/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Can an atheist have morals?



wilberhum
08-25-2006, 06:20 PM
There have been many negative statements about atheists and morals.
One provided the following link. I would like to share that with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals
It states:
Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

So moral values can come from cultural, secular, humanist or philosophical communities.

Religion is not the only source of morals, and the definition shows that you don’t need a “Holy Book” to determine the difference between right and wrong.

I find it morally repulsive to claim that any group lack morals based only on there beliefs and not on there actions.

How about you?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ghazi
08-25-2006, 06:26 PM
:sl:

it's about prespective one thing might be ok for one guy and vise versa for the next, the definition of morals is in the eye of the beholder.
Reply

Woodrow
08-25-2006, 06:27 PM
I believe one problem that arises is people tend to define morality in different terms. Perhaps it could help this thread stay on topic if you post what you are using as a definition of morality for the pupose of this thread and in that way maybe we can all talk about the same thing.
Reply

KAding
08-25-2006, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:

it's about prespective one thing might be ok for one guy and vise versa for the next, the definition of morals is in the eye of the beholder.
Exactly. Especially stuff surrounding sexuality is bound to cause moral clashes. Some people simply don't see 'consensual crimes' as necesarilly immoral.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
جوري
08-25-2006, 07:20 PM
I definitely believe that atheists have morals... question is where do they get their moral upstanding from? is it innate? or is it distilled religious teachings? I believe religion has set the measure of what these morals are... so my question is why accept certain rules and reject the rest? in a way to be a "good" person you'd have to obey certain civic laws.... Not stealing, not cheating, not lying, not murdering etc... those are the basic foundations of religion ---organized or otherwise.... so how come Atheists insist on admitting that they believe in nothing at least no form of divine laws... yet Morality is the essence of religion and divine teachings . .. .
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:20 PM
consensual crimes
I think that is exactly where Woodrow ask us not to go.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:23 PM
PurestAmbrosia
Using the defination "Religion is not the only source of morals".
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:25 PM
well prove me wrong I am willing to accept it....
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:27 PM
A moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong ... question is where were these "sanctioned codes" first established?
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
A moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong ... question is where were these "sanctioned codes" first established?
What difference does it make? For two or more people to coexist, there must be rules. These rules, in there basic form, are morals.

PS: I don't understand "well prove me wrong I am willing to accept it...."
Reply

QuranStudy
08-25-2006, 07:31 PM
"Moral Atheist" is an oxymoron.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
"Moral Atheist" is an oxymoron.
Since you are the one that inspired me to start this thread, please explain.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What difference does it make? For two or more people to coexist, there must be rules. These rules, in there basic form, are morals.
makes all the difference in the world... if you reject the notion of God why conform yourself to guide lines set forth by God?
Reply

glo
08-25-2006, 07:36 PM
Let me give this as a reason why all humans are equipped with morals:

'I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.' (Hebrews 8:10)
peace. :)
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
makes all the difference in the world... if you reject the notion of God why conform yourself to guide lines set forth by God?
Your defination of god is not mine. I do not conform myself to your defination of gods guide lines. I think most of the morals built by society are good enough.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Your defination of god is not mine. I do not conform myself to your defination of gods guide lines. I think most of the morals built by society are good enough.
those morals built by "society" come from religion that is their foundation.. some societies are more stringent with those rules than others.... if it is a matter of co-existence to you... lots of people don't co-exist even with such morals set forth... husbands and wives even... so question again remains open... why do you choose the portion that will allow you to habituate and reject the rest?
Reply

Idris
08-25-2006, 07:41 PM
This is an excellent answer I found, even though it is a Christian and I don’t agree with something’s from his/her religions I do however agree with his/her answer 100%

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do have a legal system with a codified set of moral laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Unfortunately, however, social experimentation is often harmful.
There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not?
But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings. But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks.
The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the ten commandments are a summary. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered. In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God.
Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:43 PM
those morals built by "society" come from religion that is their foundation
Pure openion, not chance of verification. Just like mine that morals came b4 religion and religious founders used them. All openion and none if provable.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Pure openion, not chance of verification. Just like mine that morals came b4 religion and religious founders used them. All openion and none if provable.
I can prove that religion brought forth morals... it is the foundation of all religions... it isn't difficult to prove... having morals before the existence of religion now that is difficult so the burden of proof lies in your court really... prove to me that a "homo erectus" had morals.. and I'll be willing to accept it....
Reply

glo
08-25-2006, 07:49 PM
Can I just throw in that I know atheists who feel their moral values are superior to those of 'religious' people. The reason they give is that atheists act morally for no reason other than that they can and want to do so - no divine commands or heavenly promises are involved. Just a human desire to do what's right ...

Just food for thought ... :?

Any comments?

peace.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 07:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Can I just throw in that I know atheists who feel their moral values are superior to those of 'religious' people. The reason they give is that atheists act morally for no reason other than that they can and want to do so - no divine commands or heavenly promises are involved. Just a human desire to do what's right ...

Just food for thought ... :?

