Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

[Hemoo]

i have some questions to the atheists and agnostics and i hope you all reply honestly and clearly

I want this question to be answered only by atheists and agnostics

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?

You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?

that's it for now and i am waiting to see your responses

and thanks in advance for answering

[Pygoscelis]

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

I can only speak for myself, but I am quite happy in my life.

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?

Why must life have a "purpose"?

I suppose my main purpose for living is to enjoy life and help those I care about do likewise.

You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

Do I ever get bored? Of course I do. Especially when locked in a seminar I'm not interested in. I'd rather be doing something else. I tend to daydream in such cases, caused by my boredom with the seminar.

Do you mean do I ever get bored with life in general? No. Life is too short to get bored with it. I'm only going to exist for a century at most. Now, if I had to edure an eternal afterlife, now THAT would get boring.

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?

No. Have you?

[Skavau]

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

Yes.

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?

To live. To do things that I enjoy and to have a positive impact on this place we call home.

You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

Yes I do get bored sometimes.

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?

No.

Your assumption is that all Atheists/Agnostics are depressed, am I right?

[snakelegs]

i have some questions to the atheists and agnostics and i hope you all reply honestly and clearly


I want this question to be answered only by atheists and agnostics

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

yes. thankful too.

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?

i don't believe a purpose is necessary.

You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

you see - i did not say my purpose is to enjoy it. of course i get bored once in a while - doesn't everybody?

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?
yes, but not since i was sick the last time and in unbearable pain. normally, i am grateful to be alive.

that's it for now and i am waiting to see your responses
and thanks in advance for answering :)

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

[wilberhum]

I’m happy with my life. I think life has been good to me.
I think the main purpose in life is to enjoy what god has given you while helping others and doing good.
Of course I have been bored, life is not always exciting.
I have never considered suicide as an option.

[Hemoo]

thank you all for your responces

no i have never thought of committing suicide

(besides islam says that who commits a suicide is a disbeliever and also we are forbidden to injure our selves because our bodies is like a deposit that Allah has gave us , i mean that our bodies is owned by Allah)

[Hemoo]

i have more questions :

what stops you from harming any one else ??

what stop you from stealing or killing others ?

is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?

or what ??

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else ?

EDIT : and what if you can do whatever you want to do even if it hurts others and you are sure that you can get away with it , so what will stop you from doing all that you desire even if it is wrong ?

[Pygoscelis]

what stops you from harming any one else ??
what stop you from stealing or killing others ?
is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?
or what ??

You may find it suprising, but I refrain from killing and maiming and raping random passerbys mostly for the same reasons you do: Human empathy and the desire to live in a society without such behaviour.

Imagine for a moment if you suddenly discovered that Allah doesn't exist. Imagine no God looking down on you. In such circumstance, would you suddenly start killing and stealing? I don't think you would. And if you examine why, you'll see why atheists avoid such behaviour.

It is actually religion that is often used to rationalize socially destructive behaviours (like hate, murder, bigotry, etc) that we would otherwise know are not good.

[Joe98]

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

Very happy

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly)

To visit every place on the planet, meet the people and to go hiking, cycling and skiing there

don’t you ever get bored?

No, there are too many places.

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?

No. Do you often have suicidal thoughts?

what stops you from harming any one else ??

I was brought up as a nice person

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else

The evil atheistic philosophy of common sense.

People must work together to survive.

and what if you can do whatever you want to do even if it hurts others and you are sure that you can get away with it , so what will stop you from doing all that you desire even if it is wrong ?

The evil atheistic philosophy of selfishness.

Ultimately I am better off by being nice to people instead of being nasty.

-

[snakelegs]

what stops you from harming any one else ??

self-preservation - i don't do anything to others that i wouldn't want them to do to me.

what stop you from stealing or killing others ?

same as above

is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?

no, because of above

or what ??

see above

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else ?

same as above


EDIT : and what if you can do whatever you want to do even if it hurts others and you are sure that you can get away with it , so what will stop you from doing all that you desire even if it is wrong ?

same as above

hemoo, let me ask you:
if you were not afraid of allah would you:
harm some one else?
steal or kill people?
do bad things if there weren't any laws?
if there were no laws, would you oppress others?
what would keep you from doing whatever you want, even if it hurts others, if you can get away with it?

[Hemoo]

well if there where no god is a false assumption but i will say that :

i think that i would'nt kill any one .. i may have made adultry and then leave the girl with her pregnant child ,you know why because i have taken what i want and now i don't want to take the responsibilities for this action and so on...

but i am talking about lesser things .

you said i don't do anything to others that i wouldn't want them to do to me.

but this principle means that you know that there is a pay back
and i will ask you what if no one can harm you ,what if you where a president with a lot of guards ????.

then you can do whatever you want and you know that no one can get to you

there must be a supreme creator that you know that you can never be more powerfull than he is , then this is the real deterrent for you and for every kind of mentality (or psyche)


and finally thanks all for your responses

talk to you later ...

