I don't understand this about the atheists

[ZJK24]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God, I will like for you to help me understand this thing better. Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right? Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also. So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world? I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness. But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity? Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

[glo]

Welcome ZJK24. :thankyou:
I am not an atheist, but we have some very well articulated atheist members here, who will hopefully answer your question in due course.

From conversations I have had with atheist friends, I understand that the view is that we don't only refrain from committing EVIL because we fear God's judgement (or, for that matter, only do GOOD because we want God's reward).
We all have a hard-wired concept of what is right and wrong (yes, there are some differences, but on the whole the GOLDEN RULES are very similar for all of us - not matter what religion or none). We do good because we enjoy if others do good to us, and we (try to) avoid evil, because we don't like it being done to us ...

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?
Or do you also do good just because it is right and good and makes for a happy life?

I have spoken to atheists who have said that if you ONLY do good because you fear God, then you don't really MEAN to be good from your heart at all. Food for thought ...

[Tyrion]

So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world? I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness. But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity? Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

[Independent]

what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world?

I have no idea whether moral sense is hard wired into us, or purely cultural. Either way, in real life atheists are every bit as moral or immoral as anybody else. I'm not entirely atheist but I don't believe in heaven and I certainly don't believe in hell. Maybe I did when I was a kid. It doesn't affect my moral behaviour one way or the other.

For the haughty atheists that deny God

I see this kind of opinion expressed a lot here. It doesn't fit most atheists I know who are indistinguishable from religious people in almost every detail of their lives.

I could even say - is it not more arrogant of you to tell me that I am immoral, decadent, selfish, stupid, and blind when you've never even met me? I didn't reject Allah, I barely knew of his existence for the first 20 years of my life. If you were born in the west, you would almost certainly not have been a Muslim. So are you virtuous by accident of birth?

You think Islam is not understood in the west - I can guarantee you that atheisim and agnosticism are severely misunderstood in the Islamic world.

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

[ZJK24]

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

No you misunderstand. I am not saying is right to do these things. We don't do them because we have been commanded not to by the Almighty. Since the atheist has no concept of the Almighty and can't even conceive of his existence then what does the atheist have to loose by NOT doing them should that need arise? The atheists say that they have no fear of hell and they answer to no celestial power so this must mean they can do as they please through life without a fear of God's judgement since there is no ****ation awaiting them?. You may say they fear getting sent to prison for a long time or something but still what stops them from doing even the sins you can't get into prison for like sleeping with many of their friends wife?

[ZJK24]

I have no idea whether moral sense is hard wired into us, or purely cultural. Either way, in real life atheists are every bit as moral or immoral as anybody else. I'm not entirely atheist but I don't believe in heaven and I certainly don't believe in hell. Maybe I did when I was a kid. It doesn't affect my moral behaviour one way or the other.


I see this kind of opinion expressed a lot here. It doesn't fit most atheists I know who are indistinguishable from religious people in almost every detail of their lives.

I could even say - is it not more arrogant of you to tell me that I am immoral, decadent, selfish, stupid, and blind when you've never even met me? I didn't reject Allah, I barely knew of his existence for the first 20 years of my life. If you were born in the west, you would almost certainly not have been a Muslim. So are you virtuous by accident of birth?

You think Islam is not understood in the west - I can guarantee you that atheisim and agnosticism are severely misunderstood in the Islamic world.

Jut my experience that many atheists tend to be really high-minded and look down on those of faith. Like Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens. You see, there are many prominent atheists who are like this. They give off the impression that they believe that those of faith only have that faith because they are 'less educated'. Some examples when atheists talk about flying spaghetti monsters and magical teapots implies they think they are dealing with only with those of child mindset.

[ZJK24]

Welcome ZJK24. :thankyou:
I am not an atheist, but we have some very well articulated atheist members here, who will hopefully answer your question in due course.

From conversations I have had with atheist friends, I understand that the view is that we don't only refrain from committing EVIL because we fear God's judgement (or, for that matter, only do GOOD because we want God's reward).
We all have a hard-wired concept of what is right and wrong (yes, there are some differences, but on the whole the GOLDEN RULES are very similar for all of us - not matter what religion or none). We do good because we enjoy if others do good to us, and we (try to) avoid evil, because we don't like it being done to us ...

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?
Or do you also do good just because it is right and good and makes for a happy life?

I have spoken to atheists who have said that if you ONLY do good because you fear God, then you don't really MEAN to be good from your heart at all. Food for thought ...

Hi Glo. I understand what you are saying but still I need to understand what holds the atheist back in some certain situations. Let's say that an atheist has 3 kids and he has no money for their food and needs, he can get this money by raiding a liquor store. Now for us believers we prefer to pray to hope for a better change in our finances. Even if we went to that last resort of raiding the store we will feel we have let down our Lord and betrayed him by committing that terrible sin, so we would pray and ask always for his forgiveness. But the atheist has absolutely nobody to answer to and no hell to fear so there is nothing that prevents him morally except for taking the chance of getting caught...