Any comments?

peace.
I am not sure... in order for anyone to feel at all "morally" speaking they would have to have a conscious that allows them a feeling of right from wrong... and the conscious is an intangible thing we can't see or study sort of like God.... and Atheists devote themselves entirely to science so the conscious would have no room here so to be honest I am preplexed... they can't get away from religion or the unseen but insist that it is all a ridiculous notion....
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 07:58 PM
They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged.
An “absolute god”, is an opinion and not verifable. You can’t even get a simple majority to agree on what “god demands”. So the base of the argument is flawed.
At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes."
And that is the best because societies keep changing. We have problems today that could not have been even dreamed about a hundred years ago let alone over a thousand years ago. So what happens is people use there personal interpretation of the old rules to create new ones. Of course you still have the same old problem. People don’t agree on what god’s laws are and no one can prove there accuracy.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:02 PM
I can prove that religion brought forth morals
Well lets see it.
it is the foundation of all religions
That doesn't prove that they didn't start within a society for social reasons.
prove to me that a "homo erectus" had morals
What part of non varifiable did you not understand?
Reply

Idris
08-25-2006, 08:02 PM
Can I just throw in that I know atheists who feel their moral values are superior to those of 'religious' people. The reason they give is that atheists act morally for no reason other than that they can and want to do so - no divine commands or heavenly promises are involved. Just a human desire to do what's right ...
Are there different levels in being moral? I imagine that you have morals but you cannot say I have superior morals. If two people have morals, one cannot say I have better morals then you. If you people say that they have morals how do you measure morals with a rule?

And that is the best because societies keep changing. We have problems today that could not have been even dreamed about a hundred years ago let alone over a thousand years ago. So what happens is people use there personal interpretation of the old rules to create new ones. Of course you still have the same old problem. People don’t agree on what god’s laws are and no one can prove there accuracy.

Law of god is there for all to see if one does not follow it does it mean it's wrong.

And that is the best because societies keep changing.
the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them.
What can stop some mad man from starting slavery? You don't have a fixed law.
Reply

Woodrow
08-25-2006, 08:03 PM
I think we are drifting into 2 different topics.

Can an Atheist have Moral values?

and

What is the source of Moral Values?


On a personal level I believe an Atheist can have Moral Values. But, I believe the source of Moral values is Allah(swt)

Two seperate topics. The topic we are currently discussing is "Can an Aheist have Morals?" The source of the morals is a seperate issue.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 08:04 PM
God's laws are basic and extend themselves into every aspect... sure you didn't have white collar crime 1000, 2000, or 5000 years ago... but it would still go under a general heading to which there is a ruling... I challenge you to come up with soceital complaint that exists today that can't be argued for or against by one of the absolute fundamentals... by the way regardless of what Jesus had that Moses didn't or what mohammed had that Job didn't they all shared the same principle beliefs...
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:05 PM
Atheists devote themselves entirely to science so the conscious would have no room here so to be honest
Order in the court. Here comes the atheists bashing.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Idris
Are there different levels in being moral? I imagine that you have morals but you cannot say I have superior morals. If two people have morals, one cannot say I have better morals then you. If you people say that they have morals how do you measure morals with a rule?
Right on. Not all “Moral Compasses” point in exactly the same direction.
Reply

Woodrow
08-25-2006, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Order in the court. Here comes the atheists bashing.
Be fair post the whole quote:

I
am not sure... in order for anyone to feel at all "morally" speaking they would have to have a conscious that allows them a feeling of right from wrong... and the conscious is an intangible thing we can't see or study sort of like God.... and Atheists devote themselves entirely to science so the conscious would have no room here so to be honest I am preplexed... they can't get away from religion or the unseen but insist that it is all a ridiculous notion....
It seems to be more of a request for clarification
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Well lets see it.
pick any theology or organized religion and see its tenets... do you want scrolls of cut and pasted documents laid forth before you?

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
That doesn't prove that they didn't start within a society for social reasons..
what social reasons are those? why would you want to even have it govern your behavior? you want something from the store just steal it....

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What part of non varifiable did you not understand?
glad you admit to it.. even if it is in less than cordial terms
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:12 PM
God's laws are basic and extend themselves into every aspect
I can produce a long list of other peoples version of "god's laws" that will contridect your version of "god's laws". So what human get's to determine what are "god's laws" that become the base for morality?

Right Woodrow, different topic.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I can produce a long list of other peoples version of "god's laws" that will contridect your version of "god's laws". So what human get's to determine what are "god's laws" that become the base for morality?
Go ahead cut and paste those would love to see how other messangers laws are different from mine
Reply

Woodrow
08-25-2006, 08:16 PM
We are drifting off topic. Reminder the topic is:

Can an atheist have morals?


Not The origin of Morals.

Let us return to topic.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Go ahead cut and paste those would love to see how other messangers laws are different from mine
Do you go to mass every Sunday? Many believe that is one of "god's laws".

This is my last "Off Topic" post.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-25-2006, 08:17 PM
Do you go to mass every Sunday? Many believe that is one of "god's laws".
Many? Only some Christians believe this.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2006, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Do you go to mass every Sunday? Many believe that is one of "god's laws".

This is my last "Off Topic" post.
that is not a "moral" we have sermon on friday after noon prayer so the fundamental notion of visiting the house of God listening to a lecture exists in organized religion...
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 08:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
that is not a "moral" we have sermon on friday after noon prayer so the fundamental notion of visiting the house of God listening to a lecture exists in organized religion...
Off Topic. Open another thread.
Reply

Skillganon
08-25-2006, 08:46 PM
Atheist do have moral, but all the moral may not be absolute for them. It may shift according to time and place. One other thing, one can't generalise on that all atheist having the same moral. One thing may be more important than the other or they may disagree on certain thing completely. What is important to note that religiouse (e.g. muslim, christian) people and atheist may agree on cerain moral but what they may disagree on is the solution to the problem.