[Kittygyal]

Salamualikum
Okay am no Atheist nor an Agnostics am a muslim alhamdulilah, but ''hemoo'' may i ask are you doing some kinda poll or something or do you want to how different people say about there selfs just kinda curious :)
Ma'assalama

[Hemoo]

well i am basicly seeking to know how does atheist and agnostics think ??

its like saying "what where you people thinking when you choose this way of life?"

[Kittygyal]

salam
^ ah seen no worries bro gud luck :) && RESPECT to all me non-muslims
Ma'assalama

[Pygoscelis]

i think that i would'nt kill any one .. i may have made adultry and then leave the girl with her pregnant child ,you know why because i have taken what i want and now i don't want to take the responsibilities for this action and so on...

How very selfish of you. Are you sure you'd do that? I wouldn't, and haven't. Many other non-believers wouldn't and haven't. There is something called taking responsibility for your actions. It lets you mintain your self respect.

If you pledge yourself to another person and promise not to have sex with anybody else, that's a vow, a personal guarantee and to break it isn't right. Since you married your spouse you probably love them, and wouldn't want to hurt them, so why would you sleep around? And if you fathered a child and then abandoned them, could you really live with that? I doubt it. I bet empathy and guilt would kick in and you'd help the kid.

but this principle means that you know that there is a pay back
and i will ask you what if no one can harm you ,what if you where a president with a lot of guards ????.

Yes, laws and payback enforce our behaviours (note this works for both good and bad behaviour). But only a sociopath does good only because it is rewarded and bad is punished. The rest of us act on empathy and responsibility. These are not religious concepts. Religions sometimes cloud them though.

[wilberhum]

The current questions are based on the common concept that you need to follow a god image to have morals because morals come from god. In fact if you lookup morals in the dictionary, religion/god is not even mentioned. There is a basic desire in most people to live in harmony and do/be good. The main reason I try to be good is because it feels good. When I do bad things, I feel bad. When I do good things, I feel good. I don't think of god or heaven's reward when I do good. If an afterlife reward or punishment is the reason that a person is good, they are missing a lot out of live.

[Pygoscelis]

If somebody actually does good only for extrinsic reward and avoids bad only for extrinsic punishment, they are a sociopath, and should probably be removed from society, as it is only a matter of time before they do something horrible.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace,


No offence to the non-muslims, but i find it very hard to believe non-muslims, its just after all that sinning you say how you wouldnt commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? Im sorry... i just feel that way

[Pygoscelis]

Peace,


No offence to the non-muslims, but i find it very hard to believe non-muslims, its just after all that sinning you say how you wouldnt commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? Im sorry... i just feel that way

That's ok. Your bigotry desn't bother me. But I do recognize it for what it is.

[snakelegs]

well if there where no god is a false assumption but i will say that :

i think that i would'nt kill any one .. i may have made adultry and then leave the girl with her pregnant child ,you know why because i have taken what i want and now i don't want to take the responsibilities for this action and so on...

well, if your fear of god causes you to be responsible - good that you have it. otherwise you would be an untrustworthy human beings.

but i am talking about lesser things .

you said i don't do anything to others that i wouldn't want them to do to me.

but this principle means that you know that there is a pay back
and i will ask you what if no one can harm you ,what if you where a president with a lot of guards ????.

then you can do whatever you want and you know that no one can get to you

it has nothing to do with "payback". it has to do with preserving my sense of self as a decent human being.

there must be a supreme creator that you know that you can never be more powerfull than he is , then this is the real deterrent for you and for every kind of mentality (or psyche)

i do believe in god. for the vast majority of my life, i didn't have any belief, one way or the other. i am basically the same person now that i believe in god, as i was before. i don't act any different or behave any better.
wilberhum expressed my feelings very well when he wrote

"There is a basic desire in most people to live in harmony and do/be good. The main reason I try to be good is because it feels good. When I do bad things, I feel bad. When I do good things, I feel good."

i couldn't say it better.




talk to you later ...[/QUOTE]

[snakelegs]

Peace,


No offence to the non-muslims, but i find it very hard to believe non-muslims, its just after all that sinning you say how you wouldnt commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? Im sorry... i just feel that way

i don't claim to be a saint, but whatever makes you think that i am any bigger sinner than you are?
what you are saying is :never trust a non-muslim
that's your choice.

[wilberhum]

Peace,


No offence to the non-muslims, but i find it very hard to believe non-muslims, its just after all that sinning you say how you wouldnt commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? Im sorry... i just feel that way

No offence to the Muslims, but I find it very hard to believe Muslims, it’s just after all that sinning you say how you wouldn’t commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? I’m sorry... I just feel that way :? :?

[Skavau]

what stops you from harming any one else ??

