Would any theists here behave less morally if "there was no God"?

[AntiKarateKid]

Assuming there could even be a universe without Allah, would anyone here act less moral?

Now just to make it clear, let's not insult people for their answers.

For me, I definitely would. My suitmate recently stole a laptop from the Apple Store. Now, I was entertaining the idea of stealing from a thief, which was funny in an ironic way, but decided not to because I value my soul's well-being and Allah's pleasure too much.

Other than the "well being of society" which is a very ambiguous term, I see no reason not to be less moral. I really don't even have to give a hoot about others.

What does it matter? Any comments by fellow theists?

[The_Prince]

offcourse, i would go drink alcohol, fornicate alot, and many other things. no questionnnnnnnn.

[The_Prince]

i would also think porn, and all this sex stuff is normal natural human culture, and very lovely, and nothing wrong with it.

[HopeFul]

I dont like this assumption :S

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[The_Prince]

btw, for me personally, im not assuming, i know for sure 100% i will do all these things. from day 1.

[AntiKarateKid]

btw, for me personally, im not assuming, i know for sure 100% i will do all these things. from day 1.

I agree 100%. Why even wait till day 1? Day 0 is where its at!

[Yanal]

This is a perspective question which has been asked to variety of Muslims. If there was no God how would we know? There are to many religions with monotheism so I would easily adapt into those. But do you mean if in every religion NO GOD exsisted. If that is so I would carry out my life without praying but still being the simple man,the only change for me would be my interest in books. My parents would still stop me from doing various things even if NO GOD exisits such as: smoking, watching nasty stuff and nearly the same restrictions would still imply to me. Though I am 100% sure Allah does exist and Islam is our religion.

[Sarada]

Me personally? Would I act differently if there was no God, or, I believed there was no God? Not in the least.

There was a period of years when I believed that there was no God.

During that time, I was still as ethical in my behaviour as I am now. And I believe that all people are born good.

I believe one's ethics should come from one's inner being, not from some promise of reward or threat of punishment.

[Yanal]

^ I think your last part is excellent.

It is all up to your personaility.

[Pygoscelis]

Other than the "well being of society" which is a very ambiguous term, I see no reason not to be less moral. I really don't even have to give a hoot about others.

You only care about others because you are told to by your God? I'm not sure how to put this less bluntly, but doesn't that make you a bit of a sociopath?

[ژاله]

there cant be a universe without Allah.and no one can be there if He didnt create him.the assumption is non-sensical,which implies the question is pointless.

[Trumble]

I really don't even have to give a hoot about others.

That's fine, until you remember they don't "even have to give a hoot" about you, either. Moral conduct is not just altruistic it is also mutually beneficial, and in everybody's self-interest, God or no god.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I probably would actually. But, thankfully, my parents and family are socially-well adjusted and ''brainwashed'' me with good ethics and high moral standards (which I am forever in their debt for)

This alone is enough to motivate me to behave morally. What the God card does is reinforce it especially when I'm down in the dumps/bad mood.

But I think I can safely say that without God, I'd have got into a lot of fights (verbal and physical - heck, I'd probably be in one right now!). I'd also be in a permanent state of depression since life is a 1 in a million chance (human reproduction system kiddos!). I would see statistics instead of miracles, so I wouldn't appreciate half the things I have.

I'd also be very arrogant and possibly drunk: and why not, given that I'm a statistical insignificance? I'm not even a percent of earth life; less so than in this solar system; even less in this galaxy...what does it matter if I play by the rules or not? The only way to achieve any significance (for myself anyway) would be to act like an attention seeking douche.

Fortunately, I'm the complete opposite of that :)

[Sarada]

That's fine, until you remember they don't "even have to give a hoot" about you, either. Moral conduct is not just altruistic it is also mutually beneficial, and in everybody's self-interest, God or no god.

Well said, Trumble.

[GreyKode]

I kind of agree 100% with aamirsaab.

[AntiKarateKid]

You only care about others because you are told to by your God? I'm not sure how to put this less bluntly, but doesn't that make you a bit of a sociopath?

I was expecting some foolishness like this.

Pygo, is that a typo or have do you really have more than 1000 posts here? Because I can't fathom how someone with that much exposure could come off sounding as ignorant and silly as any old atheist off the street.

You still don't understand that God is more than just a enforcer of laws. Without the soul, without a guarantee of good overcoming evil, without good and evil, there is nothing stopping someone from doing whatever they want.

I may not go around murdering but I sure as hell would steal alot more. Simply because if I can, I would. Nothing would happen to me and I don't have to give a hoot about the sap who gets stolen from. Tough luck. I'm living only for 70 years longer and I'll make sure those are the best years of my life. I don't gain anything from giving back the wallet.

To be blunt, you gave me the exact response I was expecting, an insult. Because you can't give me a reason besides ambiguous appeals to emotion.

[AntiKarateKid]

That's fine, until you remember they don't "even have to give a hoot" about you, either. Moral conduct is not just altruistic it is also mutually beneficial, and in everybody's self-interest, God or no god.

Sure. I can choose to be mutually beneficial to my partners in crime. Done deal. Got any better reason than "if you help others, they'll help you". Not a very deep response.

[جوري]

I don't think so, but obviously I'd not fulfill many of my moral and social obligations which is actually how I was before I practiced.. I.e fast for therapeutic purposes if at all, I wouldn't pray, charity would be sporadic, I'd probably not be nice to alot of people that I am nice to out of pure respect and obligation.

wouldn't do the biggies because I don't have it in me, but don't see why any biggie would matter? like murdering if I could get away of people I thought deserved murder, like drunk drivers and rapists, I'd probably justify that as societal morality the law would be very subjective if I didn't and I don't think the state handles such cases correctly.. my sense of peace, justice and restoration of balance would be also very subjective, I'd carry out vigilante justice and have a very skewed understanding of what it is...

Not sure honestly if an atheist could get away with a perfect crime, theft murder, with no chance of punishment or being caught but alot of personal gain, what would stop them?
They speak of innate goodness, and that we are born with it, but that is as much a belief as the belief in God is a belief.. it is very subjective ...
you can believe you are doing good when you are in fact pretty evil, if your mind justifies it to you...

so anyhow to make a point, during my non believing days, I didn't pray, did fast just out of social obligations, I did give to charity because it made me feel good but it was for the feeling not for the sense of really wanting to reach out and help someone ...

:w:

[Trumble]

Sure. I can choose to be mutually beneficial to my partners in crime. Done deal. Got any better reason than "if you help others, they'll help you". Not a very deep response.

Actually, it was deep enough in some form or another for Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Rawls and most of the other important political philosophers over the last few centuries, although I suspect they all gave the matter rather more thought than you have. I really would be totally wasting my time if I tried to explain why, wouldn't I?

Quick hint, though. Far from a "done deal" your limited arrangement with your 'partners in crime' would leave you little if any better off than you were before. Partly because most of the rest of the human race would be somebody else's partners in crime, but mostly because you couldn't trust your own partners as far as you could throw them. As they couldn't trust you either, it just comes to who pre-empts who with a knife in the back first. :)

[Pygoscelis]

Pygo, is that a typo or have do you really have more than 1000 posts here?

Its is a typo. I just got here yesterday. Who are you?

without good and evil, there is nothing stopping someone from doing whatever they want.

And yet here we atheists are, behaving just as if not more morally than you theists.

I may not go around murdering but I sure as hell would steal alot more. Simply because if I can, I would. Nothing would happen to me and I don't have to give a hoot about the sap who gets stolen from. Tough luck. I'm living only for 70 years longer and I'll make sure those are the best years of my life. I don't gain anything from giving back the wallet.

So like I said, you are admitting you are a sociopath here. No, that isn't me looking to insult you. It fits what you are saying. You have stated that you would be ammoral if not for your God belief, so I hope you don't ever lose your faith.

[Zafran]

Salaam

- Kants idea of duty and morality are good reasons..........ofcourse I still believe to be moral is a duty on humanity becasue of God making us Bani Adam - so there is always a Inherent idea of duty and morality.

In reality I'm far from perfect - Just have to put it into practice.

peace

[جوري]

Salaam

- Kants idea of duty and morality are good reasons..........

peace

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

:w:

Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Its is a typo. I just got here yesterday. Who are you?

Makes sense.

And yet here we atheists are, behaving just as if not more morally than you theists.

As if we all agree on a set of moral rules where you can make that judgement. Get real. But its nice to see you not taking the implications a totally physical universe to their logical extensions. I'm also glad that you are enjoying whatever fruits of fitra are left in your ravaged soul.

So like I said, you are admitting you are a sociopath here. No, that isn't me looking to insult you. It fits what you are saying. You have stated that you would be ammoral if not for your God belief, so I hope you don't ever lose your faith.

Grow up Pygo. But actually... let me humor you for a sec. If I was indeed a sociopath, I would not like a religion like Islam which requires me not to be everything a sociopath is. I'd have preferred...maybe nihilism? Anyways, I hope that you never wake up and realize what your state of disbelief opens the doors to.

Next.

[جوري]

Greetings,


Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

It depends on the opinion.. if your opinion is that butterscotch is better than vanilla, then I don't see how it can have a bearing on religion. If your opinion is an organized form of a moral code and is usually accepted as authoritative by some group or school then it is a lesser form of religion that divorces itself from bigger obligation.
terms differ so you don't have a skewed understanding?.. Acute Stress Disorder differs from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder even though they share alot in common they are not one in the same, as one becomes an adult his understanding of the world and concepts should evolve right along don't you think?

Morality is a very subjective find, I have already given an example above of how some might view vigilante justice as a form of good moral upstanding. A belief is a belief it doesn't matter whether you put it under the heading of Religion or some esoteric 'innate goodness' that we are born with. If you can't articulate your beliefs in a logical manner, you are not really much different from what it is you are divorcing yourself and casting under the heading of obedience!

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

Actually, it was deep enough in some form or another for Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Rawls and most of the other important political philosophers over the last few centuries, although I suspect they all gave the matter rather more thought than you have. I really would be totally wasting my time if I tried to explain why, wouldn't I?

Really? It wasn't sufficient for the thousands upon thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders. I'd suspect they gave it much thought too. You already wasted your time when you started out with an argument from authority.

Quick hint, though. Far from a "done deal" your limited arrangement with your 'partners in crime' would leave you little if any better off than you were before. Partly because most of the rest of the human race would be somebody else's partners in crime, but mostly because you couldn't trust your own partners as far as you could throw them. As they couldn't trust you either, it just comes to who pre-empts who with a knife in the back first. :)

Thankyou for that hint, however useless it was. All partners in crime are not created equal. And since according to you, the rest of the human race are someone else's partners, I'll take my chance with whoever offers me the best deal. Besides, I doubt stealing some macbooks requires "stabbing in the back." Moreover, many criminals live to a ripe old age, provided that they prove themselves. Actually now that I think of it, people like Israeli assassins are criminals in the eyes of many here but are hailed as heroes by many there. So....

Next.

[Zafran]

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

:w:

I agree the human condition is need of guidence - most people who dont follow religion or Philosophies just follow socities moral code most of the time.

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

Hilarious! Mindless obediance huh? If after so long here, you can't fathom even the most basic aspects of religion... nevermind, whats the use?

The logical extension of something like Islam is, a universe where your actions matter, good will beat evil, being human is being kind to your neighbors, and the noble pauper is better than the vile king.

A lack of belief taken to its logical extremes means that what you call morals are as man made as the computer I'm typing on and vary from place to place. Moreover, there is no reason why someone should value say, not stealing except for the usual argument of "if you steal from someone, its ok for people to steal from you" which is such a selfish way of supporting morals which you suppose would make you not selfish (if that is even worth holding in esteem). So basically you have nothing.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hilarious! Mindless obediance huh? If after so long here, you can't fathom even the most basic aspects of religion... nevermind, whats the use?

