Girl, 16, offs herself after being forced to marry her rapist

[Treblaine]

Seriously? You really believe pretty much all the questions of life have been answered? I'm not sure how to even address this properly other than to tell you that your comment is simply untrue.

[small]I'm not going to try to convince you that agnosticism is the only rational viewpoint in terms of religion. I have seen how vehemently against anything other than atheism people are on this site and so understand that it's like talking to a christian or Muslim about the possibility that their wrong, pointless. [/small]

I will ask you to rethink you faith in this fictional wealth of human knowledge though, and will ask you to try at lest to not be so extreme in your opposition to theists.

Unsubstantiated claim.

Also... "Fictional"? FICTIONAL?!?!? How incredibly dishonest. And to call following repeatable double-blind evidence based view of the world one of "faith". Desperate.

What part of our world do we not understand? Evolution? The formation of the universe? Definitely the bible's claims as to what god has done turns out to be utterly false claims, so it's monumentally unrealiable. Claims not actually made by god, who has only showed himself to a handful of people, they are the one who made these contradictory claims about god. You know how police can tell when suspects are lying, because they find they are all telling wholly contradictory stories of what they claim happened... then you find solid evidence all their claims are false. The gaps in knowledge could be filled by magic of some god - if you want to come up with a childish solution - but you'd have to completely contradict scripture to do that.

If you say "what about the human soul", we know that, we have isolated how consciousness exists in the brain and with evolution we have understood how morality and all the other human emotions have evolved.

God doesn't seem to have done ANYTHING in the scientific and evidence based view of the universe.

There is nothing extreme about saying that religion doesn't fit in the 21st century, because it doesn't. Science has reached the point where is has proven the Bible isn't true.

There is nothing extreme about opposing cases in religion where "minority who seem to stop at nothing to make the world a worse place"

Religious people deserve better than religions, they must be rescued from their faith and living in fear of their dogma. There is nothing wrong with keeping on the benign traditions like easter egg hunts, lighting candles and having a good old sing song. But they only do those things because they are inherently good.

Things like forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist and driving her to suicide can only come from dogma. It's trivial whether it is a "tribal" tradition or a religious tradition. It not done because the society decides this is right, but simply be done "because it is written" and "if we disobey it, we'll go to hell".

 

[Brad Shepard]

Ok, i see where this is going

R&P forum is that way.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

Seriously? You really believe pretty much all the questions of life have been answered? I'm not sure how to even address this properly other than to tell you that your comment is simply untrue.

[small]I'm not going to try to convince you that agnosticism is the only rational viewpoint in terms of religion. I have seen how vehemently against anything other than atheism people are on this site and so understand that it's like talking to a christian or Muslim about the possibility that their wrong, pointless. [/small]

I will ask you to rethink you faith in this fictional wealth of human knowledge though, and will ask you to try at lest to not be so extreme in your opposition to theists.

Unsubstantiated claim.

Also... "Fictional"? FICTIONAL?!?!? How incredibly dishonest. And to call following repeatable double-blind evidence based view of the world one of "faith". Desperate.

What part of our world do we not understand? Evolution? The formation of the universe? Definitely the bible's claims as to what god has done turns out to be utterly false claims, so it's monumentally unrealiable. Claims not actually made by god, who has only showed himself to a handful of people, they are the one who made these contradictory claims about god. You know how police can tell when suspects are lying, because they find they are all telling wholly contradictory stories of what they claim happened... then you find solid evidence all their claims are false. The gaps in knowledge could be filled by magic of some god - if you want to come up with a childish solution - but you'd have to completely contradict scripture to do that.

If you say "what about the human soul", we know that, we have isolated how consciousness exists in the brain and with evolution we have understood how morality and all the other human emotions have evolved.

God doesn't seem to have done ANYTHING in the scientific and evidence based view of the universe.

There is nothing extreme about saying that religion doesn't fit in the 21st century, because it doesn't. Science has reached the point where is has proven the Bible isn't true.