I am answerable to the law and those who I love for my own actions. I do not believe in the action of harming any individual. It is an inherent evil. If I harm someone, I am infringing on their rights - thus inherently evil.

What makes you assume Atheists/Agnostics are more prone to harm others?

what stop you from stealing or killing others ?

See above.

is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?

See above.

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else ?

The fact I don't agree with oppression. Stop assuming Atheism/Agnosticism = No Morals. They apply to anyone.

there must be a supreme creator that you know that you can never be more powerfull than he is , then this is the real deterrent for you and for every kind of mentality (or psyche)

Not for me, clearly. If you do not have the capacity to live a moral life without the fear of hell lying over your head - then you are a weak minded person and are more dangerous than any random Secular.

its like saying "what where you people thinking when you choose this way of life?"

Atheism and Agnosticism are not ways of life.

No offence to the non-muslims, but i find it very hard to believe non-muslims, its just after all that sinning you say how you wouldnt commit this sin and that sin, what value do your words have? Im sorry... i just feel that way

So you think we all inherently lie? You think there's an evil motive amongst us?

I sense that essentially all people in this thread, the muslims - have a weak understanding of what Atheism and Agnosticism entails. They are not ideologies, nor are they ways of life. They are merely two simple beliefs.

An Atheist does not accept the existence of a God/s. That is it. There is nothing else entailed along with that lifestyle. There is no Atheist Scripture other than the definition of Atheism itself. The same applies with Agnosticism, although the individual just says they do not know if a God exists or not.

Atheists are not inherently evil. We do not have the urge for evil and to your surprises, we are happy with our lives. These are all assumptions based on a lack of understanding of Atheism and I get tired of regurgitating these elementary points.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace,


clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.


Due to the fact that you dont have a religion it feels that you rely on your own morals and values to restrict you to do good and keep away from evil. In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc). Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest?


im sorry, im sure many of you have values such as honesty etc and i pray that God guides you all, but you must admit, most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

[Skavau]

Peace,


clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.

You've not offended me, it is just the fact I'm having to explain basic stuff that shouldn't need explaining.

Due to the fact that you dont have a religion it feels that you rely on your own morals and values to restrict you to do good and keep away from evil.

Not entirely, authority exists to uphold law and order. While I may lack a book to inform me of what absolute moral standards I should follow, it in no way means I am amoral. There are loads of ethical systems out there both secular and not secular.

In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc).

Rock and Roll? More accurately awful Hip Hop everywhere. I myself am ready to admit that I live with a materialistic mindset, but that is not necessarily bad nor does it mean all I value is possessions. I do not value the necessity of an over-accumulation of cash, I only intend to drive for practicality. I find cars costly and dangerous. My possessions I value as so much as they assist me and provide entertainment.

[quote]Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest? [/quote
But you see, you're only from the standpoint that: "Islam is true and that is that". I am from the standpoint that there is no correlation between greatness of faith and standard of morality. You shall have to define what you mean by 'sinning' though if you wish for a deeper answer.

im sorry, im sure many of you have values such as honesty etc and i pray that God guides you all, but you must admit, most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

You're being unfair.

[ManchesterFolk]

have some questions to the atheists and agnostics and i hope you all reply honestly and clearly


I want this question to be answered only by atheists and agnostics
Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?
Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?
You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?
Have you ever thought of committing suicide?
that's it for now and i am waiting to see your responses
and thanks in advance for answering

Hahahahahaha!

I enjoy life! My purpose is to help the world become better and remove violence! I am bored with your incorrect assumption! Of course not! Why would I, I don't believe in suicide bombings, nor am I a crazy person.

[Pygoscelis]

clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.

Not offended. Just sad that people can be so misguided. What you are saying is about the equivalent of people saying that "muslims are terrorists". It is not necesarily malevolent. It is just misguided and ill informed.

this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll

Right here is part of your misconception. You see sex and rock and roll as sinful/bad. I don't. I see some but not all drugs as destructive. I have no moral qualms with moderate alcohol or marijuana use, though I don't personally partake in either.

So yes, I may engage in behaviour you would find sinful, but that doesn't mean I will engage in rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, etc. Because I too see those things as wrong. Your religious background is causing you to lump all "sinful" things into one category and you seem to be assuming that because people outside your background engage in some things you see as sinful they will engage in other thngs you see as sinful. This simply isn't so.

living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc)

I suppose I am somewhat materialistic. I don't acquire things for the sake of acquiring them and I don't earn money to be rich. But I do like to have enough stuff to make me comfortable and entertained. Nothing wrong with that.

Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest?

As I noted above, you are going to have to define sinning. I don't need a God to stop me from killing people, stealing, aggravating, abusing or generally making people feel bad. Empathy is enough.

Empathy is seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain. The part of your brain that feels pain is the same part that is activated when you see anoher in pain. So you are motivated not to cause others trouble/pain and to help them out of it when they are in it.