To be fair, you've got a point. I can't understand why anyone would believe many of the aspects of various religions.

The logical extension of something like Islam is, a universe where your actions matter, good will beat evil, being human is being kind to your neighbors, and the noble pauper is better than the vile king.

A lack of belief taken to its logical extremes means that what you call morals are as man made as the computer I'm typing on and vary from place to place. Moreover, there is no reason why someone should value say, not stealing except for the usual argument of "if you steal from someone, its ok for people to steal from you" which is such a selfish way of supporting morals which you suppose would make you not selfish (if that is even worth holding in esteem). So basically you have nothing.

Well, you've really thought through all of the options, haven't you.

Peace

[Trumble]

Really? It wasn't sufficient for the thousands upon thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders. I'd suspect they gave it much thought too. You already wasted your time when you started out with an argument from authority.

Yes, I suppose it was, although I'm afraid you have only yourself to blame for that. Based on your previous contributions, I genuinely believe actually reproducing those arguments would be a complete waste of my time as the only person's opinion that interests you is your own. I would, though, like to see something from a few of these Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars firmly convinced they would fall back on a life of crime and complete disregard for their fellow human beings were God simply to disappear. However, let us move on.

All partners in crime are not created equal. And since according to you, the rest of the human race are someone else's partners, I'll take my chance with whoever offers me the best deal.

You cannot trust 'whoever offers the best deal'. They cannot trust you. The consequence should be obvious.

Besides, I doubt stealing some macbooks requires "stabbing in the back."

What do macbooks have to do with it? The very scenario you are setting up can have no limits (where would they come from)? Everything, and everyone is fair game.

Moreover, many criminals live to a ripe old age, provided that they prove themselves.

And most don't. The point is though, the same one.. those people live in an environment where there are rules that most follow, even if they don't. But you are floating a world with no rules.

Actually now that I think of it, people like Israeli assassins are criminals in the eyes of many here but are hailed as heroes by many there. So....

So?! :rollseyes

[AntiKarateKid]

Yes, I suppose it was, although I'm afraid you have only yourself to blame for that. Based on your previous contributions, I genuinely believe actually reproducing those arguments would be a complete waste of my time as the only person's opinion that interests you is your own. I would, though, like to see something from a few of these Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars firmly convinced they would fall back on a life of crime and complete disregard for their fellow human beings were God simply to disappear. However, let us move on.



You cannot trust 'whoever offers the best deal'. They cannot trust you. The consequence should be obvious.



What do macbooks have to do with it? The very scenario you are setting up can have no limits (where would they come from)? Everything, and everyone is fair game.



And most don't. The point is though, the same one.. those people live in an environment where there are rules that most follow, even if they don't. But you are floating a world with no rules.



So?! :rollseyes

The only one who's opinion I'm interested is mine? The only time I get disinterested in anyone else's opinion is when they start spewing nonsense like that. Which, come to think of it, is your trademark.

Tell me, what reason would a person have for not stealing a new TV from a store, if noone would know, and noone would get hurt.

[Muhaba]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors). In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not those supplied by outside authorities. ... People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage. In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. For example, a survey in England revealed that 11 percent of men and 3 percent of women would commit murder for $1 million if they could be sure of getting away with the crime.


As for the question in the op, I am not even going to think about it because I think it would be a sin to do so. But if the question were something like: If God hadn't set laws for us regarding how to act and wouldn't judge us or punish us for our actions then would you behave less morally? My answer would be, I hope I wouldn't act less morally.

Edit:When I wrote this, i was pretty tired as i hadn't slept all night & so couldn't think.

Actually, what i'd do would depend on whether under such circumstances Allah has given us sense of morality and right & wrong. If not, then we might do just about anything without even realizing they are wrong. On the other hand, if We were given sense of morality then i guess i'd try to be moral and do good, not harming others, etc. but at the same time, do all things enjoyable, like listening to music, watching movies,etc.

I believe it's possible for a person to be so perfect that they wouldn't do anything wrong even if Allah gave them the permission to do whatever they like as is shown in the Holy Quraan, Surah 18 (Al-Kahf) Verses 83-88:


83. And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: "I shall recite to you something of his story."

84. Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything.

85. So he followed a way.

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

87. He said: "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).

88. "But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."


I believe everyone should strive to attain such perfection. It may be the nafsul mutmainnah as stated in the Quraan Surah 89 (Al-Fajr) verses 27 - 30:


27. (It will be said to the pious): "O (you) the one in (complete) rest and satisfaction!

28. "Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!

29. "Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,

30. "And enter you My Paradise!"

[AntiKarateKid]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors). In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not thos supplied by outside authorities. ... People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage. In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. For example, a survey in England revealed that 11 percent of men and 3 percent of women would commit murder for $1 million if they could be sure of getting away with the crime.


As for the question in the op, I am not even going to think about it because I think it would be a sin to do so. But if the question were something like: If God hadn't set laws for us regarding how to act and wouldn't judge us or punish us for our actions then would you behave less morally? My answer would be, I hope I wouldn't act less morally.

I believe it's possible for a person to be so perfect that they wouldn't do anything wrong even if Allah gave them the permission to do whatever they like as is shown in the Holy Quraan, Surah 18 (Al-Kahf) Verses 83-88:


83. And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: "I shall recite to you something of his story."

84. Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything.

85. So he followed a way.

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

87. He said: "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).

88. "But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."


I believe everyone should strive to attain such perfection. It may be the nafsul mutmainnah as stated in the Quraan Surah 89 (Al-Fajr) verses 27 - 30:


27. (It will be said to the pious): "O (you) the one in (complete) rest and satisfaction!

28. "Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!

29. "Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,

30. "And enter you My Paradise!"

Sister I don't understand how that supports your theory. To my knowledge, that idea has no basis in Islam.

[Sarada]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors).

In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. T

The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not those supplied by outside authorities. ...

People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage.

In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. [/i]

I agree with that statement.

[Trumble]

Tell me, what reason would a person have for not stealing a new TV from a store, if noone would know, and noone would get hurt.

Why?! The scenario is irrelevant. According to you;

Without the soul, without a guarantee of good overcoming evil, without good and evil, there is nothing stopping someone from doing whatever they want.

"Whatever they want" has few limits; in the absence of God, according to you, where could those limits possibly come from? Your pink and fluffy scenario about stealing TVs is packed with provisos that, according you, shouldn't be there - why would it matter if someone was hurt? There are no law enforcement agencies to worry about it as, in your God-free world, there is no mechanism by which laws might come about that they could enforce (and agents would, of course, be infinitely corruptable anyway).

Let's put away the electronics and consider a relevant example. You might 'want' not TVs or Macbooks (in your world nobody is likely to be making them or generating the electricity to power them anyway), but - in the time honoured tradition of humanity - your neighbour's wife and land. The only way you can get those things is to kill your neighbour. We have established there is nothing stopping you doing that, as it is 'what you want'. Would you kill him then take his wife, unwillingly if necessary, or not? If not, and you have already suggested that you might draw the line at murder, then why not?

[Azy]

I'm thinking of going to church at least once a week, all this constant murdering is giving me RSI.

[Muhaba]

^ Consider going to the mosque too & learn a bit about Islam as it is the religion that teaches that God is watching us all the time, He will judge us on the Day of judgment and will reward us with Heaven or punish with Hell, everyone will be questioned about their faiths and actions no matter what (unlike the Christian belief which states that Jesus has taken everyone's sin and basically seems like giving the go-ahead to commiting sins/wrongdoing because after all your sins are taken by someone else and you've been forgiven whatever you do, then why should you even bother doing anything good?) The same isn't in Islam which states that everyone is responsible for his/her own actions and noone can bear the sins of another person.

[Muhaba]

Sister I don't understand how that supports your theory. To my knowledge, that idea has no basis in Islam.

Well, Allah might give a person authority over some people but that doesn't mean that the person can treat them however they like. A lot of people make the mistake that authority means total freedom, but that isn't the case. Allah will judge and ask how you used your authority. One example in Islam is the authority given to men over their wives. Men might think that they can order their wives anything (as long it is lawful in Islam) and the wife must obey but imo that is not the case. This is a particularly sensitive area for me because i've seen several men who treat their wives really terribly, telling them not to leave the house, not to let anyone into the house, yelling and fighting with the wives, hitting the wives, etc. so the wives are basically locked up in their houses all day. This is torture and totally unislamic behavior. Allah has said in various places in the Quraan to treat the wives gently, not to retain them in order to hurt them, etc.

In Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) verse 231, Allah says:
And when you have divorced women and they have fulfilled the term of their prescribed period, either take them back on reasonable basis or set them free on reasonable basis. But do not take them back to hurt them, and whoever does that, then he has wronged himself. And treat not the Verses (Laws) of Allah as a jest, but remember Allah's Favours on you (i.e. Islam), and that which He has sent down to you of the Book (i.e. the Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (the Prophet's Sunnah - legal ways - Islamic jurisprudence, etc.) whereby He instructs you. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is All-Aware of everything.

So imo, while a woman has to obey her husband, the husband isn't supposed to order to do something just to hurt her. He has to take into consideration how it will affect her. If he doesn't have justification for a command (such as not to leave the house) and it will hurt the woman, then he shouldn't order her, because Allah will ask him about it.

when Allah says to dhul Qarnain "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness" He gave him authority over those people. If Allah had given such a command to someone today, they would take it to mean that they had total freedom and Allah wouldn't ask them about it. But that isn't true. such authority/freedom is actually to test the person and Dhul-Qarnain passed the test when he said "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell). But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."

[Sarada]

Sister Muhaba,

You are right. No authority comes without responsibility. Those in authority, while observing the law, must be fair and compassionate.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Interesting question. I guess this depends on what you mean by "acting moral". If you mean being altruistic and respectful and so on, then yes, I would still try and be good for people, as much as possible. However in such a hypothetical situation I might start indulging certain pleasures which I now restrain from (like cigarettes, alcohol and so on...)

[AntiKarateKid]

Why?! The scenario is irrelevant. According to you;



"Whatever they want" has few limits; in the absence of God, according to you, where could those limits possibly come from? Your pink and fluffy scenario about stealing TVs is packed with provisos that, according you, shouldn't be there - why would it matter if someone was hurt? There are no law enforcement agencies to worry about it as, in your God-free world, there is no mechanism by which laws might come about that they could enforce (and agents would, of course, be infinitely corruptable anyway).

Let's put away the electronics and consider a relevant example. You might 'want' not TVs or Macbooks (in your world nobody is likely to be making them or generating the electricity to power them anyway), but - in the time honoured tradition of humanity - your neighbour's wife and land. The only way you can get those things is to kill your neighbour. We have established there is nothing stopping you doing that, as it is 'what you want'. Would you kill him then take his wife, unwillingly if necessary, or not? If not, and you have already suggested that you might draw the line at murder, then why not?

Listen. Let's get down to realistic scenarios, not stealing my neighbors wife (whom I dont find very attractive anyhow LOL). In my scenario above, what reason would I have not to steal? Just answer it.

[AntiKarateKid]

I'm thinking of going to church at least once a week, all this constant murdering is giving me RSI.

You already admitted that you would steal in that other thread.

[Abdul Fattah]

Tell me, what reason would a person have for not stealing a new TV from a store, if noone would know, and noone would get hurt.

Stealing by definition is taking the property of someone else. It could be that nobody gets "hurt" in the process, but it is not a victimless crime. In fact there's no such thing as a victimless crime. Somebody is always draws the shorter straw in crime. the reason that people should still do good, even if they don't believe in God is altruism. Although I think that without belief in god, people's view of right and wrong might be easier warped. I still think atheists have the capability of at least trying to be good. And isn't that what theists do to? Trying? I still have to meet the first theist who never did anything bad.