[Independent]

Jut my experience that many atheists tend to be really high-minded and look down on those of faith. Like Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens.

As I've said elsewhere, Richard Dawkins is a very particular kind of atheist. Just like Bin Laden was not your average Muslim. (I didn't even know Rushdie and Hitchens were atheist.)

The average atheist/agnostic is an ordinary person who doesn't even want to talk about religion, let alone go on tv and make a fuss about it. Most of them were brought up in a religion but when they grew up, they no longer felt it was real to them. They are passive non believers. There never was an active rejection.

[Independent]

Let's say that an atheist has 3 kids and he has no money for their food and needs, he can get this money by raiding a liquor store.

I find this view totally bizarre. It's just not like that! Morality is not a monopoly of religion. In fact, if you wanted to stir it up a bit, you could argue that atheists are more moral than religious people because they aren't following the rules from fear of retribution - they do it because they think the rules are good and just.

Edit: Reading back I see this is more or less what glo already said...

[Hulk]

Why does your stats say "Religion:Other"? Are you muslim or not lol

[M.I.A.]

well its not just an athiesm question is it?

to think of it that way is kinda narrow minded.



maybe morality, good and evil is just the consequences that we see within our lives.

we have no understanding of what the greater implications are, unless we have thaught ahead.. in which case its a plan... intent.


i mean the difference between a bank robber and robin hood is in intent.

but the law treats them the same.


niether is caught until there luck runs out.



and that is something we should be aware of, weather you say you believe or not.. you are still under god.


haughty athiests may not deny god, only our perception of him.


and that is something to think about.


otherwise we flounder in our own underserved pride..

as you said, is it like they already know of a judgement day?


i would say our very souls do, but our ego's do not.



...but you are right, Haughty.


they will be in here any moment to sieze on an oppertunity of indecision and a lul in chest puffing.

like children we play.

and the higher you get, the more is at stake.


good vs bad right?



if you want a religious reference then look at the story of moses pbuh..

narrated in the quran at some length.



forgive the spelling mistakes, spell checker is not working for some reason.



you know we are constantly told in the quran that allah swt is the protector, the provider, the all powerful.

he is all that befalls us and all that is kept away.


so when you have to talk to an athiest the best thing you can do is try and explain that to them..the more you want to fight them the more you will see them reject you.

and if they are so busy fighting you they might not even think about who they were.

what they actually do.

why they would even need to change?


but we all become a part of the things we do.

[Tyrion]

No you misunderstand. I am not saying is right to do these things. We don't do them because we have been commanded not to by the Almighty. Since the atheist has no concept of the Almighty and can't even conceive of his existence then what does the atheist have to loose by NOT doing them should that need arise? The atheists say that they have no fear of hell and they answer to no celestial power so this must mean they can do as they please through life without a fear of God's judgement since there is no ****ation awaiting them?. You may say they fear getting sent to prison for a long time or something but still what stops them from doing even the sins you can't get into prison for like sleeping with many of their friends wife?

Judging from your posts, it doesn't sound like I've misunderstood. Is the only reason you don't kill people and rob banks because you think God will send you to hell for it? I think you have a pretty messed up view of morality... Theism does not hold a monopoly on basic moral behavior.

[GuestFellow]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God, I will like for you to help me understand this thing better. Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right? Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also. So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world? I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness. But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity? Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

Hello,

Many atheists have been raised in an environment where rules based on religion has been set. I doubt there is any society that has not been affected by religious rules. I suppose most atheists do not do whatever they want because they are aware of the impact their behaviour would have (get arrested, put on trial, prison and so on).

However, I do think atheists are more likely to commit certain acts such as suicide because they do not believe in an afterlife and less likely to get involved in charitable activities.

[glo]

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

Man, here I write a lengthy post ... and then you say it better in just ONE sentence!

[glo]

Now for us believers we prefer to pray to hope for a better change in our finances.

It is true that those who believe in God will turn to Him in prayer and with requests ... and hope and trust that God will provide (even if help may come through their own doing).
You are right that atheists do not follow this concept. If there is no God, then there is nobody to bail you out - other than yourself or other people.

However, that does NOT mean that an atheist is any more likely to choose illegal or sinful means to provide for himself and his family.

At the same token, believing in God does not prevent us from being sinful or committing wrong.
Would I steal food to feed my children, if they were starving and I saw no other solution? You bet I would! I might not rob a liquor store, but I would steal food from a supermarket.
I expect most people would.
So stealing is a sin - but compared to watching your children starve it is the lesser of two evils. I would simply trust that a merciful and all-knowing God would understand my motivations and intentions.