There is no need for God in this. God just complicates things.

most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

Most without direction/guidance WILL do as they please. I agree. But direction/guidance need not be religious, and "what people please" isn't often so bad. And being able to do it is what we call Freedom.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The other atheists here have answered exactly as I would have, so there's no point in me repeating what they've said.

I'm not sure about this though:

I enjoy life! My purpose is to help the world become better and remove violence! I am bored with your incorrect assumption! Of course not! Why would I, I don't believe in suicide bombings, nor am I a crazy person.

Talking about suicide bombings like that looks like a similar assumption that has been made by some Muslims in this thread. "Atheists have no morals" is the same kind of thinking as "Muslims are suicide bombers", and crude and offensive generalisations like that have no place in serious discussion.

Unless I've had a sense of humour failure here and that was intended as a joke...

In which case, sorry.

Peace

[root]

Oh no, not the moral debate. Highly sociable animals (like humans and other species) acts acccording to both evolutionary inbuilt morals & social morality. Her is an interesting concept, see how you answer them?

You see a train heading down a track and 5 people are on the line, they are too far away to see or hear u. The train is going to hit them and kill em, OK you see that u can divert the train but by diverting the train you are making the train go down a line where 1 person is.......

Question 1
Do you divert the train, killing 1 person but saving 5 people........

After saying yes :-) now imagine you cannot divert the train. However, a man is sitting on the railway bridge observing trains unaware of the peril these 5 people are in (a trainspotter).

Question 2
Do you throw the man off the bridge onto the line to derail the train saving 5 people :-)

After saying no can you explain whu u are prepared to kill one person, but not prepared to kill one person if the circumstances change..........

Next..... U walk into a hospital, 5 terminally ill people who will die unless 1 gets a lung, the other kidneys, the other a heart and the other a liver. The final one needs a new bladder. U notice a guy coughing in the waiting room. He has a small flu.....

Question 3
Do u kill the healthy guy to save the lives of the other 5?

Matters not if u muslim, atheist, christian or even a tribe of men buried deep in the jungle never being exposed to any other society we all give the same replies,

seems we have morals irrespective of faith or background afterall.....

[snakelegs]

Peace,


clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.


Due to the fact that you dont have a religion it feels that you rely on your own morals and values to restrict you to do good and keep away from evil. In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc). Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest?

i rely on my innate sense of not wanting to hurt others because i do not want to be hurt. pygo expressed this very well:
"Empathy is seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain. The part of your brain that feels pain is the same part that is activated when you see anoher in pain. So you are motivated not to cause others trouble/pain and to help them out of it when they are in it."
it is very possible that this innate sense comes from god.
i do not like many of the same things about mainstream culture that you dislike. in fact, we would probably agree on most of them.

im sorry, im sure many of you have values such as honesty etc and i pray that God guides you all, but you must admit, most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

obviously you as a religious person, would find it incomprehensible that there are other forms of guidance than religious - but as i said, it's entirely possible that this innate sense of values comes from god after all.

[Trumble]

In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc).

Just to point out something else that should be obvious, in practice the vast majority of muslims and Christians share exactly that 'materialistic mindset' with the atheists and agnostics... even if they don't like rock music. Or at least if they don't share it, it is impossible to deduce same from their attitudes and behaviour.

I must admit the "atheist = no morals" attitude causes me some concern as it it has significant potential for creating ill-will and misunderstanding. There is simply no empirical evidence to support that atheists behave any less morally than theists when it comes to anything other than non-universal 'moral' aspects dictated by a particular religion such as, for example, attitudes to homosexuality or pre-marital sex. On the other hand, I think most atheists may find the question rather amusing; as they don't believe in God both Christian and Islamic morality could only come from one place - the same place theirs comes from, man. From that perspective the idea that they must somehow be less moral than theists is ridiculous.

[Grace Seeker]

you said i don't do anything to others that i wouldn't want them to do to me.

but this principle means that you know that there is a pay back
and i will ask you what if no one can harm you ,what if you where a president with a lot of guards ????.

then you can do whatever you want and you know that no one can get to you

So, does this mean that if we see a person behaving as if there is no payback, that such a person would not be a believer? I can certainly think of some leaders of countries (some supposedly Christian, some supposedly Jewish, some supposedly Muslim) that have acted as if they never expected payback for their actions. Does this mean that people such as Saddam Hussein were not true Muslims? That perhaps Bush is not a Christian?

I'm not trying to start a political debate; let's just keep this theological please.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace,


honestly im stunned!

how can one say:

Empathy is seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain. The part of your brain that feels pain is the same part that is activated when you see anoher in pain. So you are motivated not to cause others trouble/pain and to help them out of it when they are in it.

This clearly shows an intricate design in the creation of man, also the synch we require to co-exist as humanity, what a great sign of a creator.

but then i hear:

There is no need for God in this. God just complicates things.