[Brasco]

:sl:

To my mind, religion or the existing of Allah ta'ala is not there to make people well behaved. It is a way out of hell!! an escape of the eternal torment! But if we recognize, that there is a God, for sure we will live accoring the legislation He has given to mankind :D

:w:

[Uthman]

I probably would behave less morally but there is a difference between that and complete immorality. Certainly, I would pay less attention to the finer details of morality and there would probably be more times when my self interest came before those of my fellow human beings.

Islam came and it perfected morality and good manners and almost makes it an art. This becomes clear from reading such works as Imaam Al-Bukhaari's Al Adab al Mufrad.

[AntiKarateKid]

Stealing by definition is taking the property of someone else. It could be that nobody gets "hurt" in the process, but it is not a victimless crime. In fact there's no such thing as a victimless crime. Somebody is always draws the shorter straw in crime. the reason that people should still do good, even if they don't believe in God is altruism. Although I think that without belief in god, people's view of right and wrong might be easier warped. I still think atheists have the capability of at least trying to be good. And isn't that what theists do to? Trying? I still have to meet the first theist who never did anything bad.

This is not a thread about "if atheists can be moral." It is a thread about why, if you didn't believe in a soul/judgement/God etc and all that entailed, what reasons would you have for not stealing it?

So far all I have gotten in response is "if you steal from others, what if they steal from you" which strikes me as both a superficial and selfish reason and that it is irrelevant in this context since noone will know that I did it. Or that "I wasn't raised like that" which is also a strange answer since we are not slaves to our upbringing.

Moreover this thread should not turn into a list of self assessments if you in particular would steal it, it is a thread about WHY. All

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Like I said, altruism

[AntiKarateKid]

Selam aleykum
Like I said, altruism

Bro, WHY should one be altruistic? Stating WHAT the act is, is not a reason to commit the act. It is equally valid for me to be stingy as it is charitable.

[Trumble]

Listen. Let's get down to realistic scenarios, not stealing my neighbors wife (whom I dont find very attractive anyhow LOL). In my scenario above, what reason would I have not to steal? Just answer it.

I already have answered it, or at least I have in relation to relevant scenarios that don't include unjustifiable provisos that are, in fact, contrary to your whole thesis. Assuming you haven't had another sudden revelation that that thesis is completely different to what you first said it was, that is. The reason is that such conduct is contrary to a moral code that can, and indeed did 'evolve' without the intervention of God or gods because it was, in general terms (there will always be exceptions) beneficial to most members of the human race. I have also told you where to look for more detailed explanations as to why that might happen (call it 'argument by authority' if you like, but I have no intention of producing potted versions of all of them which you can easily Google up yourself - start with Hobbes and Rousseau). Going back some, Zafran suggested an alternative that a convinced metaphysician such as yourself might find rather more attractive in Kant's catagorical imperative.. something else you can look up for yourself should you have a genuine interest in finding an answer to your question.

[Removed personal attacks]

[AntiKarateKid]

I already have answered it, or at least I have in relation to relevant scenarios that don't include unjustifiable provisos that are, in fact, contrary to your whole thesis. Assuming you haven't had another sudden revelation that that thesis is completely different to what you first said it was, that is. The reason is that such conduct is contrary to a moral code that can, and indeed did 'evolve' without the intervention of God or gods because it was, in general terms (there will always be exceptions) beneficial to most members of the human race. I have also told you where to look for more detailed explanations as to why that might happen (call it 'argument by authority' if you like, but I have no intention of producing potted versions of all of them which you can easily Google up yourself - start with Hobbes and Rousseau). Going back some, Zafran suggested an alternative that a convinced metaphysician such as yourself might find rather more attractive in Kant's catagorical imperative.. something else you can look up for yourself should you have a genuine interest in finding an answer to your question.

I responded to everything you posted. Moreover, to many people in the scenario I put forth to you, thinking about "the benefit to the entire race" is hardly the first thought that pops into a person's mind when deciding whether to steal something relatively trivial without negatively impacting the "entire human race". Moreover, your reasons are very superficial because every reason you give me comes back into something that may eventually benefit the person in question which is ridiculous in a scenario testing selfishness.

[Removed personal attacks]

[Abdul Fattah]

Bro, WHY should one be altruistic? Stating WHAT the act is, is not a reason to commit the act. It is equally valid for me to be stingy as it is charitable.

Selam aleykum
How about being altruistic for the sake of altruism. Why do you need a reason? Why can't you just accept that people choose to be altruistic because they consider it the right thing to do? I remember even back when I was an atheist that I did acts of altruism even when I thought there was absolutely no benefit in it for me. Not all people act only on egoistic motives. For some people altruism in itself can be the motive. Especially people with ASD have a high tendency towards this. And if you can't understand people acting altruistic only for the sake of of it, well no offence, but then I pity you.

On another note, I could just as well reflect the argument, why would people act selfish? Of course you can say, because it benefits them, and then I could say, well that is what selfish means, merely stating the characteristics of selfish acts doesn't explain why people do them. Catch my drift?

[AntiKarateKid]

Me personally? Would I act differently if there was no God, or, I believed there was no God? Not in the least.

There was a period of years when I believed that there was no God.

During that time, I was still as ethical in my behaviour as I am now. And I believe that all people are born good.

I believe one's ethics should come from one's inner being, not from some promise of reward or threat of punishment.

That seems very subjective. What if one's inner being told them to be more crass and insulting? Also, it is obvious that being atheist doesn't automatically make you devolve into a barbarian. Your upbringing plays a major part. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about taking the idea of no reward/punishment/guarantee of good beating evil/no set good and evil to their logical extremes.

[Abdul Fattah]

That seems very subjective. What if one's inner being told them to be more crass and insulting? Also, it is obvious that being atheist doesn't automatically make you devolve into a barbarian. Your upbringing plays a major part. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about taking the idea of no reward/punishment/guarantee of good beating evil/no set good and evil to their logical extremes.

I can't speak in Sarada's place, but I think you missed her point. I think she didn't meant to say that we should determine good and evil based on our urges, but instead I think she meant that true good acts aren't merely because of reward, but out of ideology.
Example, two kids, one is nice to the other because he considered it a good thing to do, the other is nice only because he knows he'll get a cookie from his parents then. Which of those two would you consider the "nicest" kid?

[Pygoscelis]

Listen. Let's get down to realistic scenarios, not stealing my neighbors wife (whom I dont find very attractive anyhow LOL). In my scenario above, what reason would I have not to steal? Just answer it.

I think you can answer your own question. There are plenty of us out in the world that do not believe in Gods, yet do we constantly steal and rape and stuff? No. Why not? Answer your own question. It should be obvious.

And if absent God you would seriously go cheating on your spouse (or with a woman on her spouse) and steal TVs.... then I'm very glad you have religion. But... I really don't think you'd be like that. You have a moral compass absent God. You just don't see it.

[Pygoscelis]

On another note, I see you starting to froth at the mouth again here so I'll be blunt before you start on your traditional freakout. Either respond in a civilized, non condescending or insulting manner, or stop barking and keep your thoughts to yourself. They won't be missed. Had I been a lesser man and we had been talking over the kitchen table, you would have gotten it flipped over on you for being such a ****. Fill that in yourself and leave the thread.

This is classic. AKK starts a thread declaring that atheists must be less moral than theists, and then complains about atheists "insulting" him when they refute this. Then he goes on to bark out various personal attacks and then accuses the atheists of "frothing at the mouth and speaking in a condescending manner". I sometimes wonder if he is serious or a parody. Doesn't Islam have the golden rule, as most religions do? Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you? If AKK wants to be treated with respect perhaps he should consider showing some to others.

Actually, this display by AKK is right on topic. AKK, Isn't your whole thesis here that your God makes you more moral than us kafir? You're defeating your own claim by the manner in which you are posting.

[Trumble]

Moreover, to many people in the scenario I put forth to you, thinking about "the benefit to the entire race" is hardly the first thought that pops into a person's mind when deciding whether to steal something relatively trivial without negatively impacting the "entire human race".

For the benefit of other members who may have been following these posts, of course it isn't; that ridiculous strawman has nothing to do with what I said. It is because of that mutual benefit that a moral code comes into being. Once it is there people generally obey it without conciously thinking about it before every action they take, just as you don't fret about the possible consequences to your immortal soul of stealing a bag of jelly beans each time you walk into the candy store.

You will forgive me if I treat the rest of your last with the contempt it deserves.

[Pygoscelis]

Example, two kids, one is nice to the other because he considered it a good thing to do, the other is nice only because he knows he'll get a cookie from his parents then. Which of those two would you consider the "nicest" kid?

Good point. And if you only do good out of fear of hell and promise of heaven, are you really good?

[HopeFul]

Assalamoalaikum,

I think this is useless, it is stupid to say we would be nice if Allah wasn't there to punish or reward us.

Our whole idea of good and bad has stemmed from the the existance of religion right from the time of Adam.

We cannot say that atheists do not believe in a god and are still good because they have personal "moral" values. Saying that makes it sound like a good and organised world/society is possible in the absence of a God, which is not true. We can not even think what it would be if there was no religion.Where did people learn their moral values from? From religion which means taught by Allah. There has ALWAYS been a religion. The world is a good place because of everyone belonging to Allah and good people continously trying to please their Creator in their own way. Everyone has good and bad qualities and the bad ones come from actually listening to self which the quraan says is the lower self I think Nafs Al Ammara ( JazakAllah for correcting me muahaba).

It always whispers bad things, if religion wasnt there we wouldnt know we shouldnt listen to it but instead follow Allah.

As for the person who said that he would still be good because his family drummed ethics into him, I ask him on WHAT basis did his parents do that? personal doctrine? Self made morals?I doubt it. Of course they are all based on religion. If religion and presence of Allah weren't a fact, there would be nothing else either.

Relgion is TOO present in todays world, atheists although do not believe in Allah, yet they have been seeing theists since forever. If they are calm, good, morally correct, they have taken/learnt good attributes from theists. Since there has never been "no" religion one cannot claim to say they didnt learn it from religious people.

I may be a pessimistic person, but I don't think this is right to discuss... Allah is present and we are nothing without Him and we wouldnt know how to live because only a Creator can guide us...

[Muhaba]

It's true that most people do good /refrain from wrongdoing because of some outside force, either fear of God or fear of the law or fear of getting a bad reputation or fear of losing the job, etc. If this weren't true, then their wouldn't be so many cases of dishonesty and fraud. Just think of the enron case (and other accounting scandels). Because of fraud so many people lost their life savings. So while people might not commit crimes such as rape or murder if they don't believe in God or the Hereafter, most such people will do fraud/dishonesty if they think they won't get caught.

[Pygoscelis]

To those here who believe that religion is the sole source of ethics and good behaviour, I ask you why are atheists under-represented and not over-represented in prison for theft, murder, etc? The prisons should be overflowing with atheists if your claim was true and yet the reverse is actually the case (though its not strong enough in the other direction to lead me to make any claim that atheists are morally superior).

[AntiKarateKid]

Selam aleykum
How about being altruistic for the sake of altruism. Why do you need a reason? Why can't you just accept that people choose to be altruistic because they consider it the right thing to do? I remember even back when I was an atheist that I did acts of altruism even when I thought there was absolutely no benefit in it for me. Not all people act only on egoistic motives. For some people altruism in itself can be the motive. Especially people with ASD have a high tendency towards this. And if you can't understand people acting altruistic only for the sake of of it, well no offence, but then I pity you.

On another note, I could just as well reflect the argument, why would people act selfish? Of course you can say, because it benefits them, and then I could say, well that is what selfish means, merely stating the characteristics of selfish acts doesn't explain why people do them. Catch my drift?