[PurpleCup]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God, I will like for you to help me understand this thing better. Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right? Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also. So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world? I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness. But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity? Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

I was raised to not believe in God and to be alert when friends would invite me to their church in order to get me involved. After I went to College I felt awfully homesick and in constant fear of my new surroundings. I just felt so weak. I had no feeling anyone other than my parents cared about me. That is not a good feeling. I DO feel its wrong to raise kids with no religion. Life is too hard. I tried to read the Bible but it was so over my head. Its not something you can just pick up and read and feel any good from it. As time went on I met a Muslim and read some of his books and I was immediately attracted to what I was reading. In my heart I never wanted to be a Career woman, rather a stay at home Mom was my calling.
Learning to believe God is around you watching you , there for you is not easy to adopt when you never believed. So I would be very vigilant to remember to say, "Alhamdollilah", "Bismillah" all the time. As time went on I was more cognizant of God.
I really did not have a feeling for how God helped me until I was tested with aweful gut wrenching news that would make anyone cry a million tears. And I sat on the edge of the bed and asked God to make me stop crying, make me feel calm and worry not at all. And God did just that. I was amazingly peaceful.
This happened again rather recently and I felt WOW this is so cool! This is stuff people could talk about in the past and I would roll my eyes. I would never believe in such. But wow its so true! I just think that feeling is believing!

[Hulk]

Actually I understand what OP is trying to say.. Basically supposedly when you're an atheist your morals are based on your own understanding. This is the same reason why many atheists say people who believe in religions are stupid because their morals are based on a book written so and so years ago.

Based on this concept, an "atheist" mind can construct a logic that might justify the killing of innocent people as long as there might be a "positive" outcome. That said, those who claim to follow a religion are not safe from this boat either.

They might ignore the law given to them and make up their own based on their own "understanding".

Now don't misunderstand what I say to mean that Islam promotes following without understanding. Certainly not, that's why there are scholars who discuss texts in an effort to bring about the best understanding, emphasizing the importance of knowledge.

[Pygoscelis]

I am happy to see so many Muslims and Christians here understanding that morality is not exclusive to the religious. I actually don't have much to add to what Glo, Tyrion, and Independent already did. I am doubly glad to see so many perplexed at the OP, as it equates morality to obedience. That confusion happens in fewer religious people than I once thought. It is one of the things that scares me most about religious belief though.

And I have to ask the OP the same question I asked in the other thread (which apparently he hasn't read or he'd not have posted this one):

If your God asked you to kill your family, would you do it?

If your God demanded something of you that you would otherwise say is immoral, would you do it?

Can you conceive of anything God could demand of you that you would refuse to obey?

Is God Good because he stands for what is Good, or is Good Good because its what God demands?

And as asked above, if there was no God, would you truly have no moral sense?

Obedience to power (even ultimate power, such as a God) or to the in group is not the same thing as morality. When people equate the two, I think that is when ideology (be it religious, nationalistic or whatever) can lead to atrocity, like flying planes into buildings, getting people to drink poisoned cool aid, killing babies, hunting witches, gassing Jews, slaughtering first nations people, oppressing Palestinians etc. We need to always be watchful not to let our personal sense of morality get buried so deep beneath ideology or group identity.

However, I do think atheists are more likely to commit certain acts such as suicide because they do not believe in an afterlife and less likely to get involved in charitable activities.

I agree atheists would seem to be more likely to be ok with killing themselves if it came to that for them. I don't know what the actual data is but I can see why you'd think that. I do know that atheists are more likely to support euthenasia in principle (in practice is another matter). As for charity, perhaps. I would say definitely yes if you define Charity as including religious causes like saving souls, etc. Otherwise, maybe yes, maybe no. You would have an added reason to do good deeds if you thought you'd get points for it, but as glo said, that wouldn't really be charity in a true sense, but a selfish desire for those points. It also may keep some sociopaths or nasty people in line, but really if we look at history, it usually doesn't. They usually just reinterpret the scripture to fit the nasty things they already want to do.

Also, ZJK24 mentioned praying for foregiveness from God after a religious person robs a liquor store. I have to ask, what good does that do the liqour store? If you slash somebody's tires, praying to your God for forgiveness doesn't do anything for them. It doesn't buy them new tires. If you feel guilty and seek foregiveness (as a robber should), then it is the victim that should be compensated and begged for foregiveness, not some God they may or may not even believe exists.

[Logikon]

So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world?

1. The morals hard wired into our brain.

2. The law.

I don't feel I need to elaborate on these answers.

Peace :)

[CosmicPathos]

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

I would.

[CosmicPathos]

I am not an atheist, but we have some very well articulated atheist members here, who will hopefully answer your question in due course.

you kidding me?

We all have a hard-wired concept of what is right and wrong (yes, there are some differences, but on the whole the GOLDEN RULES are very similar for all of us - not matter what religion or none).

hard wired? Where is the neurological, psychological and genetic evidence?

Golden rules? I do not believe in ANY golden rules whatsoever. I am indifferent to being treated kindly or being treated as ****. Hence, I cannot treat others as I'd like to be treated (the so called golden rule) since I do not have any preferences or expectations on how to be treated.