Peace

Skill.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-25-2006, 09:54 PM
What evidence can you provide that Atheism and morality go together?
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 10:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
What evidence can you provide that Atheism and morality go together?
What evidence can you provide that they don't.

Good by for the weekend. :rant:
Reply

QuranStudy
08-25-2006, 10:04 PM
What evidence can you provide that they don't.
That fact that there is no evidence is evidence itself!
Reply

Snowflake
08-25-2006, 10:28 PM
Yes, I believe that an atheist can have morals. Humanity has it's own level/code of morals and self-decipline. God has given everyone a basic human instinct and a conscience to differentiate between right and wrong. I believe it is the play of this instinct and conscience that make even atheists decent human beings. Whether they believe this to be from God or not is an entirely different matter.
Reply

KAding
08-25-2006, 11:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
What evidence can you provide that Atheism and morality go together?
The evidence? What about those many atheists that have morals?

Besides, I would say the core components of morals are compassion and empathy. Why would someone who believes in a deity have any more of that than someone who doesn't?
Reply

QuranStudy
08-26-2006, 12:00 AM
The evidence? What about those many atheists that have morals?
What atheists? The atheists I know are fornicators and some are sodomizers (gay).
Reply

snakelegs
08-26-2006, 12:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
Yes, I believe that an atheist can have morals. Humanity has it's own level/code of morals and self-decipline. God has given everyone a basic human instinct and a conscience to differentiate between right and wrong. I believe it is the play of this instinct and conscience that make even atheists decent human beings. Whether they believe this to be from God or not is an entirely different matter.
i agree. i think we are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong - that it is part of our natural sense of survival and preservation, no matter what we believe or don't believe.
i was raised in no religion and i don't think i was any more immoral than anybody else.
Reply

Joe98
08-26-2006, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
But, I believe the source of Moral values is Allah(swt)
No, the source of morale values is common sense.
Reply

Joe98
08-26-2006, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
That fact that there is no evidence is evidence itself!

Do angels exist?
Reply

QuranStudy
08-26-2006, 01:32 AM
No, the source of morale values is common sense.
No offense, but if that the case then atheists have little common sense.
Reply

Zulkiflim
08-26-2006, 03:30 AM
Salaam,

Of course all of mankind are born perfect,to know what is right from wrong.

But it is our own choices that make us what WE ARE.

As the Prophet has said,,A MESSENGER WAS SENT TO ALL RACES.

To give the message,but in time it was perverted and corrupted for a paltry price to meet man needs and lusT.

So yes all of mankind have morals,but to what degree of morality is the question.
thus why Allah sent messenger to all RACES..so that each will kow the true depth of morality and what is wrong.

From knowing morality then we cna know what is immoral and thus laws are made.
Reply

Woodrow
08-26-2006, 03:57 AM
Isn't saying that an atheist can not have morals, similar to saying that a man who does not believe in dentists can't have a tooth ache?

I can not see any reason to doubt that an atheist can have moral values. I think we disagree on the source and reason.
Reply

KAding
08-26-2006, 12:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
What atheists? The atheists I know are fornicators and some are sodomizers (gay).
You make it sound like a bad thing :p.

Seriously, like I said. Sexuality seems to be the main issue seperating secular morals from religious morals.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-26-2006, 01:48 PM
You make it sound like a bad thing
It's immoral, which supports my point.

Seriously, like I said. Sexuality seems to be the main issue seperating secular morals from religious morals.
Man sodomizing man is acceoptable by atheists. Moral? NO WAY.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 04:40 PM
I think the basic problem with this tread lies here.
1. On one hand you have morality which refers to a universal code of conduct.
2. On the other hand you have morality which refers to a code of conduct which humans think is moral.
What's the difrence between the two? Well for the saek of making my explenation clearly, lets asume all humans can reach consensus on what's moral and what's not. Even then, even if we all agree, that still doesn't necesairly make our humane vision of moral actions the same as the universal set of codes! Of course an atheist can question wheter there exists such a thing. And thats where it gets tricky. We muslims think there's a difrence between what some poeple percieve as moral and that which is actually moral. We believe that something can be percieved as right by us, while it is wrong and vise verca, because we do not have suficient insight to fully understand the consequences of our actions, at least not to the same extend as our creator (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) has that insight. Therefor we believe that the morality that comes from our logic, is inferior to the devine morality revealed to us by the prophets (peace be upon them). After all, when you use a complex machine, do yo not read the manual from the manufacturer? Likewise we use the revelations of the prophets (peace be upon them) to better understand which code of conduct is more desirable or "moral".

As an example of how our logic is incuficient to derive a universal morality from: consider a person who -based on his extreme communistic vieuws- claims that theft is not immoral, since all matter and objects belongs to the people, and nobody can claim any material object as his property.
This might eb a lil' bit exagerated, but it shows how our morality is easely influenced by our worldview, and believes.

Likewise, and atheist might have his personal opinion on what is moral and what is immoral. Yet I am convinced that he will logical flaws in his opinion; since no person is capable enough to fully understand the depths and consequences of a specific action or conduct. I've already explained in a difrent thread how generally speaking the moralilty of an atheist is "lower" (in the strict meaning of the word) then the morality of a muslim, since the atheistic morality alows more and the muslim orality is stricter in conduct (again, in general, not all atheist think alike). Wheter or not an atheist agrees that this strictness is mandatory for a "desirable" morality, he would have to agree that a lesser strict morality is inferior to the more strict morality.
Reply

Zulkiflim
08-28-2006, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
You make it sound like a bad thing :p.