There is no such thing as altruism. There is always something in it for you. Whether it be even the satisfaction of considering yourself altruistic. It doesn't exist. I am speaking theoretically and if you can't tolerate a person questioning the true meaning behind actions without trying to derive opinions about them as a person, then I pity you, brother. Everything has a reason even if you don't consciously acknowledge it.

As for your reflection, I am sure you could make your own thread about that if you wish. The reactions I have recieved from the theists here indicate that to one degree or another, they would allow themselves to decline morally (though obviously not to the extent of murdering their neighbors). If they say that their upringing or culture would prevent them from declining, then it has to be asked, why obey those things anyways? I certainly catch your drift and if you would like you can make a thread on it or PM me and I'm happy to talk while I procrastinate here.

I have to say, I enjoyed reading your posts on this board but am disappointed by your frankly nonsense claim about me and your "pity" statement.

[جوري]

are there any atheist grave yards? to say there are no atheists in prison is ludicrous.. people who commit heinous crimes aren't exactly God conscious.. they don't put atheist on their certificates when off to prison any more than atheists request to be buried in atheist grave yards, I don't believe any exist..of course I could be wrong...

[AntiKarateKid]

To those here who believe that religion is the sole source of ethics and good behaviour, I ask you why are atheists under-represented and not over-represented in prison for theft, murder, etc? The prisons should be overflowing with atheists if your claim was true and yet the reverse is actually the case (though its not strong enough in the other direction to lead me to make any claim that atheists are morally superior).

Sister Skye's post brought my attention to this one that I overlooked.

Pygo, your statement would carry weight if there were an equal number of atheists and theists. Then if more theists went to jail, you may of had a point. Moreover, you have to consider the mentality of people in jail. They often look for a way out, to uplift themselves and start over and thats why many start converting to different religions or finding a new one.

Heres something I found.

According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching).

Theres more but... its late here.

[Pygoscelis]

I said under-represented, which accounts for the smaller number in the general population. I also made no claim that there are no atheists in prison. Just to clear up some straw men.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

There is no such thing as altruism. There is always something in it for you.

I couldn't disagree more.
First of all, if an action has multiple motives, and among those motives are both altruistic motives as well as personal benefit, then that act is still altruistic. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.
Secondly, if from those motives, the main motive is altruism, then surely I would judge such an act as mainly altruistic despite of whatever benefit it might bring one personally.
Thirdly, each action should be judged by its intentions, so even if an act has some personal benefit, but the person was not aware of that, then his motives were purely altruistic.
Then fourthly, I even disagree with the statement that "there's always something in it for you". Like I said, back when I was an atheist I would do purely altruistic deeds, even when I was convinced that there was absolutely no benefit in it for me.

Whether it be even the satisfaction of considering yourself altruistic. It doesn't exist. I am speaking theoretically and if you can't tolerate a person questioning the true meaning behind actions without trying to derive opinions about them as a person, then I pity you, brother.

I don't pity you because I cannot tolerate a person questioning this. In fact I can tolerate that quite easily. The only reason I said I would pity you in such a case, was because such a statement is most likely to be a projection of one self. All to often, when people try to figure out how people's mind work, they assume that everybody's mind works the same (at least the general lines). That is wrong. There can be huge differences. Like I said, people with ASD for example, have a high tendency to do altruistic acts merely out of ideology. This is just one example, my point is not everybody thinks and acts the same. And If you think that altruism doesn't exist, then I suspect that you think this because you are unable to do altruistic acts, and hence I pity you because of your lack to do so. Sorry if this offended you, I didn't meant this in a condescending or belittling way.

Everything has a reason even if you don't consciously acknowledge it.

Of course, but not every reason is necesairly selfish.

As for your reflection, I am sure you could make your own thread about that if you wish. The reactions I have recieved from the theists here indicate that to one degree or another, they would allow themselves to decline morally (though obviously not to the extent of murdering their neighbors). If they say that their upringing or culture would prevent them from declining, then it has to be asked, why obey those things anyways?

I was among one of those who admitted that my moral would decline, (in the lines of perhaps picking up old habits like smoking and drinking). However I also mentioned that I would probably remain altruistic, just like I was altruistic back when I was an atheist. The reason I would do so however, was not because altruism isn't sufficient to stop me from these habits, but rather because from an atheistic p.o.v. the evil-ness of such addictions is relative and thus from an atheistic p.o.v. the difficulty in abstaining from worldly pleasures would greatly outweigh the benefits for the greater good.

[barrio79]

Good point. And if you only do good out of fear of hell and promise of heaven, are you really good?

Pygoscelis has a good point would not we all behave in a moral manner if we were brought up in a moral and kind environment

[Azy]

You already admitted that you would steal in that other thread.

Yeah definitely but I think there's a difference between keeping some cash I found in the street and the collapse of civilisation.

[crayon]

I completely disagree with you. I'm with brother Abdul Fattah on this one; people can be good simply for the sake of being good. When I do something good, I don't always think about getting a reward for it. When I give an old lady my seat on the bus, or help someone carry their groceries, I'm not always doing it for the hasanat, I'm doing it to be a good person. I believe humans are innately good, that they are altruistic, even for no reward.

But like brother Abdul said, there is a distinction to be made between forbidden things in Islam and morally reprehensible acts. One is not necessarily the other. Some things in Islam are not forbidden because they are morally wrong, but because they are harmful in other ways. So, for example, smoking cigarettes is not the same as murder. To put it in another way; Is it morally wrong to eat pork? Does that question even make sense?

Oh, also.. Children are born with fitra. From wiki:

Fitra is an Arabic word meaning 'innate human nature'. However, other common translations include "primordial nature" and "innate disposition".
According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate knowledge of tawhid, which is encapsulated in the fitra along with intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody what it is to be human.

So, hypothetically, even if there were no God, since we are humans by definition, we would still have this fitra, this innate tendency to be good.

[Brasco]

I completely disagree with you. I'm with brother Abdul Fattah on this one; people can be good simply for the sake of being good. When I do something good, I don't always think about getting a reward for it. When I give an old lady my seat on the bus, or help someone carry their groceries, I'm not always doing it for the hasanat, I'm doing it to be a good person. I believe humans are innately good, that they are altruistic, even for no reward.

This is also exactly what I think. I know a couple of people who are atheists but they're really good in their behaviour. :)

[Uthman]

I probably would behave less morally but there is a difference between that and complete immorality. Certainly, I would pay less attention to the finer details of morality and there would probably be more times when my self interest came before those of my fellow human beings.

Islam came and it perfected morality and good manners and almost makes it an art. This becomes clear from reading such works as Imaam Al-Bukhaari's Al Adab al Mufrad.

To add to what I said above, I think a case in point would be the way that I behave here on the forum. There are times when I feel the urge to lash out at certain members who speak very offensively about Islam and/or Muslims. My belief in Islam is what restrains me from doing so as I am reminded of the example of Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him).

Aside from that, I would probably backbite a lot more and be less obedient and dutiful towards my parents. Interestingly, I don't behave in this way primarily due to fear of punishment (although perhaps I should). I tend to do it out of love for the teachings themselves.

[AntiKarateKid]

Yeah definitely but I think there's a difference between keeping some cash I found in the street and the collapse of civilisation.

Name where I said civilization would collapse.

[AntiKarateKid]

Selam aleykum

I couldn't disagree more.
First of all, if an action has multiple motives, and among those motives are both altruistic motives as well as personal benefit, then that act is still altruistic. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.
Secondly, if from those motives, the main motive is altruism, then surely I would judge such an act as mainly altruistic despite of whatever benefit it might bring one personally.
Thirdly, each action should be judged by its intentions, so even if an act has some personal benefit, but the person was not aware of that, then his motives were purely altruistic.
Then fourthly, I even disagree with the statement that "there's always something in it for you". Like I said, back when I was an atheist I would do purely altruistic deeds, even when I was convinced that there was absolutely no benefit in it for me.

Brother, you contradict yourself in the beginning of your post. Altruism, when defined as doing something for someone else without gaining anything for yourself, is incompatible with your example. If a action has multiple motives and ANY of them have to do with the person in question benefiting, it is not altruism. No matter how many motives, they are part of the same action. Like I said before, I disagree with your claim that people can do good deeds or even any action without subconscious or conscious thought. If a hunter says he ran from a lion without even thinking about it, it is because of the conditioning that he recieved in his life. The same applies to the acts you mentioned. Your upbringing conditioned you to make those judgements. Moreover, it is impossible for a complex action like giveing up a seat on the bus, to take place in the mind "without thinking".

I don't pity you because I cannot tolerate a person questioning this. In fact I can tolerate that quite easily. The only reason I said I would pity you in such a case, was because such a statement is most likely to be a projection of one self. All to often, when people try to figure out how people's mind work, they assume that everybody's mind works the same (at least the general lines). That is wrong. There can be huge differences. Like I said, people with ASD for example, have a high tendency to do altruistic acts merely out of ideology. This is just one example, my point is not everybody thinks and acts the same. And If you think that altruism doesn't exist, then I suspect that you think this because you are unable to do altruistic acts, and hence I pity you because of your lack to do so. Sorry if this offended you, I didn't meant this in a condescending or belittling way.

First, altruism doesn't even exist in Islam. We do acts for Allah's sake because we are rewarded for our intentions. Do you think that a man who does something "without thinking" would be as valued in Allahs eyes as someone who thought and acted? I hold humanity in high regard because Allah has created us to think. And to say that a person can commit higher and more complex actions "without thinking" is a biological, psychological, and spiritual impossibility. You'll forgive me if I dismiss you're psychoanalysis as silly.

Of course, but not every reason is necesairly selfish.

Even in Islam our actions come back to ourselves. Allah has told us that we are guided for our own benefit and misguided for our own detriment. We don't become good by disregarding our "selfish" motives but rather fusing such things as your neighbor's happiness as a necessary part of your own.

I was among one of those who admitted that my moral would decline, (in the lines of perhaps picking up old habits like smoking and drinking). However I also mentioned that I would probably remain altruistic, just like I was altruistic back when I was an atheist. The reason I would do so however, was not because altruism isn't sufficient to stop me from these habits, but rather because from an atheistic p.o.v. the evil-ness of such addictions is relative and thus from an atheistic p.o.v. the difficulty in abstaining from worldly pleasures would greatly outweigh the benefits for the greater good.

Aside from your claims of altruism which I totally deny. I agree with you saying that we would suffer a moral decline.

Salam bro. Let's leave your pity and my thoughts about you being naive out of this. It's an interesting talk.

[Abdul Fattah]

Brother, you contradict yourself in the beginning of your post. Altruism, when defined as doing something for someone else without gaining anything for yourself, is incompatible with your example.

Well I had a different definition in mind when posting this. After google-ing it, it seems your definition is indeed more correct. So although I admit I might have used incorrect terminology to defend my position, I think my arguments still stand:
1) Some people do Good things, mainly because of their ideology, and not due to their personal benefit.
2) Even if there is personal benefit in such an act, it can still be that the interest in other's well-being is the main drive.
3) Actions should be judged by intentions
4) I still hold that people are capable of acts which serve no personal benefit.

Like I said before, I disagree with your claim that people can do good deeds or even any action without subconscious or conscious thought.

I didn't claim that these actions are without subconscious or conscious thought. Instead what I argued was that there are actions with no personal agenda.

First, altruism doesn't even exist in Islam.

I disagree: None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself.

We do acts for Allah's sake because we are rewarded for our intentions. Do you think that a man who does something "without thinking" would be as valued in Allahs eyes as someone who thought and acted?

Again, I never said anything about acts without thinking.

Of course, but not every reason is necesairly selfish.

Even in Islam our actions come back to ourselves. Allah has told us that we are guided for our own benefit and misguided for our own detriment. We don't become good by disregarding our "selfish" motives but rather fusing such things as your neighbor's happiness as a necessary part of your own.