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?

yes, I do. In the absence of God, I am otherwise a radical misanthrope, thanks to human societies and relationships and norms and moralities.
There. Your whole argument stands invalidated.

[CosmicPathos]

1. The morals hard wired into our brain.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this. If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

[Pygoscelis]

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

I would.

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?

yes, I do. In the absence of God, I am otherwise a radical misanthrope, thanks to human societies and relationships and norms and moralities.
There. Your whole argument stands invalidated.

Then you are a special case. Most of us are not sociopaths.

[Independent]

If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

Glib. You could just as easily say the opposite. If there wasn't hard wiring, there wouldn't be anyone except murderers, rapists and paedophiles. And since these groups are very much in the minority, the 'moral' hard wiring idea looks like a better fit with reality.

You are moral in action only because of fear of punishment? That's the only thing that stops you? Then you are not moral in your nature.

Your faith hasn't made you a better person. It just means you're accompanied by a more effective policeman.

[CosmicPathos]

Your faith hasn't made you a better person. It just means you're accompanied by a more effective policeman.

I do not want to be a "better" person. I reject your definition of what constitutes a "better person."

[CosmicPathos]

Then you are a special case. Most of us are not sociopaths.

argument from absurdity. Argumentum ad populum.

All humans are sociopaths in conditions that would make them so. You would kill a murderer if he tried to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

[Logikon]

If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

People from all religions have committted these very crimes. Having a religious background with religious rules have not stopped them.

We athiests have the morals that were hard wired into us. We don't commit crimes because we know right from wrong.

You have implied ( I know I am drawing a long bow) that you would commit crimes except that you are concerned about the punishment of god. That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals.

.

[CosmicPathos]

That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals

My morals are different from yours. Who gives you the right to say I have no morals just because I shatter your imposition of your worldviews onto me? Back off boy.

There is no scientific evidence to show that atheists have morals that were hard wired into them. Atheists are as likely if not more to commit fornication/adultery, theft, murder, genocide and rape as any other human being, religious or not.

[M.I.A.]

People from all religions have committted these very crimes. Having a religious background with religious rules have not stopped them.

We athiests have the morals that were hard wired into us. We don't commit crimes because we know right from wrong.

You have implied ( I know I am drawing a long bow) that you would commit crimes except that you are concerned about the punishment of god. That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals.

.

i would say you only know the concept of personal right and wrong.

you dont know what happens after, how your action ripples outwards.


and thats the difference.

religious concept is based on an all knowing and powerful god,

he does not often smite the wicked with thunderbolts.

..they end up smiting themselves in most cases.

and others have justification for actions that are beyond our understanding in motivation and knowledge..


i mean its not for a soldier to question a superior.. if he was that questionable then he would not be superior.

at the same time, why would anybody be a soldier in the first place?

murdering, raping and pillaging..

even if it is not done personally.


so where is the morality?

i mean its like giving to the homeless and knowing that most will use money for alcohol.

..i cant turn them away... but there are better people who will simply do more than put money in there hands and walk away...

im not sure its the same with athiests.


the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

he is the judge of those in power and those without any.

and if he elevates you in position it is a test and if he lowers you it is a test.. anything in between and you should count yourself lucky.


morality is probably entirely dependent on situation... presidents and generals are not adverse to collateral damage..

although you and i alike would be.


but even those are under god rather than under morality.


like i said before, in the quran specifically there is a story about moses pbuh meeting a man under guidance.. who does some very questionable things.

it is something that changed my perception of morality, obedience, faith and fear of allah swt.

[Independent]

Atheists are as likely if not more to commit fornication/adultery, theft, murder, genocide and rape as any other human being, religious or not.

Wouldn't disagree with this. Atheists also say that we are all more or less likely to commit such crimes, whether or not we are religious. (If there is a statistical difference between atheists and believers in the rate of crime, I've never seen it published and it in fact the data would be very hard to collect.)

That's the point. Morality doesn't come from religion alone, although religion will give it particular tenets and may provide a complete framework.

Although the 'big' crimes like murder, theft and rape are regarded as crimes in almost every culture, religious or otherwise, a whole host of 'lesser' crimes may vary. (eg sex outside marriage is a crime in Islam, but not most western cultures).

All humans are sociopaths in conditions that would make them so. You would kill a murderer if he tried to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

No they are not! This is a mis-definition.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war). Of course, everyone but a dedicated pacifist will be prepared to kill under these circumstances.

[M.I.A.]

No they are not! This is a mis-definition.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war). Of course, everyone but a dedicated pacifist will be prepared to kill under these circumstances.

kill or be killed is a question of morality or mental stability?

i cant even watch competitive gameshows.. its a similar concept only to a very lesser extent.

how about turning up to a job interview and seeing the other potential candidates?


its just an example that makes you understand how morality works.

[Independent]

i would say you only know the concept of personal right and wrong.

you dont know what happens after, how your action ripples outwards.