There is nothing extreme about opposing cases in religion where "minority who seem to stop at nothing to make the world a worse place"

Religious people deserve better than religions, they must be rescued from their faith and living in fear of their dogma. There is nothing wrong with keeping on the benign traditions like easter egg hunts, lighting candles and having a good old sing song. But they only do those things because they are inherently good.

Things like forcing a rape victim to marry herhttp://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.354145-Girl-16-offs-herself-after-being-forced-to-marry-her-rapist?page=5#comment_form rapist and driving her to suicide can only come from dogma. It's trivial whether it is a "tribal" tradition or a religious tradition. It not done because the society decides this is right, but simply be done "because it is written" and "if we disobey it, we'll go to hell".

As I said in my last comment (before you wrote a wall of text about religion) I'm not going to try to convince you or discuss with you the rational of agnosticism, but thanks for ignoring that statement and jumping right back into it. Now, in regards to arguing over whether or not humanity has figured everything out yet, I just don't think I have it in me. It's just to ridiculous. call me a quitter if you like, but I don't think my poor heart can take it. A part of me still thinks you must be trolling or joking or something but nevertheless as I said I don't posses the strength of will or emotion fortitude to dive down this rabbit-hole with you. however, I wish you the very best and kiss Alice on the cheek for me.

 

[Treblaine]

As I said in my last comment (before you wrote a wall of text about religion) I'm not going to try to convince you or discuss with you the rational of agnosticism, but thanks for ignoring that statement and jumping right back into it. Now, in regards to arguing over whether or not humanity has figured everything out yet, I just don't think I have it in me. It's just to ridiculous. call me a quitter if you like, but I don't think my poor heart can take it. A part of me still thinks you must be trolling or joking or something but nevertheless as I said I don't posses the strength of will or emotion fortitude to dive down this rabbit-hole with you. however, I wish you the very best and kiss Alice on the cheek for me.

You can't attack science hiding behind the stance of agnosticism vs rationalism. You said it was all human knowledge was "fictional" and one of "faith".

Don't be so lazy, if you can understand how to write English as well as you have demonstrated then you can understand grade-school level science that contradicts biblical scripture. Don't make out science as some "rabbit hole" that is impossible to understand... and another fictional insinuation, that it doesn't make sense because it's all made up. It is NOT hard, start with this video series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

Then this for good measure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

How can you claim we don't have a very comprehensive knowledge of the universe if you admit you are too lazy to even look any of it up? Dishonestly I suppose.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

As I said in my last comment (before you wrote a wall of text about religion) I'm not going to try to convince you or discuss with you the rational of agnosticism, but thanks for ignoring that statement and jumping right back into it. Now, in regards to arguing over whether or not humanity has figured everything out yet, I just don't think I have it in me. It's just to ridiculous. call me a quitter if you like, but I don't think my poor heart can take it. A part of me still thinks you must be trolling or joking or something but nevertheless as I said I don't posses the strength of will or emotion fortitude to dive down this rabbit-hole with you. however, I wish you the very best and kiss Alice on the cheek for me.

You can't attack science hiding behind the stance of agnosticism vs rationalism. You said it was all human knowledge was "fictional" and one of "faith".

Don't be so lazy, if you can understand how to write English as well as you have demonstrated then you can understand grade-school level science that contradicts biblical scripture. Don't make out science as some "rabbit hole" that is impossible to understand... and another fictional insinuation, that it doesn't make sense because it's all made up. It is NOT hard, start with this video series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

Then this for good measure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

How can you claim we don't have a very comprehensive knowledge of the universe if you admit you are too lazy to even look any of it up? Dishonestly I suppose.

Slow down, I never said all human knowledge was fictional. What I said was that your idea that we have answered or are close to answering all of life's questions is fictional. I happen to enjoy science quite a bit, and have taken a lot of science classes out side of my academic discipline in college just for fun. My problem isn't with science, and the rabbit hole I spoke of again is simply your belief that we have pretty much answered all of life's questions.