I don't see how your reply answers my argument.

Aside from your claims of altruism which I totally deny. I agree with you saying that we would suffer a moral decline.

Well I'm pretty sure that I have done acts which were completely selfless and which I didn't like doing, but I did merely out of altruistic motives. If you don't want to believe me, well that's your choice, and quite frankly, I can't be bothered with convincing you what my personal motives of my past actions have been.

[Azy]

Name where I said civilization would collapse.

Never said you did. Just that you seemed to be insinuating that me being a serial killer isn't unreasonable given that I'd keep some money I found. I might be totally amoral but I'm not stupid.

It does seem that the theists believe civilisation would be much more difficult to maintain if there was no God.

Other than the "well being of society" which is a very ambiguous term, I see no reason not to be less moral. I really don't even have to give a hoot about others.

I'm not even a percent of earth life; less so than in this solar system; even less in this galaxy...what does it matter if I play by the rules or not?

There's plenty of good reasons to be moral without a God, like not having to look over your shoulder 24/7 because you annoyed/injured/stole from everyone. I take it you still feel pain and don't really want to die?

[AntiKarateKid]

Well I had a different definition in mind when posting this. After google-ing it, it seems your definition is indeed more correct. So although I admit I might have used incorrect terminology to defend my position, I think my arguments still stand:
1) Some people do Good things, mainly because of their ideology, and not due to their personal benefit.
2) Even if there is personal benefit in such an act, it can still be that the interest in other's well-being is the main drive.
3) Actions should be judged by intentions
4) I still hold that people are capable of acts which serve no personal benefit.

1. Every action a person does is influenced by their beliefs in one way or another. Or else why would we even bother doing them? Things don't happen spontaneously, they happen with reason, subtle or overt.

2. But that begs the question, what inspired the drive to have interest in the other's well being.

3. They are indeed. Intentions are influenced by one's beliefs. And why does one subscribe to a belief? Because it will benefit them in one way or another.
Truth always benefits those who realize it.

4. I think I might know why you disagree.It is not wrong to expect a reward for a "good" action. What matters is what you expect. We, as Muslims, are able to be better people because we are not compromised by the expectation of a reward in this life. We do an act because Allah, who is free of bias, has commanded us to and we are not affected if say, a good action turns out to make the recipient unhappy, because it doesn't depend on their response to be good. Moreover, Allah himself has legislated that our selflessness be rewarded. So why do you oppose us benefiting?

Is there any Reward for Good - other than Good? (Quran)

I didn't claim that these actions are without subconscious or conscious thought. Instead what I argued was that there are actions with no personal agenda.

Then if there was thought, why do you think that thought was there? We don't keep harmful impulses in us, ready to be loosed. Instead an action such as giving up one's seat can have motives such as being able to say that "you did it for the sake of doing it" or something physical or something psychological or spiritual.

I disagree: None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself.

I agree.

Again, I never said anything about acts without thinking.

Ok so if there was thought then what was the motive that caused the thought?

I don't see how your reply answers my argument.

Neither do I LOL.

Well I'm pretty sure that I have done acts which were completely selfless and which I didn't like doing, but I did merely out of altruistic motives. If you don't want to believe me, well that's your choice, and quite frankly, I can't be bothered with convincing you what my personal motives of my past actions have been.

To be clear, I wasn't passing judgment on your personal motives. I denied your position on altruism existing. I have no doubt that you're an upstanding Muslim.

Salam.

[alcurad]

brother AntiKarateKid, all actions are based on 'unconscious' processes to begin with, consciousness is over rated. we can alter our behavior, but even that is constrained.

morals are a product of humans forming societies and what followed, without them, no society functions properly. they don't need a certain model of God, but they do require A god.
religion embodies the wisdom of the many lessons of the past, since such information is not easily held/transmitted, it takes the shape of religion hence morals are incorporated in it alongside with deities.
without religion/god there would be no well-functioning society on the long run, it's what made civilization possible in the first place.

"Do you think that a man who does something "without thinking" would be as valued in Allah's eyes as someone who thought and acted?"

what do you base that assumption on though? we don't know how the creator 'values' us to this extent, no?
also, if you 'act without thinking' it's simply that you had already 'thought' of the situation, it just didn't pass through consciousness this time, it was already ingrained, but nonetheless it Was based on conscious decisions earlier, thus God rewarding such actions or not is not so clear cut.

"And to say that a person can commit higher and more complex actions "without thinking" is a biological, psychological, and spiritual impossibility."
a wide stroke of the brush, needs much backing.

good discussion :), keep it up.

[barrio79]

There is no such thing as altruism. There is always something in it for you. Whether it be even the satisfaction of considering yourself altruistic. It doesn't exist. I am speaking theoretically and if you can't tolerate a person questioning the true meaning behind actions without trying to derive opinions about them as a person, then I pity you, brother. Everything has a reason even if you don't consciously acknowledge it.

As for your reflection, I am sure you could make your own thread about that if you wish. The reactions I have recieved from the theists here indicate that to one degree or another, they would allow themselves to decline morally (though obviously not to the extent of murdering their neighbors). If they say that their upringing or culture would prevent them from declining, then it has to be asked, why obey those things anyways? I certainly catch your drift and if you would like you can make a thread on it or PM me and I'm happy to talk while I procrastinate here.

I have to say, I enjoyed reading your posts on this board but am disappointed by your frankly nonsense claim about me and your "pity" statement.

"There is no such thing as altruism. " There is such a thing as altruism its just that not everyone comes in contact with it or experiences it if they do not live in a community where it can flourish

[AntiKarateKid]

Bro Abdul Fattah and Alcurad make good points so I'm going to have to think about think a bit more later, perhaps make a thread in the Aqeeda section about altruism and Islam. I need to make sure what I'm saying has basis in Islam before getting into an extended discussion.

But until then, my original question has been answered. The theists here do believe that they would morally decline. S

So a mod is free to close this thread if they wish.

[barrio79]

before you close : remember that new born children are born innocent, as pure as the driven snow ; ie. without sin

[AntiKarateKid]

before you close : remember that new born children are born innocent, as pure as the driven snow ; ie. without sin

That is part of Islam. There is no original sin. Allah forgave Adam, who repented.

[Muhaba]

I already have answered it, or at least I have in relation to relevant scenarios that don't include unjustifiable provisos that are, in fact, contrary to your whole thesis. Assuming you haven't had another sudden revelation that that thesis is completely different to what you first said it was, that is. The reason is that such conduct is contrary to a moral code that can, and indeed did 'evolve' without the intervention of God or gods because it was, in general terms (there will always be exceptions) beneficial to most members of the human race. I have also told you where to look for more detailed explanations as to why that might happen (call it 'argument by authority' if you like, but I have no intention of producing potted versions of all of them which you can easily Google up yourself - start with Hobbes and Rousseau). Going back some, Zafran suggested an alternative that a convinced metaphysician such as yourself might find rather more attractive in Kant's catagorical imperative.. something else you can look up for yourself should you have a genuine interest in finding an answer to your question.

[Removed personal attacks]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

Hobbes argued that the best possible state would be exceptionally strong, its laws pervasive, and its justice stern. Otherwise, because humans are greedy and selfish, disorder would represent a constant threat. In Hobbes's ideal world, an all-powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand" repesents the state. Introduction to Political Science

[AntiKarateKid]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

Hobbes argued that the best possible state would be exceptionally strong, its laws pervasive, and its justice stern. Otherwise, because humans are greedy and selfish, disorder would represent a constant threat. In Hobbes's ideal world, an all-powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand" repesents the state. Introduction to Political Science

Now, I never said humans were greedy. All I am saying is that our actions have a base in helping ourselves but humans have fitrah and are also inclined towards virtue.

[Trumble]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

In Leviathan, Hobbes famously claims that in a 'state of nature', our lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' (XIII,9), a 'war of all against all'. He originated the inevitable dog-eat-dog scenario I explained to AntiKarateKid.

Hobbes then goes on to explain that while "everything and anything permitted" is a fundamental natural right (XIV,1), it is ultimately self-defeating for us to follow it. He sets out a set of 'natural laws', that can be derived purely by reason that demonstrate why we should accept certain moral obligations, a 'good' that is 'in accordance to our nature' (1). In other words, it makes sense for us to be moral providing everybody else does the same. The second of those laws, incidently, is

whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them (XIV,5)

which should sound very familiar!

That big problem is that, in the state of nature, there is no way in which we can be assured that others will do the same... indeed, it is pretty inevitable that they won't. The solution is the State; in Hobbes' case the Sovereign you describe, but any modern nation state provides the necessary judicial and executive functions (2). The one thing we do have to agree to is that there should be one, once there IS, matters take care of themselves. But it is not God that creates the state, it is people on the basis of reason, which is the whole point of my argument.

(1) In fairness Hobbes, rather grudgingly, assigns this 'nature' to God, although he has no need to do so - his conclusions can be justified purely on reasoning from the 'state of nature' as a premise. Rousseau, who ends up somewhere similar (although with rather more faith in human nature) had rather less of a need to defend himself against 'atheism' charges!

(2) Hobbes' particularly severe version of the type of government necessary - he was certainly no democrat - is generally regarded as being far more the result of his own experience of the consequences of the English Civil War than a necessary consequence of his philosophy.

[Muhaba]

^ Hobbes didn't derive his laws purely by reason. he got much from the bible. even the name Leviathan comes from the bible, the Book of Job.

[Woodrow]

Without some type of moral code I doubt that humans could survive as social creatures. So on that assumption I believe that the theists of today would still behave morally, but the moral conduct would be that which is accepted and directed by society and change from group to group. Morality would be that which helps the group, not that which serves a higher calling.

I believe I would still be a "moral" person, but my concepts of morality would most likely change and I would probably accept some things I now avoid.

[Trumble]

^ Hobbes didn't derive his laws purely by reason. he got much from the bible. even the name Leviathan comes from the bible, the Book of Job.

A law of nature is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. (XIV, 3)

He actually presents them as the reasoned smart thing to do, as independent moral obligations (vaguely Kantian, in a way), and as divine commandments, although all three end up pretty much in the same place. I'd certainly dispute his argument (ultimately, why people will agree to the State) depends on invoking God at any point, but I would be interested to consider any references you provide that might suggest otherwise. Remember, he frequently argues for the same thing in several ways.

[Rabi'ya]

:sl:

I held this conversation with my mum who's anti-religion. IT was interesting and actually what she says in a lot of ways tie with my ideas too.

Morals are not neceassrily taught from religion however, how we interact with each other and behave as social creatures come from our own morals. However, I personally feel that this is derived from religion from time ago.

This was an excellent topic in order to get my mum discussion religion so thanks for raising the thread :)

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed, and keep in mind that religion, being obedience based, can trigger immoral behaviour just as easily as it can trigger moral behaviour. If the religious follow or obey the holy book or prophet of relgion X or what they think the God wants, that opens the door for pretty much anything they want.

This can include hatred or intolerance or even attacks on innocent people (ie, witch hunts), genital mutilation, abuse of women (or men if a religion were to say it), etc.

And when you get down to it most religious people do not follow their books or dogma in its entirety. They pick and choose the parts that agree with their already existing moral compass and "interpret" the dogma or scripture accordingly.

[alcurad]

^ditto, good point on people following malformed version of religion, though, the reason why God is so central and necessary is that once you take his words to be absolute, then you'll stick to them no matter what, or more accurately strive to, which is the best way there is to implement effective controls/morals, the problem then would simply be what religion to follow/allow, not 'obedience' per se.

obedience is necessary, I don't believe that needs backing, but the idea that you could do away with god and keep morals for long stands on shaky grounds at best.

also it's not that atheists don't have morals etc, rather that the atheist deities are different-this isn't an oxymoron, there is no human who does not believe in absolutes-, thus inspire different preferred behavior and so on.

so the question should first be, what is God/Deity so that we can imagine him not being there? I don't mean the dictionary definition although it is useful.