Im sorry, i simply dont understand this...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Just to point out something else that should be obvious, in practice the vast majority of muslims and Christians share exactly that 'materialistic mindset' with the atheists and agnostics... even if they don't like rock music. Or at least if they don't share it, it is impossible to deduce same from their attitudes and behaviour.

i Agree, but honestly most of thost muslims arent practising abstinence, at the same time those who are true to their faith wouldnt require material to be happy. One of the best things about islaam is contentment.

I must admit the "atheist = no morals" attitude causes me some concern as it it has significant potential for creating ill-will and misunderstanding. There is simply no empirical evidence to support that atheists behave any less morally than theists when it comes to anything other than non-universal 'moral' aspects dictated by a particular religion such as, for example, attitudes to homosexuality or pre-marital sex. On the other hand, I think most atheists may find the question rather amusing; as they don't believe in God both Christian and Islamic morality could only come from one place - the same place theirs comes from, man. From that perspective the idea that they must somehow be less moral than theists is ridiculous.

Ok allow me to rephrase myself one more time, without religion people simply wont find hazardous acts such as phornication/smoking/drinking as a big thing.


Am i wrong in saying that?

From what ive read about ur previous posts, you only find that which others mind to be wrong, but if they dont mind yet you know its harmful it wont bother you?

am i correct?

[Skavau]

This clearly shows an intricate design in the creation of man, also the synch we require to co-exist as humanity, what a great sign of a creator.

That's your perspective. Not mine or other Atheists.

Ok allow me to rephrase myself one more time, without religion people simply wont find hazardous acts such as phornication/smoking/drinking as a big thing.

I look at smoking and drinking with contempt. Fornication is none of my business.

[Hemoo]

snakelegs said (it's entirely possible that this innate sense of values comes from god after all.)

you know in Islam we say that ALLAH created humans and he made their instinct (in arabic named FITRA) to be as a way of measure to distinguish between whats right and whats wrong

so i found your statment pointing to this FITRA.

[Hemoo]

actually i have another new question

what was your religion (or your family's religion) before you leave it to be an athiest ?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

MashaAllah

Interesting Question.


And also if your parents were aethiests perhaps they had a religion before they left it?

[Skavau]

My Grandparents were moderately Christian, but they aren't religious anymore. I've never been religious.

[snakelegs]

snakelegs said (it's entirely possible that this innate sense of values comes from god after all.)

you know in Islam we say that ALLAH created humans and he made their instinct (in arabic named FITRA) to be as a way of measure to distinguish between whats right and whats wrong

so i found your statment pointing to this FITRA.

yes - it is fitra. our interpretations differ, but we agree on this basic quality.
see? we might not be as far apart as you think.

[snakelegs]

actually i have another new question

what was your religion (or your family's religion) before you leave it to be an athiest ?

i've never belonged to any religion. my step father was an atheist and my mother was agnostic.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i've never belonged to any religion. my step father was an atheist and my mother was agnostic.

so you've taken after your mother :).

Forgive me if im being a bit nosey but was she interested in any religion :?

[Hemoo]

grace seeker said "Does this mean that people such as Saddam Hussein were not true Muslims?"

and who said that he was practicing Islam by the book
Saddam Hussein has made things that is against islam although we say that he is mainly a muslim.

and in islam its one of our principles to not judge on a specified person with either hell nor paradise.

because ALLAH alone is the one who will deside who goes to heaven and who goes to hell ,and ALLAH alone knows who deserves what ..

and i have a funny real story i heard from one of our schoolars he said :

there was some old women dying in a hospital here in my country so two muslim brothers gone to her and made her say the shahada and then she died
so her son came after that and he was so sad on his mother so the two muslims said to him don't be worry ,she said the shahada before she died

so her son screamed "you made her disbelieve on christianity"

and so she was a christian but ALLAH made her fate that she bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and that she bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger

so we can't say if this woman is in hell or heaven ,we just can't its out of our jurisdiction to judge in this matters ...

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

see? we might not be as far apart as you think

I have noticed this quite a lot on this forum; the only thing that seperates me and many many others is that little title on the bottom left of the page, named: way of life, otherwise, we're like clones. (Mindset clones, not clone clones....eugh)

[snakelegs]

so you've taken after your mother :).

Forgive me if im being a bit nosey but was she interested in any religion :?

not as far as i know.

[wilberhum]

i Agree, but honestly most of thost muslims arent practising abstinence, at the same time those who are true to their faith wouldnt require material to be happy. One of the best things about islaam is contentment.




Ok allow me to rephrase myself one more time, without religion people simply wont find hazardous acts such as phornication/smoking/drinking as a big thing.


Am i wrong in saying that?

From what ive read about ur previous posts, you only find that which others mind to be wrong, but if they dont mind yet you know its harmful it wont bother you?

am i correct?

Fornication with a one partner that has no other partners is no more hazardous than a monogamous marriage.