We have come a long way scientifically and I hope we well continue to progress in this fashion if not quicker, but "all of life's questions?" we have barley scratched the surface. The idea that we have answered all these questions about ourselves and about the universe around us is just preposterous if for no other reason than the fact that there is absolutely no way to predict how many future questions we well be confronted with. To put it another way, how can you make an estimate as to how close we are to having the whole of universal knowledge if there is no way to know how much knowledge there is out there, and how can you claim we have answered all the questions when there are questions that have yet to be given?

I am unsure how this could be viewed as dishonesty or laziness, from my perspective I'm just being reasonable.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

-

Atleast it makes our lives look good in comparison. Third world countries scare me.

 

[Treblaine]

My problem isn't with science, and the rabbit hole I spoke of again is simply your belief that we have pretty much answered all of life's questions.

OK, what RELEVANT questions do we not have scientific answers to? We may not know if there is life on a specific planet in a specific part of the universe millions of light years away, but that doesn't mean we know enough:

Location of consciousness? Neurobiology. Origin of Species? Evolution. Origin of life? Abiogenesis. Origin of Elements? Star life cycle. Origin of mass? Big Bang theory (ongoing).

We are no longer so ignorant that we must invoke Fairy Tales of god magically creating ANYthing, with no predictive or indicative capability. There is no room for god or gods in 21st century knowledge, in the past such magical solutions were invoked because the human minds urge to know was greater than our capacity as iron-age civilisations to actually determine. So we'd accept the tall tales of charlatans promising eternal salvation and threatening eternal damnation. But now we have found out their truths are false, they have nothing.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

My problem isn't with science, and the rabbit hole I spoke of again is simply your belief that we have pretty much answered all of life's questions.

OK, what RELEVANT questions do we not have scientific answers to? We may not know if there is life on a specific planet in a specific part of the universe millions of light years away, but that doesn't mean we know enough:

Location of consciousness? Neurobiology. Origin of Species? Evolution. Origin of life? Abiogenesis. Origin of Elements? Star life cycle. Origin of mass? Big Bang theory (ongoing).

We are no longer so ignorant that we must invoke Fairy Tales of god magically creating ANYthing, with no predictive or indicative capability. There is no room for god or gods in 21st century knowledge, in the past such magical solutions were invoked because the human minds urge to know was greater than our capacity as iron-age civilisations to actually determine. So we'd accept the tall tales of charlatans promising eternal salvation and threatening eternal damnation. But now we have found out their truths are false, they have nothing.

It's become fairly clear to me that your not really reading my posts; your skimming them at best, and your doing little more than repeating yourself at this point, which is tedious. Your an extremist fanatic and I though find your arrogance and unwavering faith in this ridiculous idea frightening to say the least, I know that there is little I can do to help you, and so I bid you farewell.

If it is the custom of internet forums to simply wear someone down by being unreasonable, hostile, and Repetitive you can consider my forfeit a win if you like.

 

[Vegosiux]

Fun fact: Morocco has aspired to become a member of the EU in the past.

But seriously, such stories just make me go "Yep. The world is a messed up place and will continue to be that way."

 

[Treblaine]

My problem isn't with science, and the rabbit hole I spoke of again is simply your belief that we have pretty much answered all of life's questions.

OK, what RELEVANT questions do we not have scientific answers to? We may not know if there is life on a specific planet in a specific part of the universe millions of light years away, but that doesn't mean we know enough:

Location of consciousness? Neurobiology. Origin of Species? Evolution. Origin of life? Abiogenesis. Origin of Elements? Star life cycle. Origin of mass? Big Bang theory (ongoing).

We are no longer so ignorant that we must invoke Fairy Tales of god magically creating ANYthing, with no predictive or indicative capability. There is no room for god or gods in 21st century knowledge, in the past such magical solutions were invoked because the human minds urge to know was greater than our capacity as iron-age civilisations to actually determine. So we'd accept the tall tales of charlatans promising eternal salvation and threatening eternal damnation. But now we have found out their truths are false, they have nothing.

