Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

I never said they are mutually exclusive, you did, repeatedly, so stop the strawman. I said they aren't the same, therefore they cannot be both, especially in this context. This is not to say anything different can't be the same thing. Using your definition, religion isn't law, as I've already explained.

What legal actions are taken if you break the law that is religion? To use Islam as an example, Islamic law/Sharia is a subdivision of Islam in which people created law to govern lands.

Within the sphere of all interpersonal interaction, meaning relationships or communication between people. Law can't govern itself.

The basis of your arguments rely on strawmans and illogical thinking. Stop with the irrelevant appeals, this is a different subject matter.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/

 

-They are not the same
-They cannot be both

These are two separate claims.

I am not making the claim X and Y are the same.

You made the claim - "They cannot be both"

You MUST PROVE that if something is believed without proof, it CANNOT tell you what you must not do

 

I already explained why they cannot be both. Maybe if you took the chance to read my replies instead of completely ignoring what I refuted, then you can stop beating the dead horse with your arguments by repetition. Let me break it down ONE MORE TIME.

Your argument, which really isn't an argument is this:

"Law tells you what you must not do"

Parents tell you what you must not do, doctors tell you what you must not do, government tells you what you must not do, teachers tell you what you must not do. Does this mean all of which are mentioned are law? No.

To say the religion of Islam itself is law, would be to argue that law governs itself, which it doesn't.

You contradicted yourself by quoting Richard which doesn't coincide with your own argument.

If Islam is law, then sharia serves no purpose.

Answer this:

 

You get executed.

Now, the, back to your claim:

You MUST PROVE that if something is believed without proof, it CANNOT tell you what you must not do

Specific to this topic is - You must prove that if someone believes Muhammad speaks for god, that Muhammad cannot tell you what you must not do

 

Then law doesn't govern itself, therefore Islam, the religion, isn't law. There would be no point in subdivisions like Sharia if Islam itself was law. This is your argument!

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say this?

 

What law in the world governs itself? You aren't making an argument. "Governing itself" is not a necessary attribute of law.

Literally your previous post.

You must prove your claim that if someone believes Muhammad speaks for god (religion), that Muhammad CANNOT tell you what you must not do (law)

 

You still aren't getting it. To argue that religion is law, is to argue that law governs itself. Islam isn't the law that governs the lands in various Muslim countries, parts of sharia are.

Uh.. What? How is this relevant to what you quoted me saying? I'm pretty sure I never said what you're claiming I said, another strawman.

 

No.

I'll quote you again:

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

Law tells you what you must not do.

Religion is something believed without proof.

 

"No" isn't an argument.

1. Your definition of religion is wrong. Go to any dictionary source, and pull up a definition of religion that simply says "something believed without proof". Religion in essence is the belief in a God or groups of Gods.

2. "Law tells you what you must not do" isn't the definition of law. I already debunked why your arbitrary definition of law doesn't make sense 3 times already.

"something believed without proof"

This is the definition of assume, not religion.

 

Appeal to authority. Once again, trying to substitute a new definition for the one I provided. Use my definition for my argument, don't make up a new argument to attack. I've already quoted Sythe's definition.

Yes it is. What is your proof that law is not something that tells you what you must not do? I've already quoted Sythe's definition.

You didn't provide proof, so what else am I suppose to say when you make a claim with no proof?

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

Law tells you what you must not do.

Religion is something believed without proof.

 

Do you hear yourself? Your argument makes no sense. "something believed without proof" is not the definition of religion, it's the definition of assume. You're speaking in English right? Go to any English dictionary, in fact, go to any dictionary you can find that defines religion the way you do, I can assure none do.

If I define walking as "flying in the air", does this mean my definition is correct? No.

His quote says "Law has power in that it will tell you what you must not do within the sphere of all interpersonal interaction."

Reading in context will do you wonders.

 

http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=1

I'd love to see you prove your claim. PM Richard with your proof and tell him you are disputing his claim:

Muhammad tells you what must not do within the sphere of all interaction, and beyond. Extending the definition does not invalidate the claim that Muhammad tells you what you must not do.

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

These are not mutually exclusive.

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

 

Actually I did, but you don't read anything I reply with, so it's hard for you to tell.

1. Law is governed by who? People.

2. Religion can't govern itself, there are no consequences when you don't follow guidelines within a religion. This is why Sharia was created, a system in which people can enforce consequences.

3. To argue that religion is law is to argue that law governs itself, which it doesn't, as you conformed to.

Religion can't govern itself because consequences aren't assessed through religion, it's done so by law, hence the creation of Sharia.

Religion deals with the worship of a superhuman controlling power or God(s). Religion has nothing to do with worshiping laws, hence why laws can't be a religion, and vice versa.

Law consists of the established and enforced rules and regulations for keeping a community in order.

Religion is a personal belief system that incorporates philosophy, dogma, and ritualized ceremonies.

Law can't be religion, and religion can't be law for these reasons.

Law tells you what you must not do within the confines of communication between people. Religion isn't a person, it's a belief system.

Disputing his claim? How so. I believe I agreed with what he said, you're just nitpicking without reading context.

Muhammad isn't a religion, Muhammad isn't a God, he's a prophet, who speaks the words of God, whatever he says to do or not to do comes from Allah.

How are the two relevant to each other?

 

That's religion. There is no evidence or reason that Muhammad commands the law of god.

You made the claim that these statements are mutually exclusive:

These are not mutually exclusive.

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

^This is not proof that Islam cannot be both religion and law.

These are not mutually exclusive.

You made the claim "They cannot be both".

You must prove your claim that a thing cannot be religion if it is law, and cannot be law if it is religion.

 

Stop double posting, I've reported your posts to merge them because it makes no sense not to edit them in your previous one.

@ Your video

Sharia is a thing.

There is evidence that he is a prophet and that's what a prophet does, recite the words of God.

Since you have trouble reading, I'll post the quote you used.

Stop with the argument by repetition. I've responded 7 times to this already.

Since you have trouble reading, I'll post the quote you used.

 

So, what is your evidence that there is a god and that Muhammad is a prophet of that god?

Stop going in circles. I already refuted you.

 

I never said there was a God. I'm using documented evidence that states Muhammad is and was a prophet.

In case you can't read, I've already refuted this.

 

It is a necessary part of your claim that there is a god in order for Muhammad to be a prophet of god.

No you haven't. You just say you have and skip over it. The BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON YOU AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS UNTIL YOU SATISFY YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF:

 

No it's not. It's documented within the Quran that Muhammad is a prophet, to which you've conformed to already on this thread.

Already gave proof. http://www.questionsaboutislam.com/history-of-islam/who-is-mohammad.php

 

Muhammad claiming that he is a prophet of god in the Quran isn't evidence that he was and is a prophet of god.

This is not proof. Your source is not proof of anything either, why the fuck did you paste that at all?