MIA, Islam as expressed through what you write here is a gentle, empathetic and attractive religion. But what you say might be felt by an atheist too. I have personal morals, but it's obvious to me that many of them are shared very widely. Are these morals god-given, hard-wired or just cultural? What does it matter? The result is the same.

[M.I.A.]

morals are based on character.

it is an individual trait.

saying your an athiest or muslim does not change the fact.


sticking by them will give you an indication of your own worth and your worth to people.

i doubt any group is as accepting as you think it is.


it causes problems.

but wherever you are it is like a house of cards.


that is why i believe in a god above my own actions and that is why a fear of god is a paramount concept in religion.

[Independent]

morals are based on character.

it is an individual trait.

saying your an athiest or muslim does not change the fact.

I agree! The argument we are disagreeing with here is that, if you remove religion, then morality collapses. It doesn't. The big crimes are still crimes. But the morality of social behaviour (especially sex related) can certainly change.

[M.I.A.]

the concept in islam is one of wronging your own soul.

and also that certain aspects of fate.. if not all of it are under the control of a god.

so people that abuse others... sexually or otherwise.. do so at the cost of there own lives.

...those that undergo it, are crafted into the things they become.

i mean you look at murder and what it inspires in the victims families and its just another form of abuse.

society does not collapse.. it just becomes numb to abuses.


as for religion, before a religious state there are religious people.. i would say having religious people is more important than having a religious government.

i would almost go as far as to say having a religious people almost negates the need for government.

except even if we were all muslims, we would all be of differing moral character.


your approaching religion incorrectly in my view.

its not about defining morality.

its about understanding the laws that govern the world.


..or if you want to put it another way, understanding god in the absence of him.

seemingly.


so imagine today you were a muslim and you went out exactly the same as you are and told your friends your a muslim.

told your family.

it would open your eyes to what society really is, how peoples perceptions are not governed by morality.

and the first time you intervened in a conversation due to islam, then you would be on a completely new path.


the same morality and values, correcting somebody else's.

but you could just as easily say your a christian and see the outcome or defend the jews.

there would in your eyes still be no god, but now you would be entirely at the mercy of him..

or the people around you.




this is not the views expressed by muslims, its just an example of how you can put yourself in other peoples shoes.. as a social experiment or learning exercise.


it is so much easier to establish your character on evolution or something similar..

[Independent]

people that abuse others... sexually or otherwise.. do so at the cost of there own lives.

...those that undergo it, are crafted into the things they become

I don't know if you have ever read 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoyevsky? In it, the main character, Raskolnikov is the kind of evil atheist that many people here like to believe in. He comes to the conclusion that it would be better for the world (and himself) if he killed a certain moneylender. What happens next is very relevant to this topic but I won't say any more, in case you want to read it.

it would open your eyes to what society really is, how peoples perceptions are not governed by morality.

and the first time you intervened in a conversation due to islam, then you would be on a completely new path.

I don't really follow this?

[M.I.A.]

I don't know if you have ever read 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoyevsky? In it, the main character, Raskolnikov is the kind of evil atheist that many people here like to believe in. He comes to the conclusion that it would be better for the world (and himself) if he killed a certain moneylender. What happens next is very relevant to this topic but I won't say any more, in case you want to read it.

i have not read it,

i guess its a question of personal choice.


i might read it.

I don't really follow this?

yeah its confusing,

most of what iv said does not make sense.

its like trying to explain the actions of a single atom in the universe.

its almost always a part of something bigger.


you would hope it contributes to some useful reaction within its lifetime.. before it is spent and becomes something else.

if you look hard enough you can find the links and equations and rules that govern these reactions.

although still having very little control over them.

but usually there is the option to do or not do...

and you know thats classic you.


so yeah, a belief in a god.

responsible for sustaining and protecting all the people.

and yet leading them all to there own ends.


based on morality?

character?

intent?

obedience?

fear?

circumstance?


but its still just an atom in a constantly moving universe.


its extremely hard to put into words without having all the pieces... i feel a few pieces short of a jigsaw.

[Pygoscelis]

the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

That is precisely where religion can get very dangerous.

I agree! The argument we are disagreeing with here is that, if you remove religion, then morality collapses. It doesn't. The big crimes are still crimes.

Not if you believe your deity approves of them.

Once you farm your own sense of right and wrong out, and make it subordinate to what others tell you your God says is right and wrong, you abandon true morality and act merely on obedience. And that is a recipe for atrocity.

This is why I asked the questions I did above, and which I know few religious people will answer, because to do so most will have to admit that they do have an empathic sense independent of their belief in Gods. Except of course for the exceptional cases like our friend CosmicPathos here, who claims to have none, hence the mention of sociopaths.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

A sociopath is somebody who doesn't feel empathy. It is somebody who therefore only acts on a reward / punishment sense of morality, which is of course not morality at all. These people are not mad killers who will kill under any conditions. They often don't even feel the urge to kill. They just don't feel any guilt in doing so or any moral outrage when others do so. They are often good actors, feigning empathy when it suits them, and sometimes go most of their lives (or their whole lives) unexposed as sociopaths.

