SPQR.... would you mind emailing me at adl777@y7mail.com ?

I'd love to chat with you about a few important things.

cheers
me

Foyle you state:
Neither my parents nor my children have abused alcohol and I like you object to behaviour of some parents and their children. However I know of no non-atheist believer in humanism or rationalism, which is what I am, who would stone someone to death over an "honour" matter, or for breach of some religious "law", (or what usually is just a human weakness). Harris in his recent book has an excellent comparison of the honour society common in some Muslim countries and the situation which applies where non-theism and enlightened thinking is common. I know where I would prefer to live.

Two points here. The values that you apparently adhere to are being undermined by the spread of atheism. The main problem is that in advocating atheism you are supporting a doctrine that is leaving society defenceless against these evils.

What i find is that Islam actually works. Everyone in the West says prohibition doesn’t work. But in Islam it works.

For example, read the testimony of Lauren Booth (Tony Blair's sister-in-law her converted late last year) and in particular, her remarks on alcohol which conclude with

<<And, as it happens, giving up alcohol was a breeze. In fact I can’t imagine tasting alcohol ever again. I simply don’t want to.>>

http://www.alazhartouba.com/index.php/en/videos/video/806-qi-love-islamq--lauren-booth-a-british-journalist-and-sister-in-law-of-former-british-prime-minister-tony-blair

You have to read the whole article and her background to understand the significance of these remarks. Further they should be read in the context of a West that regards "prohibition" as imposssible. In these terms her experience and that of billions of other Muslims represent miracles. And you would have us give this up for a atheism which is a non-starter when it comes to offering real solutions to social ills.

cont..

On the second point, honour killing, Sam Harris has obviously not read, or more than likely ignored, one of the leading historians on Islam, Bernard Lewis. Bearing in mind Lewis is a neo-con, this is what he had to say about honour killings (as well as genital mutilation) in his book "Islam: the Religion and its People" :

"At a time when European opinion and comment were predominantly hostile to Islam, the great Hungarian Jewish orientalist Ignaz Goldzilher devoted much time and effort to defending Islamic practice and achievements against detractors. A particularly important point he made was that Islam as a religion and as a culture should not be blamed for the tribal customs of some of the peoples who adopt it. A good example is genital mutilation of young females, widely practiced in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in some other places, but without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing.
Islamic legislation in the Koran and in the Sharia is designed to protect women from abuse of this kind, but in many parts of the Islamic world today, even the rules of law designed to protect women are used to abuse them..." (p118)

As metioned above Bernard Lewis is among the most eminent of Islamic historians, which you can confirm for yourself, and certainly not an apologist for Islam. Yet, you will not find a more unequivocal rebuttal of the assertion that honor killings are a part of the Shari'a.

If you want further proof, just look at East Asia (where the bulk of Muslims live) where there are no honour killings.

@Grateful

I am increasingly convinced that one has to be a special person to be grateful.

1) For starters you need to have a special way of looking or not looking at things;through one eye only.

/// What i find is that Islam actually works. Everyone in the West says prohibition doesn’t work. But in Islam it works.///

“Scouring the alleys on the lookout for religious police, youths in loose leather jackets stuffed with illicit substances bike round town - mobile off-licences peddling beer, vodka and opium.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1740617.stm

“Khat is popular in many countries of the Arabian peninsula and the Horn of Africa, but in Yemen it's a full-blown national addiction. As much as 90% of men and 1 in 4 women in Yemen are estimated to chew the leaves”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917685,00.html

2)Then you need a unique knowldge of world affairs and geography:

/// If you want further proof, just look at East Asia (where the bulk of Muslims live) where there are no honour killings ///

Wrong!

Do the maths.

The bulk of Muslims in SE Asia live in Indonesia –population approx 237 Mil

Now consider the numbers outside SE Asia –all the countries below (exc India) are almost wholly Muslim.

Pakistan 171 Mil
Bangladesh 150 mIl
Iran 75 Mil
India 138 Mil
And we haven even come to the middle east or Africa,yet!

3) And most important of all, you need to be completely impervious to any corrective comment.

Your generalizations are as sweeping - and as inaccurate, grateful - as the most fundie of Christian fundies.

>>The main problem is that in advocating atheism you are supporting a doctrine that is leaving society defenceless against these evils<<

Atheism is not a "doctrine".

doctrine n. a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

There is no "belief system" associated with atheism. Quite specifically, there is a lack of one.

Atheists do not "leave society helpless" against evil. Their lack of belief in a deity has absolutely no impact on their ability to tell right from wrong, good from evil, and love from hate.

Demonstrably, religions have consistently failed their members on each of these points, over many centuries, and are hardly in a position to stand in judgment over others.

I am quite happy to accept that you don't drink, from choice. Just as you must accept that there are many Muslims who do.

By the way, I notice that you didn't respond at all to my last post.

You had stated:

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

I made two observations. One, that the default position of historical investigation has been "god made us", not that we evolved. And second, what is the "evidence to the contrary" that you refer to?

If you choose not to answer, just say. I won't be offended.

Or surprised.

QUOTE Intriguing position, grateful.

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

Two points on that.

As I understand it, the position “humans evolved from another species” was deduced from evidence that was uncovered and analysed over an extended period of time.

After all, the starting point for every culture across the globe was "humans just happened", a concept that was supported by an entire history of mythologies and folk-tales. It took a great deal of courage to amass and decipher evidence to the contrary. If indeed they started with a preconceived notion, it would have been the prevailing "God put us here for a purpose" ideology.

The second point is even more interesting.

You assert that "evidence to the contrary" is being ignored. Would you care to offer some examples? ENDQUOTE

Pericles,
Your maintained hypothesis is that “Humans did evolved from another species”, which is fine until it used as a premise for selecting evidence. In this case, if there is evidence to the contrary then it will be ignored because it doesn’t fit the hypothesis. The appropriate procedure, if this is to be your null hypothesis, is to look for evidence to the contrary, and reject the null by some criteria such as 5% probability of falsely rejecting the null of “Humans did evolved from another species”.

If you want to argue that this is being done, then you provide the evidence. Name the scientists that are searching for evidence not to confirm but to reject the null.

As for the having as the null “Humans did NOT evolved from another species”, I get this from the Qur’aan. Since this is my null hypothesis (because i’m not brave like you), it should only be rejected if there is a “small” probability of false rejection.

PS
I've been busy