[Gubbleknucker]

Many thanks to all here for proving my point for me :D

[- IqRa -]

Erm what is the point of this thread? This is like saying "If alcohol wasnt forbidden, would you drink it"? It s a silly question, people would drink it because it is "satisfying" and causes you to go into a stupor so you dont have to think about anything.

[Gubbleknucker]

Erm what is the point of this thread? This is like saying "If alcohol wasnt forbidden, would you drink it"? It s a silly question, people would drink it because it is "satisfying" and causes you to go into a stupor so you dont have to think about anything.

Uh, thanks for refuting my point after all the early posters confirmed it.:bump1:

I actually handle my liquor well, to address your flawed analogy. I've never actually been drunk.

[Azy]

I'm not religious and I don't drink at all.

[Gubbleknucker]

OK, but I don't see anything wrong with the occasional glass of wine at dinner.

Every human owns their own body. It would be a violation of rights to tell them what to do with that body.

In fact, small amounts of red wine are beneficial to health.

I probably average about 1 bottle per year.

[- Qatada -]

OK, but I don't see anything wrong with the occasional glass of wine at dinner.

Every human owns their own body. It would be a violation of rights to tell them what to do with that body.

In fact, small amounts of red wine are beneficial to health.

I probably average about 1 bottle per year.

Did you produce your own body? Did your parents create their own sperm and ova?

Allah gives you guidance on what you should do for your own good. The guidance is for our benefit, it doesn't harm or benefit God in the least.


If you say wine has some benefits to health, then the One who made you already said this;

"They ask you concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is great sin, and some benefit for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.'" (Quran 2:219)

Allah knows what harms and benefits there are in His creation, but He knows what's better for us too.

[AntiKarateKid]

Whatever benefit there is for drinking wine, you could easily get from other sources.

It's like saying "Chocolate has antioxidants, gimme that bar!"

ok... but so do blueberries, pomegranates, and a bunch of other fruits :rollseyes

[Pygoscelis]

Whatever benefit there is for drinking wine, you could easily get from other sources.

It's like saying "Chocolate has antioxidants, gimme that bar!"

ok... but so do blueberries, pomegranates, and a bunch of other fruits :rollseyes

Does Islam forbid chocolate? What a horrific thing that'd be lol

[Gubbleknucker]

Ok, therein lies the difference in our morality:

I believe we have rights to our own lives and all our possessions, and base all my dealings with people on this principle.

You believe we are all just pawns of a supernatural entity.

BTW, what is wrong with chocolate? I had a handful of M&Ms just this morning.

[AntiKarateKid]

Does Islam forbid chocolate? What a horrific thing that'd be lol

Chocolate doesn't addle your brain or alter your consciousness. It is far easier with alcohol as seen by the drunk driving deaths, drunk sex/rape, and other things like liver failure and death/passing out from consuming too much. But an excess of chocolate is bad too, of course.

[AntiKarateKid]

Ok, therein lies the difference in our morality:

I believe we have rights to our own lives and all our possessions, and base all my dealings with people on this principle.

You believe we are all just pawns of a supernatural entity.

BTW, what is wrong with chocolate? I had a handful of M&Ms just this morning.

I think you should reevaluate your theory.

1. We do have rights to our own lives and possession. That is why you are able to choose to be a non-Muslim. But it doesn't change the consequence of becoming so. A person has the ability to do whatever they want in the classroom, but if you DO choose to break the rules, you will get punished. Your problem is that you are not separating choice from consequence and you see any consequence from Allah as limiting your choice when in reality every action has a consequence, but that doesn't mean it limits your choice.

2. Really? Pawns of a supernatural entity? Stop flattering yourself as if we are mindless automotons. You demonstrate that you have no grasp on religion other than what your atheist bias tells you. You choose to answer to your own desires. I choose to answer to Allah.

By the way it would help if you actually understood the words you were using.

Pawn: A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another

Last time I checked, Allah doesn't need us, we need him so your "pawn" comment is nonsense.

3. Nothing is wrong with chocolate in moderation. But alcohol, is far far easier to abuse and dangerous (it toxic to your liver for pete's sake) and is better avoided than indulged in any way. Your body treats it like a poison for crying out loud.

[Gubbleknucker]

2. Really? Pawns of a supernatural entity? Stop flattering yourself as if we are mindless automotons. You demonstrate that you have no grasp on religion other than what your atheist bias tells you. You choose to answer to your own desires. I choose to answer to Allah.

By the way it would help if you actually understood the words you were using.

Pawn: A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another

Last time I checked, Allah doesn't need us, we need him so your "pawn" comment is nonsense.

I apologize.

I should have used the word "puppet."

Sidenote-question-thing: Do any Muslims believe in predestination?
If Allah is omnipotent he is clearly also omniscient. This means he knows our futures.

[Zafran]

I apologize.

I should have used the word "puppet."

Sidenote-question-thing: Do any Muslims believe in predestination?
If Allah is omnipotent he is clearly also omniscient. This means he knows our futures.

atleast we're not slaves to our desires -. Furthermore we believe in Allah swt knows everything - including the future.

[AntiKarateKid]

I apologize.

I should have used the word "puppet."

Sidenote-question-thing: Do any Muslims believe in predestination?
If Allah is omnipotent he is clearly also omniscient. This means he knows our futures.

Puppet: One whose behavior is determined by the will of others

Try again. There is free will in Islam and there is some predestination. Though I am no expert in this. Moreover, going along with your theoretical world view, if we were puppets, it would extend to you just as much because God doesn't lose control over you just because you don't believe. So I'd reconsider your puppet theory.

Yes He has foreknowledge.

[Gubbleknucker]

atleast we're not slaves to our desires

You have a desire to go to heaven, so you worship Allah.

How is that any different from the way I accomplish any of my goals?

-. Furthermore we believe in Allah swt knows everything - including the future.

So when Allah caused me to come into existence, he knew every choice I would ever make.

Why would Allah make someone who would never believe in him, and then punish him for that lack of belief?

Another aspect: Does Allah know his own future?

[Zafran]

You have a desire to go to heaven, so you worship Allah.

How is that any different from the way I accomplish any of my goals?


So when Allah caused me to come into existence, he knew every choice I would ever make.

Why would Allah make someone who would never believe in him, and then punish him for that lack of belief?

Another aspect: Does Allah know his own future?

1 - I pray to Allah swt because Allah swt is the only thing that is worthy of worship

2 - You choose not to believe in him - its your life - the warnings are clear - like dont go near the fire - if you dont want to listen to it - thats your problem.

3 - God is beyond time.

[AntiKarateKid]

You have a desire to go to heaven, so you worship Allah.

How is that any different from the way I accomplish any of my goals?


So when Allah caused me to come into existence, he knew every choice I would ever make.

Why would Allah make someone who would never believe in him, and then punish him for that lack of belief?

Another aspect: Does Allah know his own future?

Nice try at setting up a moral dilemma.

In Islam we believe that Allah doesn't burden a soul beyond what it can bear and thus gives them every fair chance to redeem themselves. So:

1. You don't know if you will become a Muslim in the future
2. If you desire to not be a Muslim and reject the chances Allah gives you (IE you're on a Muslim forum debating with Muslims who would like to see you accept Islam), you will fail
3. You chose your actions. You were given a fair chance at paradise and failed. Why should He negate your existence rather than give you the chance at paradise you deserve? Justice is justice, even when it works against you.

[Gubbleknucker]

But surely if He is omnipotent He already knows?

Justice is justice:
Indeed it is. The law of identity applies to everything.

But if Allah wants me to believe, He will have to actually do something to prove himself.

[Zafran]

But surely if He is omnipotent He already knows?

Justice is justice:
Indeed it is. The law of identity applies to everything.

But if Allah wants me to believe, He will have to actually do something to prove himself.

God has given you enough warnings and messeges and messengers - Its your own fault if you dont want to listen to them. Surely if you wanted to stay out of the fire you would believe.

[alcurad]

given that he is the one maintaining Our and everything else's existence, time-space is part of his creation, thus he wouldn't be 'moving within' such a construct as far as I can see.

also, future/past/present are extremely relative, actually they don't truly exist as we usually think of them-if we take modern physics seriously. see this for reference.

and Allah has already 'done' a lot of things to enable you to believe in him, rather you are stopping yourself. there is no compulsion in religion, otherwise you'd prefer to be as a rock or drop of water, with no control over yourself?

but then again, humans being part of-mindless/will-less nature, and denying the existence of anything outside of human perception underlie most atheist philosophy.
to note, it doesn't take leaps of faith to believe, rather freedom from bias.

Islam is fundamentally different form all the religions there are, in ways that make most atheist arguments seem almost comical-seeing it like Christianity in the middle ages for one- to understand this however you'll need to give much time and effort.

[Trumble]

Erm what is the point of this thread? This is like saying "If alcohol wasnt forbidden, would you drink it"? It s a silly question, people would drink it because it is "satisfying" and causes you to go into a stupor so you dont have to think about anything.

A great many people (with no wish to 'go into a stupor'!) who are not religious freely choose not to drink for exactly the same reason the Qur'an forbids drinking alcohol, it can be dangerous to your own health and, in excess, sometimes to other people's health.

[MuslimCONVERT]

Typically people are "good" and "honest" with other people because they are cowards. If I am mean to you then you will be mean to me, and if I steal from you you might steal from me, or fight me, or call the cops on me. I personally don't value societal norms just for the sake of arbitrary cultural "rights" and "wrongs" drawn by who I know not. I prefer to be completely honest even at detriment to myself. for example, if I think someone is an idiot, I'd call them an idiot. Not, "Maybe you shouldn't have done that..." but, "You are a complete idiot." -Why? Because it humors me. I have nothing to be humble for, if there is no higher power. I could worship my own intellect, and if someone is smarter than me, then I will find some public way to humiliate and outsmart him... and why not? Because someone who's opinion I value less than a molehill puts a label on me? "Jerk" or "sociopath" or something worse... like I care... I would decide my own morality code and not let other people who could be dumber than me decide it for me and force it upon me... And that in and of itself seems moral to me... to be honest to my own individuality at all costs...

The above is an accurate description of my perception were I not to have embraced Islam. Yet, ironically, were everyone to embrace the above mode of thinking, rational as it may be, it would also assure destruction of the human race over time, and propel society into a complete implosion or breakdown.

Luckily Islam does inform humankind of how weak and frail it really is, and teaches us to be thankful rather than arrogant for the good things Allah [swt] has blessed us with... such as intellect and reasoning capabilities which are better served learning about our Creator, marveling at His creation, and coming up with innovative ways to help our fellow man, rather than lording what we have as though we are it's sole authors over those who aren't as fortunate in that area. -And all this not for the sake of our ego, but for the sake of our Creator, seeking only His pleasure and reward, rather than the pleasure of His creatures, who hold no harm or benefit, either in our life, or afterward.

[- IqRa -]

So when Allah caused me to come into existence, he knew every choice I would ever make.

Yes.

Why would Allah make someone who would never believe in him, and then punish him for that lack of belief?

No, here is where free will comes into it. It's your choice if you will believe or not, but Allah knows whether you will believe or not. Comprehende?

Another aspect: Does Allah know his own future?

Is this a trick question? <_<

[Gubbleknucker]

No, here is where free will comes into it. It's your choice if you will believe or not, but Allah knows whether you will believe or not. Comprehende?

So basically, Allah knew when he created me that I would not believe. He had complete foreknowledge of this and he created me the way I am anyways. He knew every conclusion I would ever reach and every choice I would ever make. He made me what I am.

This means that there can be no punishment, since my consciousness is his fault.