It's become fairly clear to me that your not really reading my posts; your skimming them at best, and your doing little more than repeating yourself at this point, which is tedious. Your an extremist fanatic and I though find your arrogance and unwavering faith in this ridiculous idea frightening to say the least, I know that there is little I can do to help you, and so I bid you farewell.

If it is the custom of internet forums to simply wear someone down by being unreasonable, hostile, and Repetitive you can consider my forfeit a win if you like.

"It's become fairly clear to me that your not really reading my posts"

What evidence do you have that I'm not reading your posts? I have directly refuted the very core underpinning of your argument and instead of addressing that you make the unfounded, unsupported and illogical claim that I'm skimming and repeating myself. I'm not repeating myself, I'm being consistent in my argument by expanding on it to cover your shifting demands to show that we do have a significantly comprehensive knowledge of the universe.

It seems I heave read you posts even more carefully than YOU did when you posted them, for example this contradiction:

I will ask you to rethink your faith in this fictional wealth of human knowledge though, and will ask you to try at lest to not be so extreme in your opposition to theists.

Slow down, I never said all human knowledge was fictional. What I said was that your idea that we have answered or are close to answering all of life's questions is fictional.

"Wealth" is NOT comprehensive. Wealth is significant amount. You said the significance of human knowledge was fictional, and believed in only on faith. Then you say we don't know enough, then I tell you how we do in fact have very comprehensive scientific knowledge of our universe.

Read the above part in bold AGAIN!

... for an outline of how comprehensive our knowledge is.

"Your an extremist fanatic and I though find your arrogance and unwavering faith in this ridiculous idea frightening"

So much wrong with that sentence:
-"Extremist" for opposing extreme religious/tribal dogma that force rape victims to marry their unpunished rapists
-"Fanatic" for opposing religious fundamentalism
-"Unwavering Faith" for following scientific evidence
-"arrogant" when you reject to fruits of human knowledge as not significantly answering the questions of life.
-"Ridiculous idea" of evidence and education based view of the universe
-"Frightening" for reason? As opposed to the old dogma that forces rape victims into suicide by being married to their abusers!

Most of all, this is in no way relevant to my post, anyone could copy-paste your whole reply and use it against any of the other people on these forums who disagree with you on any other points. What you've said is irrelevant ad-hominem babble that adds nothing to the discussion.

"wear someone down by being unreasonable, hostile, and Repetitive you can consider my forfeit a win"

-You have not been in any way reasonable, there has been no reason to your posts with your rejection of evidence-based conclusions
-You have called ME: arrogant, repetitive, an extremist-fanatic, follower of unwavering-faith, dishonest/lazy... without reason
-You have not responded to any of my challenges and ignoring every one of your points I discredit. I discredit your points, not you personally.
-Acting as if you leaving is any kind of win... acting as if that was even the goal... trying to twist this into some sort of competition between people, this is a challenge of ideas.

You have nothing to forefit, you haven't argued your point. You have made baseless assertions and I've repeatedly refused them while you try to redefine your claims.

I'll admit I'm arrogant, but that's the prerogative of having the evidence on my side. Do you think I should be deferential to the baseless illogical claims of religion, charlatans and insane tribal superstitions?

PS: how am I extreme against theism by stating the indisputable fact that the Holy Scriptures makes a whole load of claims about the universe that science has proven to be totally false. And to add, how our knowledge of psychology and study of statistics show that morality does not come from religion but our human morality makes religion.

Extreme would be advocating the genocide or imprisonment of religious people, I am extremely moderate in saying religious freedom MUST still exist to spite its irrationality. The path forwards is for believers to willingly leave their faith in god by public debate. The benign religious traditions can stay, hell even atheists like Richard Dawkins likes to sing hymns in his local church and would never refuse to go to a friends wedding that is held in a church.

 

[BabyRaptor]

I can't say I blame her.