Seriously, like I said. Sexuality seems to be the main issue seperating secular morals from religious morals.

Salaam,

May i ask,to what extent of fornication and altenative lifestyle do you support?

Do you also support incest between father and daughter or father and son?
Or mother and daughter ....or any close relation?

What is your boundary?
Or dont you have any?
Reply

syilla
08-28-2006, 04:21 AM
:sl:

the problem ppl is now having is...what is really moral values? what is the appropriate conduct?

if you ask the people...you can have so many answers...

and do you think the majority sayings are the correct ones?

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-28-2006, 04:51 AM
:sl:
Many of the issues being raised in this thread have already been the subject of much discussion in the following thread:
The Moral Consequences of Atheism

:w:
Reply

KAding
08-28-2006, 09:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

May i ask,to what extent of fornication and altenative lifestyle do you support?

Do you also support incest between father and daughter or father and son?
Or mother and daughter ....or any close relation?

What is your boundary?
Or dont you have any?
Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.

Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong.
Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-28-2006, 11:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.
That's an interesting difrence, but it begs the question, what motivation does an atheist have to follow this morality? Lets assume for a second nobody ever will get hurt from it (she won't find out) is it still a repulsive thing to do? you see, just because nobody has been wronged by it, doesn't make it ok. wheter or not the law needs to step in is a whole difrent discussion. We would have to measure up benefits of rule versus limitation of freedom. In Islam usually the wellbeing of the peopel and teh community is more important than individual freedom. To me that seems to make sense, but in the west peopel usually think freedom is more important, which quite frankly I find selfish.


format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.
Well you need to see the whole picture, look at a society where fornication is considered no problem and look at a society where it isn't. I think you'll find a lot less heartbreak, and a lot less emotional distress, a lot less broken up familys in the on where it's not alowed. Also you need to consider that marriage will be an entirely difrent proces, that wife-husband relationship will have a totally difrent character. In teh end you need to look at the whole puzzle (=society, with all sorts of rules and conduct), rather then taking a single piece of "our" puzzle and trying to fit it in "your" puzzle. No you can argue that cost of this rule, the limitation it sets on freedom is not worth the welbeing it offers the community. However I think it's clear that having this rule offers a benefith to society, and thus can be considered "more moral" then not having this rule.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong. Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.
Well you need to think bigger. The reason something is considered immoral is not always only because of teh direct effect an act has on the participants of that act. Those participants are also a part of a community, and their private acts will in the long term affect the community. The reason sodomosation isn't allowed isn't revealed to us, it's simply said that it is not alowed. However if we look at it we find that it is undesirable. First of al if large numbers of society would be gay we'd have a problem with reproducing and that society would have problems with senior citicens and so on, but that's just a minor thing. Let's for a second forget the AIDS problem in Africa, since it's to wide spread there to make conclusions about it. But if you'll look in Western countries, America and Europe. You'll find that 90% of AIdspatient are homosexual or bisexual. During anal sex, the chance of passing on this disease (as well as other diseases that pass trough bloodcontact) is a lot higher, since there's a much higher chance of internal bleedings! You need blood to pass Aids, the reason heterosexuals can pass aids to is because sometimes in the womb or in the sperm are small particles of blood. When sodomising the chance of bloodcontact is so much higher, and statistic back that up, so it's only natural for Allah (s.w.t.) to forbid this act, afterall that is not why he designed us those shapes.
Reply

Zulkiflim
08-28-2006, 03:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.

Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong.
Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.

Salaam,

Alhamdulilah,i am happy that you do have some boundaries..


Inshallah,maybe from there the boudaries towards decency will spread.

as i said before,moral is imbued in everone.,,,but we break it to our own lusts and need...

For me as a muslim,i find the notion of alternative relationship is not just morally wrong by divinely condemned.


I am very sure in this case most chrisitan would agree that marriage is between a man and a woman..
Reply

Woodrow
08-28-2006, 04:57 PM
I bellieve where the confusion comes from is how people view the word morals.

It seems that people are not seeing the difference between morals and a universaly accepted code of Morals.

Most Religions do have a well written code, that is understood by the believers of the religion and is taught as such. To many believers that is what is seen as morals

For an atheist the code will be their own self values plus the written civil and criminal laws of where they live.

In either case the true test will be in how each individual applies the code.

A person can profess to believe in God(swt) yet not live up to his own written codes thereby it is possible for a person who believes in God(swt) to live an immoral life.

Conversly an Athiest can live within the laws of the land and his inner values and live a very moral life.
Reply

wilberhum
08-28-2006, 06:21 PM
QuranStudy
That fact that there is no evidence is evidence itself!
The “No Evidence” is only because you ware “Faith Blinders”.
The atheists I know are fornicators and some are sodomizers (gay).
One of the best ways to judge a person is the company he keeps. How many atheists do you know? Never met a gay or fornicator that believed in god? You must live in a very small world to have never met the thousands. And is sexual activity the only thing that morality covers?
No offense, but if that the case then atheists have little common sense.
I just love that “No Offense” you keep stating when your whole attitude is offensive. Now atheist not only have no morals they have no common sense. Nothing offensive about that. Da.

