Wednesday, October 3, 2012

ABC's for little Pakistanis

Now before u get ur undies in a twist about me being an expat and having an opinion on Pakistan....please note that this is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings....don't take it personally...

Also, grow the fuck up or stop looking at this page. Sure it may offend you, if u like to live in denial of certain truths about Pakistan. 

Now, who wants to publish my book? (no one? Omfg... what a surprise! :o)

(Update: oh looks like someone did want to publish it, electronically at least)

If u'd like to see larger images, click on the first one and scroll through them with the arrow keys. 






























47 comments:

  1. Sad... and true.
    This definitely deserves a print, but mainly in Pakistan. Perhaps a weekly column with a letter each week or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sami, I appreciate that... unfortunately no one wants to print such things :/

      Delete
  2. Really makes me sad to read this, especially knowing its all true. Hudood especially :(

    ReplyDelete
  3. LMFAO....ROTFL @ Aa & Cc & J.... (hope its not me) Love your innocent drawings

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its certainly a good thing that noone wants to print this, not only in pakistan but anywhere in the world i would imagine. Hey, but did you contact cambridge university yet? Maybe they will take this 'academically brilliant' work a bit seriously than this bunch of mindless people that you seem to have evolved around this little blog of yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow you must feel like a badass leaving such well thought out words in the form of an 'anonymous' commenter...

      Of course ur argument is airtight, the reasons u provide for why no one should publish this are impeccable. Sadly, our country is full of idiots like u, and thus the need for such a publication.

      It truly takes a special kind of fool to think this was supposed to be some display of 'academic accuracy'

      Delete
    2. And lastly, please have some shame. Do not swear at other people who atleast do not swear at you, just because you emotionally feel the need to disagree with them. And use good language to address them, if possible.

      Delete
    3. Firstly, calling someone a fool or idiot, is hardly swearing; If i really wanted to swear i'd have called u a dumbfuck or something. But i did not. And secondly, unless u are my parent, do not tell me when i can swear or not. You don't like what u read? Fuck right off. :)

      Delete
    4. Hey anon, it must be really upsetting that someone did want to publish it. Dont cry too hard now.

      http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/15486/abcs-for-little-pakistanis/

      Delete
  5. "Been a long time since I came around, been a long time but I'm back in town..." missed your blog <3 haha for reasons like this :) Brilliant stuff. You got each.and.every.alphabet.down.pat. Creative, fun and my personal favourite is the Paan Pollock one! Ingenius.
    Now back to reading the rest of the posts I missed, the best thing about being away is that there is all this lovely reading waiting :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I missed u too! <3 so glad u liked it! We got some catchin up to do...

      Delete
  6. My son is in Nursery and he just learnt a new word and concept in school last month. "Jab President kehta hay kay hartaal ho gi, to Friday ko bhi chutti hoti hay".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Firstly, you give me your name and address and then I will think of giving you mine(probably not even then) for if you really think about it miss, you yourself are an anonymous blogger afraid to reveal your personal identity. The reason for hiding mine, perhaps is, that I do not wish to be seen with the content of this blog, and neither do I subscribe to your emotionally charged rhetoric. as plain as that. And of course it is foolish in of itself, to first write 'Now, who wants to publish my book?' on this sort of a joke and then to call others from a different camp foolish when they throw humorous-sarcastic-ridicule back at you.

    Secondly, Of course, I did not imagine your post, and your entire blog for that matter, as a 'display of academic accuracy', which does not even qualify as a good defense for someone's point of view on the philosophy of morality, And surely nobody in his right mind could ever do so. The only reason that I felt the need to comment is to let you know that there are people who disagree with the content of this blog on good philosophical grounds. I have always seen your little junkie group nod to whatever you say and whatever POVs you try to encourage directly or indirectly. Your primary mode of speech, so far as it can be seen from your blog, is a rebellion against the moral principles regarding sexuality laid down by the religious tradition by whose name you yourself announce your identity. If you would have been an Atheist, then of course your moral propagation would have been justified, since an Atheist has no moral anchor in his set of beliefs by philosophical standards, and I would have not even bothered at all. But since you claim yourself to be a 'Muslim' and on top of that a 'Pakistani' I feel that it is absolutely a source of unease for the majority of other members of this same set, who view this blog just by pure accident. Now ofcourse child abuse or load shedding etc are not things which I think I disagree with, its primarily your attitude towards the religious ethical code of life that bothers me in general. And the kind of sarcastic tone that you adopt while addressing things in it which go against your distorted picture of human sex which comes from your life being spent on in a different civilization, the west. Apparently things like 'wow', 'I think so and so', 'my opinion is:', 'my view is the correct one because i live in the west and western people are open-minded' are arguments for you and not for me, unfortunately. I would ask you to kindly tell me why do you think sex with an animal is wrong, but sex before marriage is not(and actually good as you would think, I suppose)? From where do you get to know what is wrong and what is not in the first place? once I get answers to my questions, I will hopefully respond back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before u criticize me, get ur facts right u fuckin imbecile. Where have I ever claimed a religious affiliation?

      It was hard to get through this awful piece of writing u left me, but because I am kind... I gave it a glance. Most of what you say really has no backing, but a few things come through, you are an extremist. You are furious that someone challenges ur irrational and obsolete morals. You are definitely not from the group of educated, rational and moderate religious thinkers, you are the cancer in Pakistan's ass. You and your kind are destroying it from the inside out. You can't take a fucking joke and u are one disturbed, deprived individual. The proof is right here in the comment above... you have compared premarital sex to bestiality. Thanks for demonstrating ur own disgusting way of thinking.

      No one wants ur address, please dont flatter urself, but at least a name or a fake one, so that u can be known as a commenter...being anonymous is so easy to hide behind. As for me, yes my true identity is not disclosed because of the sensitive nature of my blog - but at least my name as a blogger goes along with every single comment I make. I stand behind what I say, and depending on which side of the fence ur on, that can either give or take away from the credibility of my work. But either way, i'm not ashamed of my views.

      And unlike some people, I do not frequent blogs (AND leave comments)where I am ashamed to be associated with the content.

      Seems like u've been watching me and my readers for a while. Happy stalking, u creep. Next time, either make up a fake name or say something of value.

      Delete
    2. I asked:
      1-why do you think sex with an animal is bad but premarital sex is not?
      your 'answer' to that: ‘The “proof” is right here in the comment above... you have compared premarital sex to bestiality '

      I asked:
      2-from where do propositions of the form 'X is good' or 'X is bad' are derived?
      your answer to that: ------------


      In short, you have answered none of my questions. And then you have the nerve to further note: "'you' are furious that someone challenges 'ur' irrational and obsolete morals"

      Here’s a third question that I want to ask:

      3- Why do you think any human actions have a corresponding, ‘objective’, moral value to it at all? That is, why do you think something called ‘morality’, in fact, has any ‘objective’ existence to begin with…that there is a way ‘ought’ to be followed?

      Though I highly mistrust wikipedia on issues of this sort, but it seems once in a while there is some good information on it. You can see some related problem here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]

      My response to some of the things that you wrote is as follows:


      Whatever you said about the necessity, or even the vitality, of my having to make a fake name first and then comment doesn’t bother me much, since whether I post as an ‘anonymous’ or as ‘Eiynah’ with a photo of a mango on really makes no difference.


      ‘And unlike some people, I do not frequent blogs (AND leave comments)where I am ashamed to be associated with the content’.
      Congratulation!

      ‘Seems like u've been watching me and my readers for a while’
      I read the whole of it a week or so before the day I published my first comment. I wanted to comment on that very day, but didn’t have the time for it. What benefit would someone get by watching over you and your readers secretly, if you may want to explain?

      continued...

      Delete
    3. continued...



      ‘Where have I ever claimed a religious affiliation?’
      that was a natural assumption, since you claim to have been living in the east, belong to a Pakistani family and so on. If Im incorrect in it that you are a muslim, then either you belong to some other religion, or you are an atheist/ agnost. If you belong to some other religion then there are 2 further options. Either you belong to one of the other classical theistic religions (Judaism-Christianity) or you are a hindu/buddisht/jainist or affiliate with any other polytheistic/pantheistic/panentheistic belief system. If you belong to any of the above( and unless, you claim to have made a religion of your own and claim to have received the moral intuition from God) then my questions still stand.

      Now, you can do either of the 2: keep on claiming that my beliefs are irrational, extremist and blah blah (when I have revealed none of them to you so far and don't intend to do so in the future as well). And positing that I’m uneducated, imbecile etc etc, giving the psychological impact on the reader that you have actually made any argument against me, without having articulated any substantial response to my questions. Or, you can try to genuinely answer back, and once n for all, show all of your readers (and many others whom you might not know) that you stand epistemologically justified in whatever you claim to believe.

      If you wish to persist in your delusional beliefs about my background, my motives behind challenging your views, the ‘rationality’ and self posited superiority of your views on things like whether someone should lick someone's urinary/defecatory parts and derive/give pleasure from them or not ( and at this point, whether it even matters), then please don’t take the pains to publish this comment. indeed it takes ‘educated people’ of your sort to believe that things of this nature have any intellectual dimension to them in the first place…or, if you feel emotionally charged again, to demonstrate your indecency and impotency for the last time, by swearing at me and writing things like :’Most of what you say really has no backing’ without actually demonstrating why not; to try to trick others into thinking that you are sensible enough to stand philosophical scrutiny in regards to your belief system, then please do so and we’ll be done. I don’t really expect anything else from you and your fellows so go ahead.

      Good day.

      Delete
    4. Wow u sure had a lot of time to google big words and verify ur beliefs on wikipedia. Im glad im getting u to do something. I will publish these comments because, whether u intended them to be or not, they re comedic gold.

      If you're angry because u dislike oral sex and find it disgusting, just say so. No need to wrap it up in all this fluff u wrote, cuz you're just losing ur point. Well, everyone is entitled to their views, and because u find it so awful, I sincerely hope you are never subjected to the 'horror' of receiving oral pleasure.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    5. 'Wow u sure had a lot of time to google big words and verify ur beliefs on wikipedia'
      Are you kidding me? this is your so called 'intellectual ability' that you seem to always whine about? I had written this in case you missed it: 'Though I highly mistrust wikipedia on issues of this sort, but it seems once in a while there is some good information on it'....Jeez! Anyhow, these are not 'big words' for me, but it shows that they are for you...which is why you are unable to comprehend them and give me a sophisticated response.

      'Im glad im getting u to do something.'
      lol

      'they re comedic gold'
      Or maybe, you are a a complete idiot for someone having even a sophomoric exposure to analytical philosophy and formal reasoning in mathematics...people of your level try to throw sarcasm on others when they don’t know how to respond to their questions, and often, when they don’t even understand what they have asked. I have seen many jokes like you in my life time, so I need not worry about whatever my writings look like to you. But don't worry I'll make a parallel blog to this one, namely nicemangoEs or something, so that idiots like you who seem to buy all of this crap that you try to offer can also get a chance to see the serious flaws in your world view…since you have refused to accept my challenge the easy way. It needs to be felt that your grand feeling of having done something extraordinarily different and intellectually applaudable by introducing a western perspective on muslim sexuality, unfortunately, rests on some otherwise obvious flaws which all of your fake sophistry seems to cloud. And, which has no intellectual superiority in comparison to the well defended moral philosophy of the religious philosophers of all ages, if analyzed carefully…instead; it is something based on mere assumptions which neo-intellectual people like you refuse to defend out of the fear of loosing the bet.

      ‘If you're angry because u dislike oral sex and find it disgusting, just say so’
      Don’t start positing lies about me now! I have never said so far that oral sex is disgusting. If you are interested in my views about oral sex you may want to have a look at this:

      [http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2189&CATE=357]
      [http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=8058&CATE=361]

      Even this:
      [http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2988&CATE=361]

      I don’t find anything disgusting which my religion has made permissible. The only thing I don’t agree with is that people who perform these acts are somehow, intellectually or otherwise, superior to those who don’t!...this seeming superiority can not be, and has not been demonstrated so far...not by you, not by anyone else.

      ‘No need to wrap it up in all this fluff u wrote, cuz you're just losing ur point.’
      Trust me, you can trick others by saying all of this but you can’t trick me into believing that you are actually saying this after having understood the things I wrote earlier…men of intellect have been pondering upon these questions for centauries, and here you are, trying to make them look irrelevant and obsolete. Well, unfortunately, they are not…you are just trying to run away from them so that you may not want to leave your comfortable and cozy, but flawed, moral intuition.

      Delete
    6. Also, if you feel so terrifically repugnant about having to look 'big words' coming out of wikipedia, I am now forced to put something in front of you which will definitely (or at least as I hope)suite your intellectual tastes. So to demonstrate the scale of importance of these questions in contemporary philosophy, and, the lack of rigorous defense from irreligious people of your sort(mainly secular atheists). I say that you are irreligious since you were exasperated when I called you a muslim. And your blog doesn't seem like you have any religious convictions of any sort anyway.

      here, have a look:
      [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/]
      [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/]
      [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/]
      [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EvoBioDebMor]


      the whole point of doing all of this is to make you aware that you can't simply make moral propositions like 'bestiality is wrong'...'doing whatever pleases one is alright unless it is hurting someone else' or even perhaps, 'my having sex with you or your mother would be wrong' and 'someone having sex with their own parents is wrong' and so forth, and then just run away...

      Delete
    7. dumbass,

      'this is your so called 'intellectual ability' that you seem to always whine about?'

      your sentence doesn't make sense, why on earth would I whine about my own intellectual ability?

      I should really not bother with ur comments, but ur lucky cuz some of my actual readers have told me they find u very amusing, so for their entertainments sake, i will put these massive essays that u'v written up as well. All for the sake of documenting stupidity. Yay science.

      'Anyhow, these are not 'big words' for me, but it shows that they are for you...which is why you are unable to comprehend them and give me a sophisticated response. '

      I can assure u that u needn't worry about my level of comprehension. I am perfectly capable on individually understand the words ur spewing, its ur thought process thats ludicrous. And its ok, I see this type of insecurity with the English language from a lot of complexed desis. You see some of us sadly, have still not gotten over the colonization. (You can wikipedia that ;) ) So they think a great way to display their intellectual prowess is to string long words into a sentence. However, this is not the most effective use of communication. Especially in this day and age.... another thing u should google or wikipedia is marshall Mcluhan...you could learn a thing or two about effective communication from him. The medium is the message. When you're writing on an online forum such as this blog, its best that ur writing style fit with the sense of the blog, or blogging in general. You should know your audience, and your medium. Hope that helps with your communicative shortcomings.

      Also learn how to spell, that might make u more credible. Centuries is spelt like this not 'centauries'

      Also suit is spelled like this not this: suite

      I pity you, so i've read through some of ur multiple responses. But frankly the level of idiocy contained within them gives me a bit of a headache, so i can't read through all of em. Flattered that u put in so much effort writing to me... and Im also flattered that u want to start a blog parallel to mine....i didnt know u were such a big fan.

      As u state in ur last paragraph, hey.. if you want to have sex with ur mother... i'm not going to stop you.... but umm... yeah I will judge u just a little.

      You poor ignorant fool... ur an insult to intelligent ppl of religion....

      Now go make ur fuckin fan blog... I'll be sure to come check it out... chop chop get to work.

      Delete
    8. lol...do you really think your blog is the right place for someone to...'show off'? I highly doubt that. But if i were a creep like you i suppose i would definitely have the time to scan through casual pieces of writing in order to point out spelling and syntax mistakes(which perhaps can be easily spotted more often in your writings). Poor job mate! and don't think too high of your blog, I really don't believe anybody would want to learn 'communication skills' to post a comment here, and to address you in particular. But does any of this make your beliefs legitimate? Unfortunately no. not until you are able to demonstrate some sort of objectivity and moral necessity to your views, which it seems you can't.

      You make certain moral statements and when someone asks you that why you think the way you do, you try to find spelling mistakes and try to beat about the bush. That is all you have done and that is all you can do. I really wish that you were competent enough for me to enter into a more formal discussion with you, but as for now it seems that you don't possess the tools to tackle even wikipedia pages, which are usually meant to give a beginner some very gentle introduction on a fairly complex subject. Now that I have a better view of your functional literacy, And since you like to judge people alot, let me give you a taste of your own medicine. You don't know a word about formal and informal logic, philosophy, mathematics, and here you are...trying to give 'proofs' for moral propositions of a certain form. I really wish a better understanding of the word 'proof' and 'argument' for you anyhow. "dumbass" is a word that suits you more at this stage (there, I spelled the word correctly). Im not trying to 'show off' anything you retard, Im only doing efforts to make you aware that all you blabber about here on this blog is 'intellectually flawed' and unjustifiable!! And you don't seem to understand this. You are a person who believes in illusory things which can not be formally…proved. You believe stuff can be good and bad, objectively, yet you fail to demonstrate the very existence of objective moral truths (if you had taken the pains to read what I had sent, you may have gotten a better idea of this business). Wannabees like you go to foreign countries, learn to speak a bit of English, get some exposure to the western civilization and then suddenly think that they have become all knowing all good dummy gods and suddenly join the bandwagon for homosexual rights and lesbian feminist movements of some sort. You guys do not usually get criticized because ‘liberalism’ seems to be the morality of the day(by this I don’t mean that it has been shown to be composed of objective moral truths- infact far from it-but only that duffers like to believe that it actually is) and most people in this world are ‘educated jaahils’ like you. So the few critical voices are very easily marginalized.

      continued...

      Delete
    9. ...continued.


      You really need to get a life (really! read something else for a day or two, apart from your usual communication skills books and articles about sex and people’s private parts…your mind seems to be jam packed with all of this utterly useless stuff that you can’t seem to ever have a chance to peek outside your own little world and to be able to think clearly) And if you are true to your beliefs you should at least give it a try and see whether they have any meaning to them or not. Calling others mentally impaired, just because they wish to show flaws in your worldview, simply won’t do the trick. Now of course I can not force you on this…you have to make decisions for yourself, whether to live in emotionally driven denial or to pursue your beliefs to their necessary logical repercussions…its your own choice. All I can do, is to offer a humble rebuttal to some of the things mentioned in your writings which are usually held by those who have never had a genuine introduction to philosophical thinking. I will hopefully fulfill this task on a parallel blog, if time will permit me to do so.


      And Always remember that you are going to get old, when your vagina and breast will not look so much fun to your husband and when you will conceive painful things like cancer and TB...and then finally death. what will happen next, or whether anything will happen at all...I leave it on you to decide for yourself...but remain cautious if you wish to go ahead with this...you already seem in a need to learn lots and lots of related stuff before you can enter into these realms of thought.

      Delete
    10. "Im only doing efforts" : *Sigh* im not being paid to teach u english, so i wont go into the technicalities of grammar. But one does not 'do' efforts, one 'makes' an effort. So, how about u get the basics down before u regurgitate the thesaurus huh?

      'You don't know a word about formal and informal logic, philosophy, mathematics' Hahahahhahah what are u basing this idiocy on? Also, where does math even come into play here? I know i know, i really shouldnt bother arguing with someone with a disability.... but the extent of this ignorance is really shocking....hard not to respond really, even though its pretty much like talking to a brick wall.

      Also, What in the FUCK have u based this on? "You believe stuff can be good and bad, objectively, yet you fail to demonstrate the very existence of objective moral truths"

      This seems to be the core of ur argument, but it wouldnt hurt to get ur facts straight before u go around saying things that make u look even stupider. I have never claimed anything to be 'an objective truth' rather, I look at things from a sociological aspect, as in shaped by their surroundings you Neanderthal. In fact its religiously blinded idiots that cant think for themselves that believe in 'objective truths'. Is god an objective truth? and Omgawd.... where the proof of that? What? You dont got no proof? Wait... does your religion tell u stuff is good and bad? and... wait... whats the proof? Omgawd... you got none... except for someone's word. So shut the fuck up and stop making me throw ur own idiotic words in ur face. Like i said before, go make ur fan blog.

      Its flattering to know that ur so threatened by me, that u absolutely MUST always leave multiple essay like responses. Perhaps u need to find other hobbies and stop coming in MY space telling ME to get a life, when i clearly have one, that ur so desperate to be a part of.

      Delete
    11. 1-where does math even come into play here?
      Ans: read any good book on some very basic introduction to formal/informal logic and you'll understand where precisely does math come into play here.



      2-What in the FUCK have u based this on?
      ans: my previous correspondence with you.


      3- 'I have never claimed anything to be 'an objective truth' rather, I look at things from a sociological aspect, as in shaped by their surroundings'
      Ans: First of all, get straight with your words. do you not believe in anything objectively moral, or do you believe that there are no objective truths whatsoever(is reality that you observe all around yourself an objective truth?)

      then, tell me this: if bestiality is not objectively wrong and evil(both of which you seem to hold), then a priori it becomes subjective whether someone holds it to be good or bad. And if that really is your position with regards to morality, that bestiality for example, is not an objectively immoral act...then why do you go on criticizing those who commit it? since they hold it to be good...and since there is nothing objectively good or evil as per your comment, why bother then? if there are no objective moral truths, then what was wrong with hitler, stalin and then why should'nt one murder someone for no reason, why have any manners at all or why not have sex with our parents and why not kill our own babies or eat people when they die to get nutrition? Since people have always been there who have held these things to be good and pleasurable, but you don't(I hope)and as for the question whether they really are evil...from your position it seems that morality is nothing more than a subjective opinion...there really is nothing good or evil.

      4-'Is god an objective truth?'
      I If by this you meant to ask whether God exists, then yes that is what I believe.


      5-where the proof of that?

      Here, just to give you a start:

      P1: everything that begins to exist has a cause
      P2: the Universe began to exist.
      C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

      P1: according to reliable historical resources, all the prophets said that God exists.
      P2: according to reliable historical resources, all the prophets never lied.
      C: If someone accepts that history was not magically created when he or she was born, and that historians were honest and truthful, he must believe that God exists.


      P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
      P2: objective moral values and duties exist(that is what I believe though...that loving a child is objectively good for example and torturing a child is objectively evil...even if everyone on earth says that it is not)
      C: There fore, God exists.

      Delete
    12. 'does your religion tell u stuff is good and bad'
      obviously!

      'whats the proof'
      whats the proof of what? morality in religion is anchored in the existence of God...God has ordained things to be bad and good, and therefore objectively good or evil acts exist. homosexual sex is bad...objectively. why? because God has ordained it to be. the only way out of this is to say that God does not exist in which case morals are a product of socio biological evolution...which in meaning are not objectively evil or good. so if in that case homosexual acts are not evil...then cannabalism, murder, rape...all of them can be held by someone to be good acts. and you can't go and criticize them for that.


      And yes, if you are disturbed by me to that extent, then please don't publish my comments and you won't get a reply...delet them, it's that easy really. and of course, get a life:)

      Delete
    13. > then cannabalism, murder, rape...all of them can be held by
      > someone to be good acts. and you can't go and criticize them
      > for that.

      Yup, that's exactly true. Morality is very much relative. Which is why freedom to live your life how you see fit is important. Except for when it infringes upon the freedom of other people. All of the acts you quoted do exactly that. They infringe upon individual freedoms. By the way, do you see nothing wrong with the argument, "because subjective morality is troublesome, God MUST exist to provide objective moral values?" Is that enough proof/reason to believe in God?

      Delete
    14. Oh and one more thing. If we accept your proposition that, " everything that begins to exist has a cause" then who created/caused "God"? Also, "according to reliable historical resources, all the prophets never lied." What reliable historical resources are we talking about? Books published by Islam's followers later on do not count as reliable historical evidence.

      Delete
    15. 'All of the acts you quoted do exactly that. They infringe upon individual freedoms'
      Your whole argument breaks down when you realize that under subjective moral values (which in essence mean that there are no really good or evil acts, and that this illusion of something called morality is just due to some socio biological process) infringement of people's freedom is not in of itself a bad thing. Under these ccircumstances, you are no more moral than some who holds that infringing people's freedom is good. Since there is no objectivity to morality, infringement of people’s freedom may be bad for some and good for others.

      'because subjective morality is troublesome, God MUST exist to provide objective moral values'
      This whole argument will ONLY work if morality would have been subjective...which i don't really think is the case. for clarity's sake, do you really think that if tomorrow every person on earth would claim that torturing an innocent child is a good thing, it will hence become good? and this is exactly what subjective morality means. If you are ready to believe this, then of course writing blogs as this one has no point wherein you criticize those who hold moral opinions counter to yours (criticism in this sense necessarily implies that you believe your moral opinion to be the correct one and other person's opinion to be wrong...even if you are claiming that torturing an innocent child is evil)


      ‘then who created/caused "God"?’
      This is a common atheist strategy; you really think that you have said something truly profound whereas all you that you have done is that you misunderstood the first premise. Here, read it again carefully:

      Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.

      God never began to exist, and hence has no cause.


      ‘What reliable historical resources are we talking about?’
      What historical resources do you think are reliable? Most historians of the New Testament, scholars of early Islamic history as well as major world history scholars ( such as Ibn Khaldun, Edward Gibbons and so on) claim this about Muhammad (P.b.u.h) and all other classical theistic Prophets. There has not been even a single historical report, not even a weak one; where upon any Prophet of God has uttered a lie. Even people like Dr. William Montgomery Watt start giving alternative explanations for the revelation of Quran when they are faced with deep problems accepting that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was an imposter and a liar! All of this is well documented; I suppose you never had a chance to read any major historian’s writings.




      ‘Books published by Islam's followers later on do not count as reliable historical evidence.’
      Even if I meant them to be reliable historical resources, for this claim of yours to carry any weight, you have to show why they are not reliable. Simply saying they are not reliable does nothing for me. And it makes me especially skeptical towards your claim when some of them like ibn khaldun are regarded by western scholarship as one of the fathers of modern day historiography.

      I look forward to an educated discussion, finally.

      Delete
    16. Some other relevant problems:

      If infringement upon others freedom is bad according to you, then why do you kill and eat chicken or beef? (im assuming that you are not a vegetarian only, because the overwhelming majority of mankind, it seems, is not) If tasting good and being nutritious count as your reasons for eating chicken and beef, then what about someone who finds human flesh tasty…and obviously, it is full of nutrition as well? What gives you the right to slaughter a living being for your own benefit, and restricts others of doing the same?

      When a female praying mantis chops the head off her male partner after having sex with him and eats him, or when a lion attacks a zebra, or when a male zebra rapes a female one…do you think that counts as being infringement upon others freedom? If yes, then why do people (and probably you as well) take this behavior which is rampant in the animal kingdom so lightly as if these are not moral acts at all, but, regard these same actions among humans as severe crimes on the other hand? The action is the same after all, only the victims are different in each case. If there is no God, and we are only biological organisms (animals) who share a common ancestor with apes, then why do we even think of things in terms of good or bad to begin with? For clearly in the animal kingdom, morality does not exist. and if you somehow manage to counter that( which big names in biology have failed to achieve so far, see the plato.stanford links above)then you'll have to agree with me that given the above conditions(which are true under atheism) it makes no difference whether one loves a child or rapes him/her. Morality becomes obsolete and meaningless. This is where this road of subjective morality leads us to. Nietzche was perhaps the first atheist philosopher to realize this deep problem in the atheist belief system and ended up claiming that there is nothing good, nor bad…but even he fell prey for the ‘temptation’ afterwards to define another moral system for humans. I don’t really think if we would’ve pressed him really hard on the question “Isn’t honesty/justice/love/hospitality/mercy, objectively good?” he would have ever denied that. We theists, in this case, have more rights then to criticize you of being absolutely immoral, not the other way around. My argument still stands:

      If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist;
      Objective moral values and duties exist,
      And hence…God exists.

      Delete
    17. and oh, this :'"because subjective morality is troublesome, God MUST exist to provide objective moral values?"' is not an 'argument'...I assumed that you were trying to say this: 'we have invented God to ground our morals in him' so yes, this statement will be true if morality would have been subjective and hence meaningless...which I don't hold. I really think morality is objective. for not accepting morality as objective brings some of the deepest philosophical problems of all times to the table. But if you believe in that, then simply stop criticizing others on doing whatever they wish to do and accept that you don't have any rights to look down upon people like hitler stalin and bin laden...or people who beat women and on top of that, don't let them work outside their homes(which is perhaps THE evil most thing any man could ever do according to feminists, lol)...which makes you and them equal...which I don't think you will ever be ready to accept, but let's see what you have to say on all of this.

      Delete
    18. I love how u keep coming back with more responses after short periods! haha does that give u enough time to think and perhaps do some research...?
      and oh my, how did u manage to uncover my secret plan to take over the world and turn everyone into an atheist? LOL undercover atheist blog. What an imbecile.

      Delete
    19. Actually, there is a good reason why infringing upon others' freedoms is wrong. It's because we are capable of higher brain functions and making out own decisions. Your argument about chickens and other animals does not apply because they are not self-aware.

      'This is a common atheist strategy; you really think that you have said something truly profound whereas all you that you have done is that you misunderstood the first premise. Here, read it again carefully:"

      It seems YOU think you've answered the question. But why do you assume that God has always existed, and yet the universe was created rather than always existing?

      'There has not been even a single historical report, not even a weak one; where upon any Prophet of God has uttered a lie.'

      Either you are lying, or you are simply unaware. Are you seriously telling me that EVERY scholar there is agrees that no Prophet ever told a lie?

      'Even if I meant them to be reliable historical resources, for this claim of yours to carry any weight, you have to show why they are not reliable.'

      They are not reliable because most of these "historical" records were only penned down long after the death of the Prophet. If there exist any primary sources for Islam's history, I am unaware of them. Secondly, these people were followers of Islam. By that very token they were biased in favour of it. What would I consider reliable historical record? A primary record of the events, preferably from an unbiased source.

      Delete
    20. Alright we have a terrible misunderstanding here. You are constantly saying that morality is subjective, yet you come back and claim certain things are objectively wrong, and perhaps not realizing it! This is false reasoning, where you end up accepting what you denied in the beginning. Look, Im not here to teach you philosophy and formal logic. You should at least be well aware of these things and understand your own philosophical positions to be able to properly defend them. Atheists today...oh goodness, Nietzsche was a much better atheist. I'll try to illustrate the fallacy that you are constantly making one last time, and then Im done:

      First you say: 'Morality is very much relative' by which I understand that there is no absolute standard for morality. And then you claim: 'infringing upon others' freedoms is wrong'.

      Now the problem here is, by your own admission if morality is relative, I don’t have any reasons to accept your second claim as an absolute. By claiming that morality is relative, you’re saying that nothing can be absolutely wrong/right, but by claiming that something is absolutely(or, objectively) wrong/right(infringing upon people’s freedom for example, which you hold to be absolutely wrong) you are accepting that morality is not relative. Do you see it now? This is really no rocket science which is taking so long for you to grasp by the way. So either take the ‘there is no good no bad’ position, or take the ‘things are good and bad’ position before commenting again, so that we can discuss some more complex issues. The very reason why my moral argument for God’s existence works is precisely this: I say that morality is absolute, not relative. You’re mixing between these 2 philosophical positions. To avoid God you must resort to the relative morality view, but at the same time you’re still taking the absolute morality position with regards to things like rape, murder etc. I hope it is clear to you by now….continued



      Delete
    21. It seems YOU think you've answered the question. But why do you assume that God has always existed, and yet the universe was created rather than always existing?

      You asked who created God, I answered you misunderstood my first premise, so ofcourse I actually DID answer your question. This: ‘But why do you assume that God has always existed’ is a different question than this: ‘who created God?’ which I had answered previously.
      There are two types of mathematical infinities, a potential infinite and an actual one. In a potential infinite, infinity is only a limit towards which one can approach. For example, if you start dividing by the number 2, a line segment which has 2 points, you will never reach an end to this process. The line would continue to be divided into smaller and smaller pieces for ever. We can hence say that there is a potential infinite between the end points of this line segment, which is to say that the distance between these 2 points is an absolute, but if we keep on dividing this line into equal intervals, each interval’s distance would forever continue to approach the value 0, but can never do so.

      An actual infinite is a set which actually has an infinite number of elements. For example: the set of all natural numbers.

      Now if God does not exist, there is an actually infinite number of past event, which is to say that there are infinite days preceding this very moment. Note that this is not a potential infinite, it is an actual one. We’re not ‘approaching towards’ infinity, rather, an actually infinite number of elements already exist in the past.

      Now, an actual infinite has genuine logical contradictions and it cannot exist. For example, suppose set1 has all the natural numbers starting from 10 in it, and set2 has all the natural numbers starting from 0 in it. Each of these sets has an infinite number of elements in it and both sets are equal (ie: one to one correspondence can be made between then elements of both sets) or: set1=set2
      yet, we know one set has 10 elements less than the other set. Or:
      Set2-10=set1

      Therefore, the past can not be infinite, it must have a beginning at one point. Both the philosophical evidence, and evidence from contemporary science refers to a moment of absolute beginning of the universe. continued

      Delete
    22. On the other hand, if you follow the causal chain to its origin, there must be a first cause who has no cause. For if there is no such first cause, we’re once again forced into an actually infinite regress of causes preceding causes this time, which is impossible as I showed a bit earlier. So the universe must begin, and existence must have a first cause. And this is why we hold what you questioned.

      ‘Either you are lying, or you are simply unaware. Are you seriously telling me that EVERY scholar there is agrees that no Prophet ever told a lie?’
      Alright, let’s see. Give me the name of an objective historian, or a scholar of classical theistic scriptures who has reported, and, whose report of a prophet lying is unanimously accepted within the peer reviewed system? Show me something which would mean that there is strong historical evidence that a Prophet of God lied.


      ‘They are not reliable because most of these "historical" records were only penned down long after the death of the Prophet.’
      How does this even affect the historicity of any historical report? What makes a historical record ‘better’ if it was written in someone’s own time? Just for a moment, there is a lot of deception and lies on the internet about almost every single famous person on planet earth today. Now if someone were to compose the biography of say obama, based on these reports, people like you would clearly accept them as being accurate a 1000 years later, whereas they would not have been so. I don’t see any reason for accepting that the only accurate resources for history are those which were written simultaneously with some historical event or person. If this were to be taken seriously, history as an academic discipline could never have been constructed. Most of what you read in history simply does not come directly this way.

      ‘Secondly, these people were followers of Islam. By that very token they were biased in favour of it. What would I consider reliable historical record? A primary record of the events, preferably from an unbiased source’
      the atheist will obviously try to reduce whatever apologetic means we have available to nothing. the Christians for example, can put up such lengthy and extensive, often philsophically deep argumentation to defend the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, even with their fairly weak sources. But even then, no intelligent atheist can any longer afford to summarily reject the Resurrection as a mere legend any more. Now they have to deal with a huge mass of Christian argumentation on the isue and the only decent atheist responses are often book length treatments. This is because Christians have utilized everything from the philosophy of doing history and epistemology to the entire practice of history as it is done in comparative contexts, Graeco-Roman and Jewish historiography and much else. This despite the fact that the only sources for the Resurrection are the Christian documents in the Bible itself. The Christians have done a good job of pointing out to the atheist that his insistence on 'independent' sources would destroy almost all history, not only Christian history. Because hardly anything in ancient history has much 'indpendent' corroboration. Some day (not now as you are no where near ready for it) it may be worthwhile seeing some fairly relevant material to understand how the insistence on this ‘independent sources’ would potentially destroy all of history as an academic discipline. and by the way, if islam's followers were biased, why should I accept others(the non-muslim, whose historical reports you would want to consider genuine) to be unbiased, when Islam was in direct competition with their own beliefs?

      Delete
  8. LMFAO.... @fuckin imbecile. ****** ki larai

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon sounds like he has a thesaurus stuck up his ass.

    Calm the fuck down dude - if you don't like it, don't read it.

    In other news - if I owned a newspaper, I would quite happily publish this badboy :)

    xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First make your mother calm down a bit and then ask me to do so. There's no point in trying to persuade others of something, if other people are not allowed to criticize on academic basis...Im just doing with her views what she is, and even maybe you secretly are, doing with traditional ethics. Criticism! Though mine is analytic and hers is emotional. Get a life, sir!

      Delete
    2. Its ok, he is clearly mentally impaired... let him be... poor guy.

      Delete
  10. Okay, I laughed. This DOES deserve publishing, but of course, no one would ever do that here.

    And OMG, why have I never come across your blog before? You are a gem! I'm going to read your older posts now.

    :) Don't ever stop posting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ROTFL Anon ki gaand men encyclopedia phans gia

    ReplyDelete
  12. And to my utter surprise...this is an undercover atheist blog...I really was under the impression that this is a muslim community mislead by the publicity of modern day secular morals but surprise after surprise...so for any muslim/ religious person reading this who was previously tricked by the labels of Pakistan and eastern food like me...if you must read this blog then BE CAUTIOUS and keep in mind that the author of this blog is a philosophically unlettered atheist or at most an agnost but definitely not a person of faith. so don't take your morals from people who don't even believe them to have any objective value (this is documented in the comments of the author of this blog above)...for these folks murder can be good and honesty can be bad (something which necessarily follows from morality not having objectivity to it), provided that it becomes the morality of the day in some age(though they won't agree to this because they don't understand even their own positions regarding morality very well, due to their philosophical illiteracy) ...so don't ever trust their moral intuition and be highly skeptical about their 'opinions' on what should be considered good and what should be considered bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Mistrust atheists, but trust somebody who has no moral qualms about killing anybody who disagrees with their world view. Brilliant.

      Delete
    2. unfortunately, I dont consider cliches like, 'wow' 'brilliant' etc etc to be conclusive arguments against/for anything. Often, when the emotional baggage is removed, all that is left in these sorts of remarks is pretty much nothing. you have no business going over my text which is addressing fellow Muslims, without making a point on what I have written aimed at you.

      Delete
    3. it would have been better if you wrote ABCs of Pakistan and india it would have been more pertinent and less prejudicial

      Delete