I was 15 when I was raped...If someone had tried to force me to marry either of the two guys, I'd have harbored the same thoughts.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

My problem isn't with science, and the rabbit hole I spoke of again is simply your belief that we have pretty much answered all of life's questions.

OK, what RELEVANT questions do we not have scientific answers to? We may not know if there is life on a specific planet in a specific part of the universe millions of light years away, but that doesn't mean we know enough:

Location of consciousness? Neurobiology. Origin of Species? Evolution. Origin of life? Abiogenesis. Origin of Elements? Star life cycle. Origin of mass? Big Bang theory (ongoing).

We are no longer so ignorant that we must invoke Fairy Tales of god magically creating ANYthing, with no predictive or indicative capability. There is no room for god or gods in 21st century knowledge, in the past such magical solutions were invoked because the human minds urge to know was greater than our capacity as iron-age civilisations to actually determine. So we'd accept the tall tales of charlatans promising eternal salvation and threatening eternal damnation. But now we have found out their truths are false, they have nothing.

It's become fairly clear to me that your not really reading my posts; your skimming them at best, and your doing little more than repeating yourself at this point, which is tedious. Your an extremist fanatic and I though find your arrogance and unwavering faith in this ridiculous idea frightening to say the least, I know that there is little I can do to help you, and so I bid you farewell.

If it is the custom of internet forums to simply wear someone down by being unreasonable, hostile, and Repetitive you can consider my forfeit a win if you like.

"It's become fairly clear to me that your not really reading my posts"

What evidence do you have that I'm not reading your posts? I have directly refuted the very core underpinning of your argument and instead of addressing that you make the unfounded, unsupported and illogical claim that I'm skimming and repeating myself. I'm not repeating myself, I'm being consistent in my argument by expanding on it to cover your shifting demands to show that we do have a significantly comprehensive knowledge of the universe.

It seems I heave read you posts even more carefully than YOU did when you posted them, for example this contradiction:

I will ask you to rethink your faith in this fictional wealth of human knowledge though, and will ask you to try at lest to not be so extreme in your opposition to theists.

Slow down, I never said all human knowledge was fictional. What I said was that your idea that we have answered or are close to answering all of life's questions is fictional.

"Wealth" is NOT comprehensive. Wealth is significant amount. You said the significance of human knowledge was fictional, and believed in only on faith. Then you say we don't know enough, then I tell you how we do in fact have very comprehensive scientific knowledge of our universe.

Read the above part in bold AGAIN!

... for an outline of how comprehensive our knowledge is.

"Your an extremist fanatic and I though find your arrogance and unwavering faith in this ridiculous idea frightening"

So much wrong with that sentence:
-"Extremist" for opposing extreme religious/tribal dogma that force rape victims to marry their unpunished rapists
-"Fanatic" for opposing religious fundamentalism
-"Unwavering Faith" for following scientific evidence
-"arrogant" when you reject to fruits of human knowledge as not significantly answering the questions of life.
-"Ridiculous idea" of evidence and education based view of the universe
-"Frightening" for reason? As opposed to the old dogma that forces rape victims into suicide by being married to their abusers!

Most of all, this is in no way relevant to my post, anyone could copy-paste your whole reply and use it against any of the other people on these forums who disagree with you on any other points. What you've said is irrelevant ad-hominem babble that adds nothing to the discussion.

"wear someone down by being unreasonable, hostile, and Repetitive you can consider my forfeit a win"

-You have not been in any way reasonable, there has been no reason to your posts with your rejection of evidence-based conclusions
-You have called ME: arrogant, repetitive, an extremist-fanatic, follower of unwavering-faith, dishonest/lazy... without reason
-You have not responded to any of my challenges and ignoring every one of your points I discredit. I discredit your points, not you personally.
-Acting as if you leaving is any kind of win... acting as if that was even the goal... trying to twist this into some sort of competition between people, this is a challenge of ideas.

You have nothing to forefit, you haven't argued your point. You have made baseless assertions and I've repeatedly refused them while you try to redefine your claims.