If you look back at the definition, remember, you provided the link, religion is not the only source of morals. So by definition, atheists can be just as moral as anyone.
If you were right, every atheist would be in jail.

PS: You might notice that basically, no one agrees with you. That in it’s self is a good indicator.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-28-2006, 06:52 PM
The “No Evidence” is only because you ware “Faith Blinders”.
O really? Prove to me that atheists have morals. Fornication and and homosexuality don't count. At least "faith blinders" are more human than the average atheist.

One of the best ways to judge a person is the company he keeps. How many atheists do you know? Never met a gay or fornicator that believed in god? You must live in a very small world to have never met the thousands. And is sexual activity the only thing that morality covers?
The best way to judge atheists is through their practice. Prominent atheists in history are mass murderers (Stalin, Pol Pot etc). Atheists I know fornicate on a regular basis, some becoming parents at an early age and regretting it. Other atheists are strongly intolerant of the faithful. I can go on and on but my personal view is that atheists are the side effects of a healthy society.

If you look back at the definition, remember, you provided the link, religion is not the only source of morals. So by definition, atheists can be just as moral as anyone.
Religion is not the only source of morals, that is true. But it is religion that make people abide by moral codes throughout their life through restrictions. If everyone was atheist in the world, there would indeed be a chaotic hell on earth.

PS: You might notice that basically, no one agrees with you. That in it’s self is a good indicator.
I never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.
Reply

wilberhum
08-28-2006, 07:06 PM
never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.
What, both of the atheists you know are immoral. I never saw an atheists kill for god.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-28-2006, 07:11 PM
What, both of the atheists you know are immoral. I never saw an atheists kill for god.
But then there are atheists who killed millions of their own people to satisfy their own selfish agenda.
Reply

wilberhum
08-28-2006, 07:23 PM
QuranStudy
You are obviously a victom of “self-imposed ignorance” and you are beyond help. Go on with your bigotery, noone really cares.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-28-2006, 07:25 PM
You are obviously a victom of “self-imposed ignorance” and you are beyond help. Go on with your bigotery, noone really cares.
Thank you for the very scholarly comeback.
Reply

glo
08-28-2006, 08:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
I never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.
I wonder what information you base that judgement on??? :?
On your personal observations?
Or do you have some statistics on 'atheist immorality'? :eek:

peace
Reply

Woodrow
08-28-2006, 08:49 PM
I have come to the conclusion that no 2 people on this thread have the same concept of what morals mean.

It looks like we are all comparing from our own view points and deninitions.

I see apples being compared to donuts and the result being swordfish.


Perhaps a few can state what they believe what morals are and based on what their concept of morals are explain if Atheists do or do not have morals.
Reply

wilberhum
08-28-2006, 10:35 PM
Perhaps a few can state what they believe what morals are and based on what their concept of morals are explain if Atheists do or do not have morals.
Well let’s start with the definition.
the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil…shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community.
Notice “Shared Within”. So the morals of one religious community need not apply to another religious community. The same is true between two different secular communities. The problem comes in with the concept of superiority. Almost every group conceders themselves superior to all other groups. Therefore there morals are superior to everyone else’s. My favorite term is “Moral Compass”. Because they may point is slightly different directions.
Example:
I believe that polygamy is immoral. Therefore if I take more than one wife, I am being immoral. Also, to expect everyone in the world to accept my code of morals, to me is immoral. Therefore I can not claim that someone who takes more than one wife is immoral, unless it is against his moral code.
Reply

Woodrow
08-28-2006, 10:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Well let’s start with the definition.
the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil…shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community.
Notice “Shared Within”. So the morals of one religious community need not apply to another religious community. The same is true between two different secular communities. The problem comes in with the concept of superiority. Almost every group conceders themselves superior to all other groups. Therefore there morals are superior to everyone else’s. My favorite term is “Moral Compass”. Because they may point is slightly different directions.
Example:
I believe that polygamy is immoral. Therefore if I take more than one wife, I am being immoral. Also, to expect everyone in the world to accept my code of morals, to me is immoral. Therefore I can not claim that someone who takes more than one wife is immoral, unless it is against his moral code.
A long time ago I heard a quote, sadly I can not remember the source:

It is immoral to call another persons morals immoral."
I do not fully agree with it, but I find it to be an interesting concept and perhaps part of that may apply to all of us. It is odd it seems we want people to have morals but we tend to call their morals immoral. It is probably safe to say that every person can see some immorality in the other persons morals.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-28-2006, 10:49 PM
Just because some people consider a code of conduct to be moral, that code of conduct isn't necesairly moral.

Nazi's thought that ethnic cleaning was the moral thing to do. Am I immoral when saying the morality of the holocaust is immoral?
Reply

Md Mashud
08-28-2006, 10:50 PM
The morals - which would seem good - will actually be for self benefit - whether for image, reputation or self-good feel factor and in the more common case of just guilt - Not really if its correct or not, which truly can only be made by fear of Allah.
Reply

wilberhum
08-28-2006, 10:54 PM
which truly can only be made by fear of Allah.
Here we go again. If I fear not Allah, I’m immoral.
Reply

Md Mashud
08-28-2006, 10:57 PM
I didnt say atheists cant have morales - read thread, just saying it will be like an impure form of morality, very different from that of believers.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-28-2006, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Here we go again. If I fear not Allah, I’m immoral.
Woaw there, take it one step at the time Wilberhum. that statement has a lot of depth. I'd start by saying that if you don't aknowledge the existance of Allah, against better knowledge that you are immoral. Wheter or not your disbelief is against better knowledge is unknown to us, it might just as well be out of confusion or lack of knowledge. So we don't know if your disbelief is immoral.