You need religion to figure out smoking is hazardous. You have to be kidding.

You’re considering drinking as a moral issue is a minority view. I suspect more people conceder polygamy immoral that the number of people conceder drinking immoral. Medical reports show that moderate drinking is healthy.

[tomtomsmom]

Peace,


clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.


Due to the fact that you dont have a religion it feels that you rely on your own morals and values to restrict you to do good and keep away from evil. In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc). Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest?


im sorry, im sure many of you have values such as honesty etc and i pray that God guides you all, but you must admit, most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

Dude, you are being unfair. Everyone "sins". But just because you believe a certain thing is a sin does not make it so. When it comes down to it, none of us can 100% know what is a sin and what isn't. Saying that you can't trust all non-muslims because of our sins is just like us saying we don't trust all muslims because some have twisted the religion into something it isn't supposed to be.

Rather closed minded don't you think?

[ManchesterFolk]

Talking about suicide bombings like that looks like a similar assumption that has been made by some Muslims in this thread. "Atheists have no morals" is the same kind of thinking as "Muslims are suicide bombers", and crude and offensive generalisations like that have no place in serious discussion.

Unless I've had a sense of humour failure here and that was intended as a joke...

In which case, sorry.

Well suicide is either intentional for a purpose (war), or a crazy/depressed person. I am neither.

But my use of Muslim was to see if the person who began this thread would have the nerve to lecture me on "assumptions". :p

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Rather closed minded don't you think?

yea it kinda was.

I guess our thinking is just way too far apart, strange thing. When faith enters you seems like mentality completely changes, i didnt think like this at all 2 years ago. But i like who i am now Alhamdulillah, lol im sure most non-muslims dont tho :hiding: :X :X :X

[Hemoo]

why didn't all atheists and agnostics respond to my last question about their previous religious experience ,what was your previous religion or your parents taught and the people who have taught you when you was young ????

and thank to you all for your responses ..

[Pygoscelis]

why didn't all atheists and agnostics respond to my last question about their previous religious experience ,what was your previous religion or your parents taught and the people who have taught you when you was young ????

and thank to you all for your responses ..

I was raised by wolves. :D

Seriously though, my mother was Anglican and my father was a closeted agnostic (He never spoke about religion but went along with my mother). I never prayed or thought that prayers of others were heard by anyone. I went to church services as a child but it was more cultural than religious. I have always been an atheist.

[wilberhum]

actually i have another new question

what was your religion (or your family's religion) before you leave it to be an athiest ?

First of all I’m rally hurt that you don’t care about Agonists any more. LOL :laugh:

I was born and raised by devout Catholics. I was educated Catholic, married Catholic, raided my children Catholic. I was a devout Catholic for about 50 years.
Over about a 5 year period I became an agnostic and have become more and more convinced about my beliefs over the last 5 years.

Now I’m a devout Agnostic. :thumbs_up

[tomtomsmom]

I didn't answer the questions because I am not a "normal" agnostic, if there is such a thing. It seems as if you want to know about people who don't think god exists. I am not one of them.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

why didn't all atheists and agnostics respond to my last question about their previous religious experience ,what was your previous religion or your parents taught and the people who have taught you when you was young ????

and thank to you all for your responses ..

Mum's a Catholic, Dad's a Protestant. I went to church until the age of sixteen, never consciously believing in god. I went to a Catholic school run by monks, and that gave me plenty of opportunity to get to know Christian theology well, and to debate with them.

My earliest memory of going to church must come from when I was about five. I remember sitting there, listening to the priest and some other people talking on and on about god, and my first though was that, somehow or other, the priest must be god. When my mother explained who god actually was, I was confused, and had to think about it for a while. Early on, I thought: 'but that's just something somebody made up', and since then I have become more and more amazed at the vast physical and cultural edifice that the theistic religions have erected around what, to me, has always seemed to be an imaginary figure.

Peace

[snakelegs]

I didn't answer the questions because I am not a "normal" agnostic, if there is such a thing. It seems as if you want to know about people who don't think god exists. I am not one of them.

there is no such thing as a "normal agnostic" :D
i believe in god too.

[Agnostic]

there is no such thing as a "normal agnostic" :D

Are we then heteromorphic agnostics ? :D

Both my parents were agnostic.

[Grace Seeker]

A question more for the agnostics than the athiests, especially those agnostic who confess to actually believing in God or a god.



What is it that you believe/don't believe/think of with regard to God/god?

My understanding of the term agnostic is that you don't reject the idea that there might be a god, but that you don't confess to the idea that there is either. That you don't know one way or the other, and don't think that it really is possible for anyone to know. If your view differs significantly from this can you please explain in what why it differs.

[Pygoscelis]

"agnostic" is one of the most confused terms there is. It means different things to different people. It is even more confused than "atheist", which also means many different things to many different people.