I'll admit I'm arrogant, but that's the prerogative of having the evidence on my side. Do you think I should be deferential to the baseless illogical claims of religion, charlatans and insane tribal superstitions?

PS: how am I extreme against theism by stating the indisputable fact that the Holy Scriptures makes a whole load of claims about the universe that science has proven to be totally false. And to add, how our knowledge of psychology and study of statistics show that morality does not come from religion but our human morality makes religion.

Extreme would be advocating the genocide or imprisonment of religious people, I am extremely moderate in saying religious freedom MUST still exist to spite its irrationality. The path forwards is for believers to willingly leave their faith in god by public debate. The benign religious traditions can stay, hell even atheists like Richard Dawkins likes to sing hymns in his local church and would never refuse to go to a friends wedding that is held in a church.

I didn't read any of this. Though as I was writing the last sentence the name Richard Dawkins caught my eye and I laughed a little.

 

[BabyRaptor]

I was 15 when I was raped...If someone had tried to force me to marry either of the two guys, I'd have harbored the same thoughts.

Be glad you werent born in Marxloh. If you were, you father would have taken the burden off you by killing you himself.

Nope. I was born in Texas, where it was all my fault for daring to be female, and I should just shut up and accept what happened to me and the consequences because I'm female and that's my place.

Not as bad, but still seriously Fucked.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

I was joking. I don't go to third world countries because of the hostel movies.

This is why I don't visit America.

Yeah, that smiley face is so fitting... because you'd only say such a thing meaning well... nope.

If you ever do visit America, go visit the exhibit on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the many subsequent amendments. Then ask yourself... why doesn't my country have these recognised freedoms and protections of the individual? Why does my country not keep religious organisations out of government? What can it possibly have in its place as a safeguard?

Even as a Brit I have huge admiration of the US Constitution and realise how many miscarriages of justice in my country could be prevented by debating and codifying such rights. And in a far more robust and thoughtful way than the contradictory and toothless EU Human Rights agreement.

I see that we are only as free as we are by constant activism of a liberty-loving elite, that could so easily mutate into something terrible as it was not to long ago.

Why doesn't my country have these recognised freedoms and protections of the individual?
Why does my country not keep religious organisations out of government?

I'm sorry I stopped reading when you said the above and actually meant it.

I'm originally from a third world country. And it was great living there. Don't tell me about how bad third world countries are.

I like your avatar though.

As for the smiley part I do think it's rather fitting. But thanks for your opinions I highly appreciate them (even if I don't agree with them).

 

[Treblaine]

I was joking. I don't go to third world countries because of the hostel movies.

This is why I don't visit America.

Yeah, that smiley face is so fitting... because you'd only say such a thing meaning well... nope.

If you ever do visit America, go visit the exhibit on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the many subsequent amendments. Then ask yourself... why doesn't my country have these recognised freedoms and protections of the individual? Why does my country not keep religious organisations out of government? What can it possibly have in its place as a safeguard?

Even as a Brit I have huge admiration of the US Constitution and realise how many miscarriages of justice in my country could be prevented by debating and codifying such rights. And in a far more robust and thoughtful way than the contradictory and toothless EU Human Rights agreement.

I see that we are only as free as we are by constant activism of a liberty-loving elite, that could so easily mutate into something terrible as it was not to long ago.

Why doesn't my country have these recognised freedoms and protections of the individual?
Why does my country not keep religious organisations out of government?

I'm sorry I stopped reading when you said the above and actually meant it.

I'm originally from a third world country. And it was great living there. Don't tell me about how bad third world countries are.

I like your avatar though.

As for the smiley part I do think it's rather fitting. But thanks for your opinions I highly appreciate them (even if I don't agree with them).

"Don't tell me about how bad third world countries are."

Well, you're happy to call America a third world country you'd never want to visit, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to demand others can't say the same about other countries that might include your home country?

Jordan isn't a third world country, it's quality of life is exemplary but what about freedom and democratic representation? In neighbouring Syria they are fighting and dying for such things in almost genocidal numbers.