When people tell you that laws or obedience to power is all there is stopping them from engaging in unempathic or anti-empathic actions (like killing, raping, stealing, etc) that is a pretty unambiguous admission that they are sociopaths. When religious people sincerely ask how you can have empathic morals without God to demand them of you, that also leans towards being such an admission, and hence the questions I asked above.

I agree with you that we need to distinguish empathic morals from cultural morals. Empathic morals are derived from empathy, and empathy is inborn and universal (with the exception of sociopaths), so all of us will have them, atheists included. Cultural morals, such as sexual taboos and the like, are based on culture, and culture is not inborn, so they will vary widely from culture to culture and religion to religion, etc.

---

[CosmicPathos]

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war).

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

[Independent]

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

Not correct. Sociopaths are fortunately rare. They are not always murderers, but if they are, they behave differently from other murderers. Nor do they necessarily make good soldiers. Mere indifference to killing is far from the only qualification.

Their existence does support the idea that there is brain 'wiring' that is capable of going wrong or being damaged. Perhaps this is also a clue that a capacity for empathy is key to a sense of morality.

Even in a war situation, people's behaviour varies enormously. In most wars, most of the killing is done by a small minority of soldiers who are simply much better at it. Many soldiers went all the way through WW1 and 2 without succeeding in killing anyone.

[M.I.A.]

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

your right in a way,

if you only see the world as competition then its quite a twisted world view.

the funny thing would be if it was natural, why would anybody second guess themselves, remain politically correct or take second place in such a world?

especially if your conversations were the rebuttals needed to take first.

an alpha male society.


its another take on morality if not religion.

and an insight into thought processes that lead to a slippery slope rather than our natural inclination that wants to achieve a higher position.


i mean if you break your head its a little hard to put back together,

there is little room for broken people within society.


and one would question how they could ever be fixed again, even after death.

not in body but mind.

maybe it is better to not break yourself in the first place and follow those with proven measure of success and happiness.


i mean people undergo some quite horrific things..

but the reward of an afterlife is the only incentive.. and nobody knows how that works.


just adding to the fire of athiesm vs religion.

[Pygoscelis]

but the reward of an afterlife is the only incentive.. and nobody knows how that works.

If the thought of an afterlife is the only incentive for somebody to live a good life, I imagine that would be a very empty life.

[glo]

If the thought of an afterlife is the only incentive for somebody to live a good life, I imagine that would be a very empty life.

That's not my perception at all.

I sometimes think that if at my moment of death instead of entering the pearly gates of heaven, the light just simply goes out and there is NOTHING (it's a very simplified and silly picture I am painting, but I hope you get my meaning ...), then I won't think "Blow it, if I'd known I would have spent my life doing X, Y and Z!".

Instead my last thought will be that it was a beautiful life and a life well spent.

[Pygoscelis]

I get what you are saying, but that isn't really my point.

My point is that if living for what you think may come next is the ONLY incentive you have, the only reason you have to live a good life, and the only meaning to your life.... then in my eyes that life is pretty devoid of meaning. There is SO MUCH more to live for than the promise of some afterlife. The thought of treating this life as a testing ground or waiting room for the next just sounds depressing to me.

[M.I.A.]

its not an empty void.

..you just cant listen and talk at the same time.


if anything it does not make ones life devoid of meaning. it makes you see the meaning in others.

and let me tell you, most people do not struggle for enjoyment of things.


they struggle to be heard.

to be in control.

...always for the things they want.


the thought of an afterlife is actually as a release,

because although you have fashioned yourself as a helper, most people will be perfectly fine without it..

its the distinction between working for a god and and knowing there are only pawns..

a rubbish analogy but until you meet the god it will have to do.


..and i doubt there are only pawns.


but it is depressing thats for sure, i cant imagine sharing a room with someone in the afterlife.. unless they reformat me or something.

and then what would be the point?


but i digress,

singing the praises of god not by experience but by scripture is the way forward.

simply because it is better received and most likely to be rewarded.

[TJ-alcapone]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God, I will like for you to help me understand this thing better. Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right? Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also.

As an atheist myself, I am afraid you are misrepresenting the position of atheists. It isn't like you show me an object in your palm and I claim that your palm is empty. Most atheist are simply people who don't believe in the concept of god. Be it Allah, Krishna, Jesus or anything else. Take the Kalash people of the Chitral District in Northern Pakistan for example. Their religion is entirely different from the Islam that most people of Pakistan follow. So those Islamic Pakistani people are atheistic towards the religion of the Kalash people. Similarly, there are atheists like me, who don't believe in any religion or concept of god. And yes most atheists don't believe in supernatural concepts such as heaven or hell either.

I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness.