But regardless of that, Md Mashud only Said that Allah is the only source of morality. That doesn't necesairly mean disbelievers do not have acces to morality indirectly.
Reply

KAding
08-30-2006, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
That's an interesting difrence, but it begs the question, what motivation does an atheist have to follow this morality? Lets assume for a second nobody ever will get hurt from it (she won't find out) is it still a repulsive thing to do? you see, just because nobody has been wronged by it, doesn't make it ok.
We need to keep things seperated. I said that I believe the 'harm principle' is a decent way to determine when the law may intervene to punish whoever is causing the 'harm'. If there is no harm involved the government should keep out of it. I never claimed that the 'harm principle' is enough to base a complete set of morals on.

Just because I do not believe it is the job of the state to impose morality does not mean I think morality is a completely individual matter. Society as a whole and communities can of course exert social pressure to impose some basic norms and rules of conduct.

Besides, your example is flawed. Even if 'she does not find out' you will still have to lie or at least hide the truth. That in itself is dishonest towards that person and thus 'wrong'. That person is after all denied some basic information that is essential in any relationship.

wheter or not the law needs to step in is a whole difrent discussion. We would have to measure up benefits of rule versus limitation of freedom. In Islam usually the wellbeing of the peopel and teh community is more important than individual freedom. To me that seems to make sense, but in the west peopel usually think freedom is more important, which quite frankly I find selfish.
I have the impression Islam essentially believes virtually all morals should be enforced by the state. Am I correct in this? I am personally opposed to such an approach since I believe it is likely to lead to totalitarian and repressive rule. Especially if one considers that these morals are based on religious doctrine and thus highly subjective. I mean, there is no sane reason why anyone not Muslim would consider eating pork more 'immoral' than eating beef.

Well you need to see the whole picture, look at a society where fornication is considered no problem and look at a society where it isn't. I think you'll find a lot less heartbreak, and a lot less emotional distress, a lot less broken up familys in the on where it's not alowed.
Maybe, I think that is far from conclusive. Are people in societies with strict rules on relationships any more happy then societies which are more liberal? In the West people often engage in many different relationships before marrying to one specific partner. Since there is no huge barrier in finding new potential partners and socializing with them is easy, people are IMHO less likely to get stuck in an unwanted relationship. I don't think it's a coincidence that forced or arranged marriages are much more likely in societies where sexual norms are strict and little room is left to youngsters to explore their sexuality on their own.

I agree that essentially broken marriages with children are bad, but it is hard to tell whether continuing a relationship which is clearly unhappy, just because society demands it, leads to more happiness and less 'heartbreak'. Divorces are not merely a problem, but for many people also a solution! My problem with Islam is that it seems to assume one lifestyle is 'perfect' and that it should suit all. But that is clearly not the case. Different people have different needs to become 'happy'. The indiviual himself is best positioned to determine how to achieve maximum happiness. If that means a lifestyle that is not 'normal', then so be it. If some want to wear headscarf and refrain from sex until marriage, so be it. If some don't, thats fine too. It's simplistic to think there is one solution to make all people happy, humans are too diverse for that.

There might be an unquantified 'social cost' in having these liberal rules on sexuality, but there is a obvious cost in an individuals ability to direct his own life.

Also you need to consider that marriage will be an entirely difrent proces, that wife-husband relationship will have a totally difrent character. In teh end you need to look at the whole puzzle (=society, with all sorts of rules and conduct), rather then taking a single piece of "our" puzzle and trying to fit it in "your" puzzle. No you can argue that cost of this rule, the limitation it sets on freedom is not worth the welbeing it offers the community. However I think it's clear that having this rule offers a benefith to society, and thus can be considered "more moral" then not having this rule.
Taking away 'freedom' is in itself immoral if there are no proper grounds for it, since I think limiting people in their ability to organize their own life is wrong. Religious people often seem to think society will collapse if, say, gays can get married or people have premarital sex. I think thats an unproven statement. It can as such not be used to limit peoples personal freedoms.

Well you need to think bigger. The reason something is considered immoral is not always only because of teh direct effect an act has on the participants of that act. Those participants are also a part of a community, and their private acts will in the long term affect the community.
Agreed. But like I said, vague expectations that there will be all kinds of adverse effects on society are not enough to warrant top-down intervention in society IMHO.

The reason sodomosation isn't allowed isn't revealed to us, it's simply said that it is not alowed. However if we look at it we find that it is undesirable. First of al if large numbers of society would be gay we'd have a problem with reproducing and that society would have problems with senior citicens and so on, but that's just a minor thing. Let's for a second forget the AIDS problem in Africa, since it's to wide spread there to make conclusions about it. But if you'll look in Western countries, America and Europe. You'll find that 90% of AIdspatient are homosexual or bisexual. During anal sex, the chance of passing on this disease (as well as other diseases that pass trough bloodcontact) is a lot higher, since there's a much higher chance of internal bleedings! You need blood to pass Aids, the reason heterosexuals can pass aids to is because sometimes in the womb or in the sperm are small particles of blood. When sodomising the chance of bloodcontact is so much higher, and statistic back that up, so it's only natural for Allah (s.w.t.) to forbid this act, afterall that is not why he designed us those shapes.
So sodomy should be outlawed? This is exactly the kind of reasoning I simply can't agree with. Simply because AIDS prevelance is higher among gays we must outlaw them? Simply because rape can happen women and men must be seperated? Sorry, I simply can't accept that such broad draconian solutions to fairly minor social ills are 'moral'. The solution is generally worse than the problem!
Reply

