone knows that so and so is true". Or, "it's obvious that this is the case".

Actually, we can take a deep look at cultures all over the world and throughout history and arrive at a completely different conclusion. Nice try, though.

Cephus said:
Take American slavery. At one point in time, blacks had no rights.
Click to expand...

Logical Fallacy - Lack of Proportion - When we overstate or overemphasize a point that is a crucial step in a piece of reasoning, then we are guilty of the fallacy of exaggeration.

You should have said, "blacks had fewer rights."

Cephus said:
They could be bought and sold or killed at a whim, they were property.
Click to expand...

Logical Fallacy - Lack of Proportion - When we overstate or overemphasize a point that is a crucial step in a piece of reasoning, then we are guilty of the fallacy of exaggeration.

Cephus said:
Then people decided that they ought to have rights.
Click to expand...

People decided? This is poorly worded, at best, and it assumes something you do not support with evidence - that rights are acquired.

One could just as logically assert that certain people realized that slaves were human beings and entitled to certain rights. After a long war, the slave's shackles were removed.

Cephus said:
We fought a war to free them. Over time, their rights gradually grew until they were fully as equal as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Again, it could just as easily be asserted that it wasn't that their given rights grew, but that the oppression of their inherent rights shrunk. You've not logically supported your position.


Cephus said:
Today we take that for granted.
Click to expand...

Another fallacy. I could make a case for this being a faulty generalization fallacy, or an appeal to emotion.

Cephus said:
Natural rights advocates would argue that blacks always had rights, they were simply being taken away, but that really makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

OK, here you've stated a premise... the position of natural rights advocates "makes no sense." It would be nice to see you support this with some evidence or a logical proof, but you fail to do so.

Cephus said:
That's like saying we have a right to flap our arms and fly, but gravity is just taking our right away. It's idiotic.
Click to expand...

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring.... Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment

Cephus said:
I'm not asking for empirical evidence, I'm asking for objective evidence. There is a difference. See, libertarians are assuming without a shred of evidence or logical backing that natural rights exist, then building this entire house of cards, along with a massive range of rationalization, on top of that empty foundation. You need to go back and directly support that original assertion before you can build on it, otherwise when that one bad assertion fails, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle. It's like you're describing your own style of posting perfectly. Go back and read some of your own posts next time before you rattle off on other forum members.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Oh come on, every time religion comes up, you make it an emotional case. Are you so blind that you can't see that?
Click to expand...

İ am brainy enough to see that is emotional.
 
stonewall50 said:
.........What kind of cosmic bunny hole did your logic just jump through? Do you not understand this? I can't argue with you anymore. You are justifying rape and murder by placing the blame upon the victim. BTW I have some rocks if you would like to stone the rape victims as well. That is pretty popular in Iran as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain if they stone in Iran, but I don't expect you to know much of anything at this point.

The man's execution is consensual...

Just like if a pack of gang rapists sit in an alley and tell a woman that she can leave for the next 5 minutes after which she will be raped, and they all synchronise their watches and she sits and waits 5 minutes with a stop watch instead of just walking away, its consensual. Sorry. I can beat it into your brain. The guy has to recite a verse from the quran and hes done, scott free, they let him go home to his family. Get it straight.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
I'm not certain if they stone in Iran, but I don't expect you to know much of anything at this point.

The man's execution is consensual...

Just like if a pack of gang rapists sit in an alley and tell a woman that she can leave for the next 5 minutes after which she will be raped, and they all synchronise their watches and she sits and waits 5 minutes with a stop watch instead of just walking away, its consensual. Sorry. I can beat it into your brain. The guy has to recite a verse from the quran and hes done, scott free, they let him go home to his family. Get it straight.
Click to expand...

Then it's not consensual.
 
Peter Grimm said:
They come from God.
Click to expand...

And you realize that Iran is run by ayatollahs with the equivalent of 12+ PHDs in Islamic law?

my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-pony-christ.gif

Might Makes right...
I'm sure god strikes those that violate your rights with boltz of lightning?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
And you realize that Iran is run by ayatollahs with the equivalent of 12+ PHDs in Islamic law?
Might Makes right...
I'm sure god strikes those that violate your rights with boltz of lightning?
Click to expand...

Who is giving out those PHD's?
 
1500 years of islamic scholarship, did you make it out of highschool or are you a cardinal in the vatican if not, please don't try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom