Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 5 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 5 |
Debates: | 0 |
If it's a person's choice to live only among people of the same race how can someone deny them that choice? However if they are enforcing this preference on others it is no longer simply a matter of personal choice.
Therefore in direct answer to the question, yes they have every right to choose their own company.
The motion relies on such a God actually existing, which is unproven. Therefore the motion cannot be supported.
Also science is literally the study of everything, science is concerned purely with finding out the truth about the universe. If religion/God/transcendence were true, science would observe it as true (if indeed these are observable at all). So to associate science with something ungodly is to suggest that God is not proveable and that the world of fact and that of religion and God are separate.
Yes, money as a concept is needed for any complex society to exist. A form of easily transferable currency makes buying and selling possible, rather than trading actual resources which would be inconvenient to say the least.
In addition, people's faith in the value of money is essential for any sort of economy to exist.
As for whether money is necessary for a given individual, that is completely down to the person in question since it would be difficult to argue from any objective point of reference. It is possible for a human to survive even today without money, so in the literal sense, no money is NOT necessary.
First of all the question is completely unfounded and based on anecdotal evidence at best.
It is important to consider what you are actually expecting of the islamic community. Simply going on TV and denouncing radical islam means nothing, since it goes without saying for the VAST MAJORITY of muslims. But switching the news on you will obviously get the impression that no muslims denounce the radical elements of islam since it's not newsworthy; airing a story bout muslims who preach hate is far more interesting than a story about average muslims who are disgusted by the extreme views of the minority.
As a slight but relevant digression, the man who blew himself up in Sweden was banned from his mosque for his radical views.
Therefore I disagree with the question since there is no way one can simply fabricate that few muslims denounce islam...you just don't hear about them.
|