Do you doubt he has this power? Is the creator of the universe actually a little god?
Either he knew what I was going to be or he didn't.

How do you know that the brain does not function like a machine? That it does not give the same response to the same stimulus every time? You can't, because as soon as you did the second test the brain's base of information would have changed. It would learn from the first test and act accordingly during the second, or have different emotions at that time. It is constantly changing.

I'm sure that it is completely predictable to its mighty designer and creator.

Is this a trick question?

Yes, of course. You don't have to answer it. It is quite off-topic.
Let's just say that omnipotence is tricky at best.
__________________________________________________ _________________
MuslimCONVERT:

I don't know anyone that even remotely resembles what you just described.

My best atheist friend is devoting himself to saving the planet. He was recently arrested for obstructing a nuclear missile.
My other atheist friend is a harmless geek. I have never even heard him insult anybody.

And why I should I worship my own intellect? Why would anybody? I am constantly humbled by the discoveries of others that may someday enable me to discover even more, should I so choose.


Can you honestly say you would learn enough about optics out on your own, and without foreknowledge, to build a microscope, and discover that microscopic organisms cause disease?
Would you design the machines that made the industrial revolution possible? Would you then set up a functioning system of capitalism that allowed for free enterprise without exploitation (labor unions) ?

Would you successfully make steel? Perfect the crystalline structure of this steel?
Would you set up any kind of electronic communication?

NO. You would not, could not, and neither could I.

I realize, like Newton, that "If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

Because someone who's opinion I value less than a molehill puts a label on me? "Jerk" or "sociopath" or something worse...

We all care about others. It is natural and normal. We are social animals. Society matters to us. Would you isolate yourself like that? Honestly?

The label of "sociopath" would certainly affect me if it had any base in truth. If it was not true, I would do my best to ignore it.

[Aurora]

I used to believe in God quite strongly. I didn't drink alcohol, didn't eat pork, gave money to charity, respected my parents, dressed conservatively, etc. I don't believe in God anymore, but none of these aspects of what I was like have changed. I'm still pretty much the same person.

[- Qatada -]

So basically, Allah knew when he created me that I would not believe. He had complete foreknowledge of this and he created me the way I am anyways. He knew every conclusion I would ever reach and every choice I would ever make. He made me what I am.

This means that there can be no punishment, since my consciousness is his fault.

The irony is, that science and philosopy explain this concept real well.

There is no such thing as past, present and future. They are only perceptions of the human mind who perceives the universe this way. According to physics, the past, present and future are happening simultaneously, and we only say 'now' and label it as the present, when in reality everything is out of these tenses.


So the basic idea is that you don't know your ending and God hasn't revealed the knowledge of this to you, God gives you the best guidance, and tells you to obey Him - for your own good - and if you don't - then you have been warned of its consequences.

So you can't argue that God knows all things, yet reject the belief that we also have been given the choice to do good.

He has laid down the same religion for you as He enjoined on Noah: that which We have revealed to you and which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus: 'Establish the religion and do not make divisions in it.' What you call the associators to follow is very hard for them. God chooses for Himself whomsoever He wills and guides to Himself those who turn to Him. (Quran ash-Shura: 13)

Do you doubt he has this power? Is the creator of the universe actually a little god?
Either he knew what I was going to be or he didn't.

Do you know your ending? Has God told you your ending?

When you're given a test, you have to prepare for it to pass it and be rewarded. If you don't prepare for it, then you will fail and be punished. That's how it simply goes.



Your other arguments on science and sociology are neutral (don't support ur atheism).

[Gubbleknucker]

The irony is, that science and philosopy explain this concept real well.

There is no such thing as past, present and future. They are only perceptions of the human mind who perceives the universe this way.

I call bs.

You're describing a meaningless abstraction.

What theory uses this concept? Relativity? No. Quantum mechanics? No.

The laws of motion? Certainly not.
Electrophysics? No.

Please tell me. I want to know.

[- Qatada -]

I call bs.

You're describing a meaningless abstraction.

What theory uses this concept? Relativity? No. Quantum mechanics? No.

The laws of motion? Certainly not.
Electrophysics? No.

Please tell me. I want to know.

Tell me, are you living now in the present, or in the future?

[Gubbleknucker]

Tell me, are you living now in the present, or in the future?

By the time you read this, it will have been the past. The ego that wrote this sentence does not exist any more.

My thoughts are focused on the future, which is an abstraction, though it is a useful one if you want to get anything accomplished.

My physical body is in the present.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi
What brother Qatadah refered to; is fourdimensionalism, or the perdurance of matter over time. Although it is a philosophic theory, it is held by most scientists since it can be defended with arguments from both Einstein's relativity as well as the standardized theory.

Basically what Qatadah's argument comes down to, is that if God created the universe, and time is a dimension of said universe, then God created time as well. If God created time it logically follows that God is outside of time. Hence your assumption is false. You assumed that since God's knowledge on your choices precedes your choices, they are no longer free. Since according to causality, the former would affect the latter. However, from a non-linear, non-subjective point of view of time, this causality no longer holds. If God is outside of time, he would perceive past present and future simultaneous.

Another angle to refute this argument from, is simply to point out that knowledge does not necessaryly mean there is causality. In other words, you are ignoring the possibility that God knows the future because he knows what you will choose rather then despite of what you will choose. In other words, your free choice is calculated within the method of knowing the future.

P.S: First person to complete the following sentence: "big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey..." gets reps ^_^

P.P.S: You can check my website for an in depth explanation of fourdimensionalism: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/fourdimensionalism.htm
And for an in depth refutation of the "destiny vs. free will" argument: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm

[Gubbleknucker]

stuff.

Yes, I understand the concept of time as a dimension, but he was saying that time does not exist.

Also, if you look at a being existing outside of time, however incomprehensible (and you're proud of it :D ), then does the law of causality still apply?
You admit no.
So why is a creator required if all this is possible?

[Abdul Fattah]

Simple answer, it is not required, but simply the most probable answer.

[Trumble]

I call bs.

You're describing a meaningless abstraction.

It isn't; as a philosphical concept it is both well described and tremendously influential (and the reason why Kant is often regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time).

I'll leave the science to those who actually know anything about it but following up from Qatada's

There is no such thing as past, present and future. They are only perceptions of the human mind who perceives the universe this way.

the concept has one hugely significant philosophical role; it provides a solution to idealism (the idea there is nothing beyond the mind at all) the case for which was surprisingly strong, indeed terrifyingly so to Kant. The price, though, is a metaphysics that by definition must remain not only unknown but unknowable; as we can only experience things through our own set of filters and constructions rather than as they really are (as far as that phrase has any meaning). Science is as trapped in that framework as anything else, so relativity, quantum mechanics and all the rest of it describe only our experience of that reality, not reality itself. Which may or may not be God. :)

[KAding]

IMHO it to a large part boils down to empathy, which the overwhelming majority of humans have, regardless of their religious beliefs. I think this is a fundamental human characteristic. It hurts us to see someone else hurt. This is an emotional response. This gets augmented by it's more rational cousin, altruism. Altruism is IMHO fueled by ideology and beliefs (whether secular or religious), which tell us it is right to do good and help others. Altruism is not based on a punishment/reward philosophy. Finally, conditioning is also important, this is mostly what Trumble was talking about I think. An implicit moral code will develop, simply because it is the only real way to organize society. And once it is in place, upbringing and social conditioning will make sure many people will follow it.

But what is moral and what is not? I think this is why many religious people might find they would be less moral without a God. It mostly concerns all the hedonistic 'victimless crimes'. Is it immoral if two consenting adults have sex outside of marriage? Is it immoral to drink alcohol? Is it immoral to use drugs? Is it immoral watch pornography? Is it immoral to eat pork? Once we see no obvious harm being done to other, I think atheists will be less likely to qualify something as immoral and 'wrong'. Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

[Abdul Fattah]

But what is moral and what is not? I think this is why many religious people might find they would be less moral without a God. It mostly concerns all the hedonistic 'victimless crimes'. Is it immoral if two consenting adults have sex outside of marriage? Is it immoral to drink alcohol? Is it immoral to use drugs? Is it immoral watch pornography? Is it immoral to eat pork? Once we see no obvious harm being done to other, I think atheists will be less likely to qualify something as immoral and 'wrong'. Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

I would argue that for each of these "victemless crimes", there can be many victims, however, the relation isn't always direct and hence harder to spot, and the damage to the victim isn't always that large.

[Gubbleknucker]

Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

Don't forget, "Offer no risk of harm."

[AntiKarateKid]

Don't forget, "Offer no risk of harm."

No. That would be a lie. Every action has a consequence. Schools don't offer any "no risk of harm" policy. I either pass the courses or fail out of school and become a bum.

[KAding]

I would argue that for each of these "victemless crimes", there can be many victims, however, the relation isn't always direct and hence harder to spot, and the damage to the victim isn't always that large.

Absolutely, and many non-believers will also consider some of these 'victimless crimes' immoral, based on all kinds of beliefs. A belief that people should be protected against their own desires for example. Or a belief that they indirectly cause harm to 'society' and thus all of us.

There is also a fundamental disagreement between people whether something that is 'bad' is also necessarily 'immoral'. You mentioned cigarettes. Clearly they are 'bad' for you, but does that make them immoral? And do we want something to be outlawed if it 'bad', like say cigarettes? And what if it is more obviously 'immoral', like say adultery? There pretty much is consensus that adultery isn't ethical, yet most people would be opposed to outlawing it. There is absolutely no agreement between non-believers on how harming yourself or morality should be dealt with from a legal perspective. There is not one 'atheist' ideology that tells us how to deal with such issues.

It is all much more of a gray area than it is for religious people. After all, determining whether such acts should or shouldn't be considered moral depend on pretty complex arguments and social analysis. It goes beyond merely interpreting scripture.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi

Absolutely, and many non-believers will also consider some of these 'victimless crimes' immoral, based on all kinds of beliefs. A belief that people should be protected against their own desires for example. Or a belief that they indirectly cause harm to 'society' and thus all of us.

There is also a fundamental disagreement between people whether something that is 'bad' is also necessarily 'immoral'. You mentioned cigarettes. Clearly they are 'bad' for you, but does that make them immoral? And do we want something to be outlawed if it 'bad', like say cigarettes? And what if it is more obviously 'immoral', like say adultery? There pretty much is consensus that adultery isn't ethical, yet most people would be opposed to outlawing it. There is absolutely no agreement between non-believers on how harming yourself or morality should be dealt with from a legal perspective.

Yes I fully understand the secular approach. I used to be atheistic before I converted, so had similar views. However, the error in it seems obvious to me now. Something bad or harmful is by default immoral. And in all fairness even atheists should admit this.
But like I stated earlier, I think the problem lies in that this "harm" or "badness" can in some case be relatively small, so that many atheist will deem it permissible, since the harmful effects are neglectable, especially when considered from an egocentric p.o.v.

There is not one 'atheist' ideology that tells us how to deal with such issues.
It is all much more of a gray area than it is for religious people. After all, determining whether such acts should or shouldn't be considered moral depend on pretty complex arguments and social analysis. It goes beyond merely interpreting scripture.

Yes, even to the extend that it can cause indeterminism and immobilism. And for that reason alone, I would already consider the atheistic morality inferior to the Islamic one.
This might sound harsh, but consider my perspective:
*) A secular/atheistic morality, starts from nothing, and in theory tries to change and adapt towards a system as close to perfection as humanly possible. So it is by definition, and by belief of the followers a work in progress and admittedly imperfect.
*) An Islamic morality, starts from the belief that our creator knows us best, and has already revealed the most perfect system possible. Therefore any change in this system can only be for the worse.