Are you suggesting that morality is the sole concept of religion (in your case Islam) and that people without it can't obtain morality through other means?

the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

As already pointed out, this can be very dangerous. I don't think there should be any action of our lives, where we suspend our morals for a cause. Regardless of whether that is for religion, nationalism or anything else. This is the kind of rationale that terrorists employ where they are willing to suspend their otherwise presumable moral outlook to fight for a cause that is beyond them.

------------------------------------------

These are my views about morality. Morality is indeed hard wired to an extent. The is massive amounts of evidence in the world of neurological and evolutionary physiology study which suggests that morality is indeed a product of inheritance. We have of course altered this sense of morality through lamarckian evolution also where we discuss and debate about moral outlooks and decide upon what is acceptable and what is not. Morality is not the sole product of human existence and can be found easily in the animal world too. In fact, Humans and Chimps are 2 of the few species that kills members of their own species for rather simple reasons. The relationship between religion and morality has been contested heavily and there is little evidence to show that it correlates positively. In fact if you look at the data from countries across the world, high rates of religiosity usually are in line with high levels of crime.

In fact I was just reading a study on religion in relation to crime based on statistics of the FBI from 2006. The findings of the study were that:

1) In America, religiosity in most states was in the decline
2) Decreasing religious belief has either had no impact, or a slightly positive impact, on the American crime rate
3) Religiosity had no significant relationship with violent crime, but it had a notable positive correlation with property crime.

So I am afraid this assumption between religion and higher standards of morality has been invalidated amongst countries, and also amongst states of the country that I live in, USA. I am not sure of the data between states in nations other than America, as I have no access to that data.

[GuestFellow]

I don't really understand what's so complicated here. Atheists simply lack belief in a higher being like God.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God?

not the best way to appeal to a crowd bro LOL


made my day

[Gator]

Hello.

Hello.

For the haughty atheists that deny God,

Oh my, this is going to be really good (speaking as a haughty atheist mind you).

I will like for you to help me understand this thing better.

Now I haven't read the rest of this but I am going to venture a guess that I have no chance in hell of achieving this.

Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right?

I would assume one comes from the other, though I won't strictly presume exclusivity having been to Tallahassee, FL (not saying which one, for which this evidence provides).

Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath

Now you have cut me to the quick, sir. Conception is most constantly on my mind.

what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world?

Ummmm, like taking a walk? Loving my family? Going rock climbing or hiking? Writing lousy short stories? Having Bar-q-ques? Watching football (American, college specifically)? Going to Trivia night on Tuesday with a friend? Teaching tennis to my kids? Watching Grey's Anatomy and Downton Abbey (total guilty pleasures)? Playing Company of Heroes with my son while watching "A Bridge too Far" (my son is an avid history buff, no really he like knows all the generals involved in the battle of Gettysburg and Fredricksburg and the historical implications of the Treaty of Versailles). Voting Democratic? Volunteering at the local library to teach Excel classes to random people? Taking my daughter swimming on Thursday nights? Reading selected books (Just finished John Krakauer's book, "Where Men win Glory" about Pat Tillman, [Not super great, but I would recommend it])? Taking my wife to dinner to cool places and concerts (next up Citizen Cope [she likes him a lot and he's kind of grown on me, so I would also recommend. Though it is music so some of the more devout Islamic members reading this may not want to check him out.). Checking out my sister's photography blog? Reading Islamic Board, Conscience of a Liberal (Paul Krugman's blog at the NY Times), Economist's View (Mark Thoma's economics blog, etc. The last two really good if you like economics)? Doing well at work? Listening to Soma FM (again music)?

To the question I would say time and money.

(Wow, that was cathartic. We should start a thread where everyone lists what they like to do. Someone do that.)

I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone

Ahhh, so we are getting to the point. What would a person do on the margin. How would you act when the world has turned against you.

After this sentence I did read ahead and go through the responses, and of course as I would expect, many of the board's more sane (and I'm using this word in the least pejorative way to you personally as I can) religious and non-religious members have responded far better than I ever could. Thank you all.

I will refuse and discipline myself,

Really, I find your strength admirable, though I believe you may be the exception rather than the rule in certain cases of the religious and/or non-religious.

I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness.

I find this sentence odd, because as I read it, you don't do these things because you don't want to go to a really bad place that your creator (supposedly good I would think) will send you, though you would "ask and pray his forgiveness". But if you don't do them, you don't really need to be forgiven. Now I think I know what you mean, but you've built yourself a little bit of a conundrum here. Because, though you as a tower of strength of purity and goodness would never do this because you are threatened with hell, what about those who don't? They of course have transgressed the law, but yet they can ask for forgiveness? So its more of a guideline than a rule at this point I suppose.

But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell

Once again I must stress the Tallahassee experience (one way or the other, won't say which).

why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity?

Now this is a tough question, because I have been very personal in my answer (see above, possibly exceedingly so) about what I desire. Living where I do and how I do, allows me to do these things without censure of society or government. If I live elsewhere, there may be some of these I could not do.