جوري
08-30-2006, 06:36 PM
wanted to make a quick comment on marriage in Islam... Islam gave women rights to choose and divorce I think are unprecdented soceity wise except recently and certainly none that I have seen in any other religion or organized ideaology... so the term forced or arranged is more a cultural issue than Islamic
I need to run but here are exerpts on marriage and divorce from first chapter
فَآؤُوا فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {226}
[Pickthal 2:226] Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

وَإِنْ عَزَمُواْ الطَّلاَقَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ {227}
[Pickthal 2:227] And if they decide upon divorce (let them remember that) Allah is Hearer, Knower.

وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ ثَلاَثَةَ قُرُوَءٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَهُنَّ أَن يَكْتُمْنَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ فِي أَرْحَامِهِنَّ إِن كُنَّ يُؤْمِنَّ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ إِنْ أَرَادُواْ إِصْلاَحًا وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلِلرِّجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَةٌ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكُيمٌ {228}
[Pickthal 2:228] Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَأْخُذُواْ مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ أَن يَخَافَا أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ {229}
[Pickthal 2:229] Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers.

فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلاَ تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىَ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَن يَتَرَاجَعَا إِن ظَنَّا أَن يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ يُبَيِّنُهَا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ {230}
[Pickthal 2:230] And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge.

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَلاَ تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لَّتَعْتَدُواْ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ ظَلَمَ نَفْسَهُ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُوَاْ آيَاتِ اللّهِ هُزُوًا وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ يَعِظُكُم بِهِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ {231}
[Pickthal 2:231] When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of Allah a laughing-stock (by your behaviour), but remember Allah's grace upon you and that which He hath revealed unto you of the Scripture and of wisdom, whereby He doth exhort you. Observe your duty to Allah and know that Allah is Aware of all things.

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ أَن يَنكِحْنَ أَزْوَاجَهُنَّ إِذَا تَرَاضَوْاْ بَيْنَهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ذَلِكَ يُوعَظُ بِهِ مَن كَانَ مِنكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكُمْ أَزْكَى لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ {232}
[Pickthal 2:232] And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness. This is an admonition for him among you who believeth in Allah and the Last Day. That is more virtuous for you, and cleaner. Allah knoweth; ye know not.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-31-2006, 12:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
We need to keep things seperated. I said that I believe the 'harm principle' is a decent way to determine when the law may intervene to punish whoever is causing the 'harm'. If there is no harm involved the government should keep out of it. I never claimed that the 'harm principle' is enough to base a complete set of morals on.
Ok, sorry for misinterpretation.

Just because I do not believe it is the job of the state to impose morality does not mean I think morality is a completely individual matter. Society as a whole and communities can of course exert social pressure to impose some basic norms and rules of conduct.
Will the community be able to establish morality well enough when it's not backed up by an institution (goverment or religion or both).

Besides, your example is flawed. Even if 'she does not find out' you will still have to lie or at least hide the truth. That in itself is dishonest towards that person and thus 'wrong'. That person is after all denied some basic information that is essential in any relationship.
Sure, but you still got my point right? :)


I have the impression Islam essentially believes virtually all morals should be enforced by the state. Am I correct in this?
I'm glad you asked. I can see how you got that impression. But normally when a state follows shariah law, it should not punish every immoral act. Some things are punishable, while other things are between Allah and the sinner only. In reality of course we see that a shariah-state doesn't always turn out like that. Remember, according to the Qur'an, there should be no compulsion in religion.

I am personally opposed to such an approach since I believe it is likely to lead to totalitarian and repressive rule. Especially if one considers that these morals are based on religious doctrine and thus highly subjective. I mean, there is no sane reason why anyone not Muslim would consider eating pork more 'immoral' than eating beef.
So no compulsion, means it should be ok for a non-muslim in a shariah country to eat pork. I don't think the state should even interfere with a muslim eating pork. Not everything is state affair. But I think that as long as the benefits greatly exceed the downsides that it's perfectly normal. Take an alcohol ban for example. Nobody will be wronged by depriving them of this, and both on individual level as on community level you will see a lot of benefits. This isn't just religious doctrine, even an atheist has to admit that a society as well as a single person is better of without alcohol, no matter how much he loves it.

Maybe, I think that is far from conclusive. Are people in societies with strict rules on relationships any more happy then societies which are more liberal? In the West people often engage in many different relationships before marrying to one specific partner. Since there is no huge barrier in finding new potential partners and socializing with them is easy, people are IMHO less likely to get stuck in an unwanted relationship. I don't think it's a coincidence that forced or arranged marriages are much more likely in societies where sexual norms are strict and little room is left to youngsters to explore their sexuality on their own.
I don't think there's any person in the world qualified to answer that question from a psychological pov, but as a believer I am convinced that people will be more happy in such a society

I agree that essentially broken marriages with children are bad, but it is hard to tell whether continuing a relationship which is clearly unhappy, just because society demands it, leads to more happiness and less 'heartbreak'. Divorces are not merely a problem, but for many people also a solution!
Of course, and divorce is perfectly possible in Islam, the difrence is that since there is no dating proces as in teh west, that people pick out partners more carefully (rational rather then emotional) and the necesity for divorce is a lot lower.