*) So building on the premise that Islam is true; an islamic morality would be superior to an atheistic one.
*) Of course I grant, that building from the premise that Islam would be false, the islamic morality is unlikely to be perfect, and hence a secular/atheistic morality would probably surpass the Islamic morality sooner or later.
*) However, If I consider the Islamic rules and morality at face value, without either of those two premises, I'm still quite confident that it is a perfect system (not in the utopic sense of perfection, but rather as-good-as-it-gets-perfection).

[Pygoscelis]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

[AntiKarateKid]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

Are you asking, would we do something "immoral" if Allah asked us to?

The question is nonsense for the reason that if we are both talking about the same Allah, who's traits include justice, then it would be illogical to say that the act he is asking us to do is immoral.

Moreover, I wouldn't worship one who is unjust/merciless/etc.

This question reminds me of the "can an omnipotent god create a stone he cant lift?", the answer is no, but not due to a lack of ability on gods part, but because of the illogicality of the question because it contradicts the premise.

Also, you can go ahead and choose to keep your own moral convictions but if they go against a just and and all-knowing God's rules, then you are necessarily following evil and are being arrogant (Satan's main character flaw)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

Good question. Like you I'd like to think I'd be able to stand up to an authoritarian moralist with all the power in the universe, but at the same time I find it a very hard situation to imagine. I always have.

If this actually existent god was known to be morally perfect, then human behaviour that contravened his rules would be immoral by definition, no matter what we thought about it.

On the other hand, if the actually existent god was in the habit of regularly and visibly smiting people who didn't follow his commands, and that causal link was clear for all to see, I reckon most of us would fall into line pretty quickly.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Good question. Like you I'd like to think I'd be able to stand up to an authoritarian moralist with all the power in the universe, but at the same time I find it a very hard situation to imagine. I always have.

If this actually existent god was known to be morally perfect, then human behaviour that contravened his rules would be immoral by definition, no matter what we thought about it.

On the other hand, if the actually existent god was in the habit of regularly and visibly smiting people who didn't follow his commands, and that causal link was clear for all to see, I reckon most of us would fall into line pretty quickly.

Peace

Exactly my point about your actions being immoral by definition. Besides, Allah doesn't smite without reason. You're an atheist and haven't been struck by lightening but have been guided to an Islamic forum right?

[Pygoscelis]

Are you asking, would we do something "immoral" if Allah asked us to?

Actually it was a question for the atheists.

Moreover, I wouldn't worship one who is unjust/merciless/etc.

I like to think I wouldn't either. But given that God was all powerful and vengeful and threatened you with eternal torture, are you sure you could stand up to it?

This question reminds me of the "can an omnipotent god create a stone he cant lift?", the answer is no, but not due to a lack of ability on gods part, but because of the illogicality of the question because it contradicts the premise.

The question is meant to demonstrate the difficult to understand or possibly irrational nature of "all powerful".

Also, you can go ahead and choose to keep your own moral convictions but if they go against a just and and all-knowing God's rules, then you are necessarily following evil and are being arrogant (Satan's main character flaw)

Who is to decide if this God is all just and all moral? Does having infinite power entitle one to define justice and good? Does might truly make right? And does creating life entitle you to do whatever you like with it or to it? This may be where atheists and muslims fundamentally differ and that may be why my question will not compute for a muslim. As a non-christian who feels that the christian conception of God is not moral I am often told that I will "bow to God" in the end, which to me means giving in to an immoral authority figure of unlimited power. I am wondering if my fellow atheists here would do so.

[Gubbleknucker]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"?

Yes. If there was a God I would do whatever He asked, regardless of whether it was moral or not.

This does not mean I would act less morally of my own free will, but hey, He's God, dude! If He wants it, it's gonna happen. It doesn't matter what little ol' me thinks.

The people of the Old Testament clearly agree.

It isn't; as a philosphical concept it is both well described and tremendously influential (and the reason why Kant is often regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time).

I thought Einstein and time as a fourth dimension did away with this concept entirely? You can't have both.

[Trumble]

I thought Einstein and time as a fourth dimension did away with this concept entirely? You can't have both.

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or (perhaps being more reasonable!) a decent summary of same. Just had a quick look and the Wiki one is actually rather good. Read down to 3.2.

[HinduIconoclast]

The question "would any theists here behave less morally if "there was no God"?" itself is misleading because there are Buddhists and Jains who do not believe in God yet still are supposed to behave morally because of their belief in karma.

My answer to the question is yes. If God did not exist (or we were not accountable for our actions in any way), I would certainly act less morally. I think this is a weakness among humans in general because we sin quite a bit. This is why God has to keep us in line because if He didn't try to keep us in line we would probably all end up burning in hell forever because there was no concept of accountability for one's actions.

[Gubbleknucker]

My answer to the question is yes. If God did not exist (or we were not accountable for our actions in any way), I would certainly act less morally. I think this is a weakness among humans in general because we sin quite a bit.

I don't think that everything you call "sin" is necessarily immoral.

This is why God has to keep us in line because if He didn't try to keep us in line we would probably all end up burning in hell forever because there was no concept of accountability for one's actions.

I disagree, especially in my greater familiarity with the Christian religion, where all is forgiven.
I think that since there is not a god, we are responsible for our own actions: God can't make us do anything, and he can't absolve atrocious acts.

[AntiKarateKid]

I don't think that everything you call "sin" is necessarily immoral.

But who are you to say something is not immoral?

I disagree, especially in my greater familiarity with the Christian religion, where all is forgiven.
I think that since there is not a god, we are responsible for our own actions: God can't make us do anything, and he can't absolve atrocious acts.

Greater familiarity? All is forgiven?

"therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

[Gubbleknucker]

I can say I have a greater familiarity with Christianity because my family is Irish Catholic and most of the religious people I know are Christian.

But who are you to say something is not immoral?

I am a human.

It is immoral to harm other humans.

Unnecessary cruelty to animals is immoral.

Coercion through aggression is immoral.

Taking advantage of people is immoral.

It is immoral to blindly harm the environment our children must live in.

It is immoral to take what is not yours.

etc.

[HinduIconoclast]

But all those things you mentioned are all humanistic morals which is where atheists and agnostics fall short since they do not try to avoid blasphemy, homosexuality, and other things which do not harm other humans even though it is against God's will.

[Gubbleknucker]

...but why is it against God's will?
I can see why he would not like us harming other humans, as that would be destruction of his most precious creation, the one made in his image.

Do sins harm him somehow?

[Uthman]

Do sins harm him somehow?

Definitely not!

[Gubbleknucker]

Right, so why does he care?

[The Ruler]

Ah, when things are hypothetical, I don't believe any of the answerers are capable of comprehending the reality of the situation. Hence, when we answer, we do so with an odd sense of realism that isn't real at all.

When replying to your seemingly simple question, one must consider the change to the world as a whole, and not an individual. Would the rules/punishments for the crimes/wrong-doings/whatever you wish to call it, be more lax? Or harsher than it is now? Those questions may not appear to have any relation to your original query, but they do. Our actions then would be affected by society a great deal. Even more then than it is now, perhaps.

And taking those into account, I don't think I'm capable of comprehending something on such a large-scale. But, if things were to go my way entirely, I'd still have some self-righteousness in me. Or so I like to think anyway. Heh.

[AntiKarateKid]

...but why is it against God's will?
I can see why he would not like us harming other humans, as that would be destruction of his most precious creation, the one made in his image.

Do sins harm him somehow?

How does transgressing his will equate to harming him?

[AntiKarateKid]

Right, so why does he care?

Abstaining from sins is for the good of the servant and his personal development.

[Jon Paul]

Of course, assuming existance could be without God.. hard to imagine.. but sure. I would of course throw out any moral standards as morality is from God, that is what makes it superior to man, that is why morality is universal. If morality was relative, then I wouldn't have any moral code what so ever.

Why should I? If there was no God, I wouldn't have a conscience. Why shouldn't I set my self up as a war lord, have many teenage wives, and eat babies for dinner? Maybe I would become a racialist as well and subject and oppress millions and start a slave trade as well.

Regards,
JP.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I would of course throw out any moral standards as morality is from God, that is what makes it superior to man, that is why morality is universal.

Morality is clearly not universal: just think of all the different moral attitudes that exist in different cultures, and which have done throughout history.

In ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered absolutely normal; in 7th century Medina it was considered perfectly OK for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have sex with a nine-year old girl. Obviously, many people wouldn't agree with those views.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Morality is clearly not universal: just think of all the different moral attitudes that exist in different cultures, and which have done throughout history.

In ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered absolutely normal; in 7th century Medina it was considered perfectly OK for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have sex with a nine-year old girl. Obviously, many people wouldn't agree with those views.

Peace

Did he marry her or have sex at that age?

[Pygoscelis]

Did he marry her or have sex at that age?

In today's society most would from on either. His point is made.

[index123]

Right, so why does he care?

If the sins don't hurt someone then they hurt yourself, you are also property of God. He made use, he is only lending us everything, so hurting yourself is the same as hurting someone.

[Detritavore]

Ah, when things are hypothetical, I don't believe any of the answerers are capable of comprehending the reality of the situation. Hence, when we answer, we do so with an odd sense of realism that isn't real at all.

When replying to your seemingly simple question, one must consider the change to the world as a whole, and not an individual. Would the rules/punishments for the crimes/wrong-doings/whatever you wish to call it, be more lax? Or harsher than it is now? Those questions may not appear to have any relation to your original query, but they do. Our actions then would be affected by society a great deal. Even more then than it is now, perhaps.

And taking those into account, I don't think I'm capable of comprehending something on such a large-scale. But, if things were to go my way entirely, I'd still have some self-righteousness in me. Or so I like to think anyway. Heh.

*meaningful nod of the head*

My sentiments exactly.

I personally feel this, the original, question was poorly articulated and contradictory (at the least). How anyone managed to answer it is beside me. But then again, I suppose the adding the phrase "assuming such and such is possible" made it fathomable to most. Fun that.

:wa:

[index123]

Too answer this question, I would play MMORPGs and get a girlfriend. But I like the rules in the Qu'ran like no stealing and killing people so the world really would be incomplete without him(which is not possible). But on the good side I would finally be able to get on World Of Warcraft and get my rogue up to 80. but then what about death? there would be no heaven or hell ahhh

[Pygoscelis]

Too answer this question, I would play MMORPGs and get a girlfriend. But I like the rules in the Qu'ran like no stealing and killing people so the world really would be incomplete without him(which is not possible). But on the good side I would finally be able to get on World Of Warcraft and get my rogue up to 80. but then what about death? there would be no heaven or hell ahhh

Muslims are forbidden playing video games?

[HinduIconoclast]

If the sins don't hurt someone then they hurt yourself, you are also property of God. He made use, he is only lending us everything, so hurting yourself is the same as hurting someone.

I agree. A clear example of this is that strongly discouraged/prohibited even though you are killing yourself - you are God's creation so it is akin to murder.

[Uthman]

Muslims are forbidden playing video games?

Depends on the content. However, members are forbidden from going off-topic. :D

[index123]

Muslims are forbidden playing video games?

I don't know games are doubtful subject to me, although I think nowadays muslims get alot more lee-way because the world is basically in a very bad state so I guess video games are acceptable, on the other hand it is really the content in WoW that makes it bad, it includes magic, gods, and classes that have to wield idols to acquire gear score. Although really I have no solid Islamic ruling on it so no I cannot say its haram or not. The part of it that probably does make it haram though is that it is addictive and wastes your time. And alot of the times I find myself playing it again so if its unlawful I'm in trouble ;D

[Khaldun]

:sl:

As muslims speculating about these kind of things is not befitting, because there is no point in it. Why would you talk about sins that you would want to commit?

لا يومن احدكم حتى يكون هواه تبعا لما جئت به

"None of you truly believes until his desires are in accordance with what I came with."

:threadclo