The "classic" meaning of agnostic is the view that it is impossible to know if there is a God or not. The meaning of agnostic I think you'll see most often today is that people simply can't decide, don't know for sure, etc.

I think the term loses some meaning if it is used to mean "don't know for sure" because I think any sane person falls under that category. Any atheist I've ever met has always admitted the remote possibility of a god of some sort. And any sane believer has some degree of doubt (else they'd not need faith).

[snakelegs]

A question more for the agnostics than the athiests, especially those agnostic who confess to actually believing in God or a god.

What is it that you believe/don't believe/think of with regard to God/god?

My understanding of the term agnostic is that you don't reject the idea that there might be a god, but that you don't confess to the idea that there is either. That you don't know one way or the other, and don't think that it really is possible for anyone to know. If your view differs significantly from this can you please explain in what why it differs.

i've never belonged to any religion and never concerned myself one way or the other whether or not god existed. within the last decade, i have come to believe that he does. ultimately, i think there is much that is unknowable - and that's fine with me. i enjoy questions more than answers, anyway.
i believe god is one, mainly because i like that philosophical concept but i don't think it matters - whether seen as one, 3, or hundreds, god is god, unchanging. i believe you can come close to god through all religions or (like me), no religion at all. i see god and religion as separate entities.

[Woodrow]

I can think of many logical reasons why a person would be an agnostic. I doubt if anybody ever woke up one morning looked in the mirror and said "I'm going to be an agnostic" I tend to believe that most agnostics have been disillusioned by organized religion and see it as the worlds largest and most cost efficient industry ever developed.

I fully understand how an Agnostic could view a Muslim as being a puppet to culture or somebody seeking to find organization in chaos. There does not appear to be any logical reason for a person to accept Islam. Even as Muslims we will say that Allah(swt) does not need us. What reason would He have to reward us or to punish us? It makes no sense at all unless, we truly are created for the purpose of worshiping Him.

I have come to the conclusion that really is the case. I doubt if I could say anything that would convince another person to become Muslim and I honestly hope I never do. I believe that a person should only revert to Islam if they have seen sufficient reason and can logically do so under their own free will.

In my heart I do wish everybody would revert to Islam. But, I know that is not a reason for anybody to ever revert.

The simple Ayyat from Surah al-Baqerah says it best:

2:256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

What could possibly have encourged a person to write words such as those?

EDIT: Just want to explain why I added that question. To me it is very significant that those words are in the Qur'an. I can no envision a person who is trying to perpetuate a personl agenda would have said words such as that. They do not appear to come from the thoughts of a mortal man. That Ayyat is one of the things that has convinced me.

[tomtomsmom]

A question more for the agnostics than the athiests, especially those agnostic who confess to actually believing in God or a god.



What is it that you believe/don't believe/think of with regard to God/god?

My understanding of the term agnostic is that you don't reject the idea that there might be a god, but that you don't confess to the idea that there is either. That you don't know one way or the other, and don't think that it really is possible for anyone to know. If your view differs significantly from this can you please explain in what why it differs.

I am going to try to explain so bear with me as I take you into the twistedness that is my brain.......


My belief: 100% for sure without a doubt there is a God. He put us all here and when we die some will go to heaven and some will go to hell. Saying that, I don't know what to call him. I don't know if he sent a book to us and if so which one is the real one. I don't know what he wants from me other than to try and be a good person. I can not accept the thought that when we die our souls vanish. I can not accept the thought that the miracles I have seen in my life are mere conicidence. There has to be something out there "pulling the strings" so to speak. I have agnostic on my profile because due to certain forum rules I have to have something under religion. I put agnostic because that is the closest listed to what I am. But in reality I guess I would be called a religious peron without a religion.

Note to mods:Can that be put on the choices for religion?:D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ sis do you have any questions about islam? :)

Perhaps we can try answering them :)

[tomtomsmom]

^ sis do you have any questions about islam? :)

Perhaps we can try answering them :)

Lol not at the moment brother but when I do I will for sure ask. Bro FI has been most helpful in answering my many questions. Thank you for asking!

[- Qatada -]

That's kool :) Just remember to keep praying to God to guide us all, and to keep us firm on the right path. ameen.

[Grace Seeker]

I am going to try to explain so bear with me as I take you into the twistedness that is my brain.......


My belief: 100% for sure without a doubt there is a God. He put us all here and when we die some will go to heaven and some will go to hell. Saying that, I don't know what to call him. I don't know if he sent a book to us and if so which one is the real one. I don't know what he wants from me other than to try and be a good person. I can not accept the thought that when we die our souls vanish. I can not accept the thought that the miracles I have seen in my life are mere conicidence. There has to be something out there "pulling the strings" so to speak. I have agnostic on my profile because due to certain forum rules I have to have something under religion. I put agnostic because that is the closest listed to what I am. But in reality I guess I would be called a religious peron without a religion.