My problem with Islam is that it seems to assume one lifestyle is 'perfect' and that it should suit all. But that is clearly not the case. Different people have different needs to become 'happy'. The indiviual himself is best positioned to determine how to achieve maximum happiness. If that means a lifestyle that is not 'normal', then so be it. If some want to wear headscarf and refrain from sex until marriage, so be it. If some don't, thats fine too. It's simplistic to think there is one solution to make all people happy, humans are too diverse for that.
I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. I think the problem doesn't lie in people being happy with the Islamic lifestyle, but that people just don't realise it. By the way, there is no compulsion in religion, so a non-muslim is not obkiged to follow all islamic rules. Of course not everything goes, and some things have to be limited. But I think that even goes in your view. Afterall what do you do with the psychopath who's only happy when he kills, do you allow him his lifestyle to? Or the cleptomaniac, or the pyromaniac?


Taking away 'freedom' is in itself immoral if there are no proper grounds for it, since I think limiting people in their ability to organize their own life is wrong. Religious people often seem to think society will collapse if, say, gays can get married or people have premarital sex. I think thats an unproven statement. It can as such not be used to limit peoples personal freedoms.
Well I think there is proper ground for it. And it's not like a society will collapse just like that, but I do think the effects of certain tolerance far exceeds our limited minds. It's not just alowing to people to have sex, it's alowing a whole difrent set of morals, it's enabling a whole difrent way of life wich eventually WILL get mixed up with the other one. Look at liberal countrys like Turkey. There's a whole group of believing people who follow their religion halfway, and follow western morality the other way, which eventually causes for a lot of confusion and problems. the islamic way is perfect, but in it's pure form, from the moment you take away some of it's teachings, the other rules will no longer provide the best answer either.

So sodomy should be outlawed? This is exactly the kind of reasoning I simply can't agree with. Simply because AIDS prevelance is higher among gays we must outlaw them? Simply because rape can happen women and men must be seperated? Sorry, I simply can't accept that such broad draconian solutions to fairly minor social ills are 'moral'. The solution is generally worse than the problem!
Next to the common welbeing being more important then individual freedom in Islam. there's another important difrence wioth the west. Practability is more important.

So from a western pov (which holds freedom as very important) i can understand you think it's overreacted for women to veil so that man wouldn't jump them, afterall it's the men that should control theirselves. First of all this isn't the only reason, there are other reasons beside rape. But regardless of who would be the wrongdoer, and who should adapt, if veiling solves the problem in the most effecient way it's a small price to pay for a big reward. And yeah, though for woman who have to endure this because of men, but there's other rules that aply on men and not on woman. It's not fare to focus on this single rule, in the end I think all the sisters in here will tell you that the woman has the most respected position in Islam compared to woman's position in any other society.
Reply

dougmusr
08-31-2006, 03:32 AM
I think as a Christian I would agree with many of Steves points. One problem with the concept of using harm as a criteria is that it tends to be limited to that which is physical and observable. There are things that don't hurt physically which may do more harm to the individual and society.
Reply

Joe98
08-31-2006, 06:42 AM
Can the parents of an athiest have morals?

Can the religious friends of an athiest have morals?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-31-2006, 01:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Can the parents of an athiest have morals?

Can the religious friends of an athiest have morals?
That's a real constructive answer, once in a while it doesn't hurt to read the whole thread before coming in with an answer like that.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-31-2006, 01:59 PM
Can the parents of an athiest have morals?

Can the religious friends of an athiest have morals?
1.) Depends, prolly not if the parents are atheists as well.

2.) Yes

Answers are based on my experiences and nothing more
Reply

Snowflake
09-02-2006, 03:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
1.) Depends, prolly not if the parents are atheists as well.
[/b]
:sl:
If having morals is related to belief in God then why do those who believe commit crimes? Why do muslims, christians, etc etc deceive, rape and murder, lie, steal...? Where are their morals? If atheist didn't have morals they'd be all evil. Yet they aren't.

Possessing good morals has nothing to do with religion alone. Religion can only strengthen or teach moral values.

Every child is born with morals and the ability to be a loving and decent human being. That natural characteristic/ability is not lost if the child has not been brought up to believe in God or does believe in Him when he is old enough to think for himself.

How do you explain a decent human being who being an atheist, one day accepts that God does exist? If, as you say only 'believers' have morals, then what made an atheist suddenly believe? According to you and many others, an atheist doesnt have morals. Then what in their mind made that transition to belief from disbelief? Did they after believing morph into better human beings? Did they suddenly become more caring, helpful and nicer people. No. They are the same inside, unless they choose to be 'nicer' for the sake of Allah.

Surely the basic human instinct to know from right or wrong is already there. Right? That's what morals are right? To know from right and wrong. Then even if atheists don't believe in God they can still distinguish what is morally right or wrong.

I could ask you where intelligence comes from? You'll say it's from God. If God can give intelligence to atheists, then why not morals? You must realise that Allah gave humans instincts/principles to treat fellow humans justly. Morals are a God-given human thing, to govern the way humanbeings treat each other and live on this earth appropriately. Religion has little or nothing to do with it at all.


:w:
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 08:42 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 09:08 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-18-2006, 07:25 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2006, 09:04 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!