About the desires I (and possibly many members of this board) would categorize, and possibly relate too, as "not moral conduct". I would say may innate sense of love and fairness. The downside of what I would lose if I were to act upon desires (possibly my own secular version of hell). The stress and my basic laziness about being hassled if I were to try to act upon them.

This answer is very personal to me and you may take from it what you will in general.

Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

IMHO (speaking as a haughty atheist), No.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I don't really understand what's so complicated here. Atheists simply lack belief in a higher being like God.

It is complicated brother. This 'lack of belief' mantra has become rather fashionable position to take among new atheists. But what is it supposed to mean? And why do they take this line?


Question

In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God. What would be a good response to this? Thank you for your time,

Answer

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

Source: reasonablefaith.org


In fact when pressed some new atheists have great difficulty trying to define what does atheism actually mean



Analysis, a bit humourous but you get the point.



Alright digression over.

[TJ-alcapone]

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

I think you are correct partly in your observations, except for a few inaccuracies. Primary of which is the way you have defined atheism and agnosticism. Atheists have in no way redefined the words. It is rather sad that pseudo philosophers like William Lane Craig use them for pure rhetorical purposes. I shall use the Oxford English Dictionary to assist me in my case.

agnostic: A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a god.

If you are asked IS there a god and your answer I don't know, then you are an agnostic.
If you asked do you BELIEVE in a god and you answer is no, then you are an atheist.

So again AGNOSTICISM is a knowledge based proposition.
ATHEISM is a belief based proposition. (A belief can be held for either good reasons or poor ones)

Through these definitions, all humans come under 4 philosophical brackets.

1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god.
2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god.
3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god.
4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god.

So through these definitions, I would classify myself and most other atheists as Agnostic Atheists. I lack a belief in god, but do I possess knowledge certain of his/her/it's non existence? No. You really can't disprove the existence of entity.

Take the Russell's Celestial Teapot, a analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove the claims of religions.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

There are however a small subset of atheists who suggest that there CANNOT be a god. How these set of people choose to rationalize their opinions, I have no idea and frankly can't be questioned for it as my philosophical position is different. The notion of closet agnostics is ludicrous. As I have already mentioned, atheism and agnosticism are not contradictory to one another.

[Pygoscelis]

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.

This is true with ANY unfalsifiable claim. We could just as easily speak of invisible space alien visitors or faeries in the garden. You can't prove they don't exist. Does that mean we should give them even odds of being there?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

[Muhaba]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

all those people were probably not athiests but they were still willing to commit the crime. the reason is that they probably don't have such a strong belief in God or Hell or God's punishment otherwise they wouldn't be so willing. So why don't they commit this crime or others normally? why are they only willling to do it for such a high payment? The reason is that the stakes are high. They fear some sort of punishment in this world if not in the Next. That punishment may be from the law enforcement agency or it may be being disowned by the community or by one's family and friends or simply one's conscience. Such forms of punishment stop people from not just such horrible crimes but also lesser ones such as fruad and theft. The fear of losing one's job stops a person from fruad in the company. The fear of being arrested also stops one from fraud and theft. In some countries where law and order is lacking, there are more cases of fraud and theft and even murder, even by people claiming to believe in God. Fraud and deception is also common among weak Muslims - a shameful thing!

so a person not committing crimes or sins doesn't mean they believe in God or the Hereafter.

one evidence of this is zina (fornication - that is sexual relatins out of marriage). In places like USA and UK where this is accepted, more people indulge in it. In the Eastern countries where it is considered a shameful thing, most peopel refrain from it. Doesn't mean that all the people in eastern nations are very religious while those in the WEST are all athiests/secular.

[glo]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

I'd love to see this survey. Such a high percentage seems really unlikely.
If you find the survey, will you post it, please?

[TJ-alcapone]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

Wow you must be really gullible. Firstly what is this research, what were the factors taken into consideration? Ticking a box on a piece of paper and actually being willing to kill someone is hugely different. Such surveys are a waste of time. Murder carries a life imprisonment sentence in the UK. Besides, stop looking at ludicrous surveys such as these and look at the actual data. As I have posted even before, sociological research shows that murder rates in a nation are not effected hugely by religiosity. If anything in more religious places, propensity for violent crime increases slightly. It is time to blow this myth out of the water once in for all. Religiosity nor capital punishment, neither have ANY significant effect on murder. If at all there is a anomaly, most often the relation is proportional. That is, places with more religiosity or more capital punishment are more violent.

The two factors however which effect worldwide violent crime rates significantly are poverty and inequality. Other factors which affect it a little lesser are gun ownership and unemployment. Murder rates in Middle, Eastern and Southern Africa are significantly higher that the rest of the world. This is presumably due to poverty. Homicides rates also spike in very significant ways in countries where drug trafficking is common.

So again I repeat myself yet again. Religiosity has very little effect on homicide rates. By not looking at proper statistics, you are only willfully keeping yourself ignorant. And some muslims seriously need to rid themselves off of this holier than thou attitude. They need to stop deluding themselves to preset positions and really look at the data.