Note to mods:Can that be put on the choices for religion?:D

You know, I can really understand that position, that you have a sense that there really is a god -- something/someone bigger than yourself -- but you don't feel that you know enough to say much more about the nature of that god than that he/she/it exists. There is enough confusing about all of the codified religions to make them at best confusing, and at worst to appear even deceiving, so you are left to just fumble around in the dark sort of believing but not really knowing what it is that you do believe. Then when organized religion appears more concerned with getting another name and another pledge added to their rolls than in helping your to explore your faith, when they want you to find their God their way, rather than to get better acquainted with whatever it is in god that is seeking out you it seems better to just wash your hands of the whole institutional process and claim nothing going naked before whatever god there is, rather than trying to wear something of a god in a religion that doesn't really fit right.

Just curious how I did in describing you, or if I really missed the mark?

[- Qatada -]

I found this quite powerful..

The Criterion

Media Tags are no longer supported

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SlwcmjHyx84

[wilberhum]

This agnostic believes there is a god but accepts the possibility that there is no god.
If there is a god, there is one and only one god, who is whole totally good.
That about sums up what I believe. The list of what I don’t believe is quite long.
I don’t believe in any “holy book” or “prophet”. I don’t believe in heaven, hell or any other kind of after life. I believe all religions were created by men for men. Every religion has got it wrong and the only ones that have any chance of having all the facts right are the atheists.

And as usual, I think Woodrow has made balanced and accurate statements.

[tomtomsmom]

You know, I can really understand that position, that you have a sense that there really is a god -- something/someone bigger than yourself -- but you don't feel that you know enough to say much more about the nature of that god than that he/she/it exists. There is enough confusing about all of the codified religions to make them at best confusing, and at worst to appear even deceiving, so you are left to just fumble around in the dark sort of believing but not really knowing what it is that you do believe. Then when organized religion appears more concerned with getting another name and another pledge added to their rolls than in helping your to explore your faith, when they want you to find their God their way, rather than to get better acquainted with whatever it is in god that is seeking out you it seems better to just wash your hands of the whole institutional process and claim nothing going naked before whatever god there is, rather than trying to wear something of a god in a religion that doesn't really fit right.

Just curious how I did in describing you, or if I really missed the mark?

I would have to say that you are very near the mark and very well said to boot!:D

[Woodrow]

All comments are to be directed to the topic and not to any members. We do not have to agree with or even like each other. However to have any meaning ful debate and/of discusions we need to act as civilized human beings and not lower ourselves to emotionalism.

[Pygoscelis]

All comments are to be directed to the topic and not to any members. We do not have to agree with or even like each other. However to have any meaning ful debate and/of discusions we need to act as civilized human beings and not lower ourselves to emotionalism.

Were here a bunch of posts deleted that I didn't see? This looks like a moderator message telling people to behave, but I didn't see anybody misbehave. :?

[- Qatada -]

Unfortunately that was the case ^ people did misbehave.

[Hemoo]

new questions arrived :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

the things you didn't smel or hear or see or touch or taste ... can be the facts you never got the chance to examine .although they are facts and the problem is with you ..

i mean that it is a fact that many things do exist but me and you didn't know because me and you didn't deal with them ..

for example before the scientist discover that there is something called a Galaxy ,all people didn't know there is a galaxy ,although there was many galaxies..

i hope i made my question clear ... and as someone here said " Lack of reasons is not a reason enough to assume the non existences of things."

the questions again :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

[Pygoscelis]

new questions arrived :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

I think I'm a pure materialist, but not sure if I understand what that means so am not sue I am one.

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

If they are so remote that they have no impact on my life, measurable by my senses, then I really don't care about them whether they exist or not. It is irrelevant.

[Grace Seeker]

I would have to say that you are very near the mark and very well said to boot!:D

If I may, then I would encourage you just to remain open. If there is a god, and I do believe there is, then allow him to reveal himself to you in his own good time and way. If I am wrong, you will have wasted nothing by remaining open to the possibility of something/someone being there that you can't say does not.

Then, if (I'm going to assume "when") God makes God's self known to you, you will be in a position to respond in appropriate ways. I don't think all things are revealed to all people. In fact, I doubt if any of us truly knows completely. But that doesn't mean we can't know some things. If you are truly open, if you are listening, if you are watching, I expect that God will make God's self known to you in either the people you meet, the conversations you have, the things you read, or the circumstances of life itself. One of Jesus' frequent sayings after telling a parable to explain something about God was, "let those who have ears to hear, hear." I think he was simply inviting people to go deeper, that there was more than just a story involved, that in big and small ways God is actually revealing something of God's self to us, making God's self known and knowable, if we'll only remain open to exploring that very real possibility.

Anyway, I'm glad for the faith you do have, and pray for it to take root and grow in whatever form helps you to grow closer to the one who is bigger than you. Whether that is through organized religion or not I don't think is as important as simply making that personal connection with God that I believe God seeks to have with everyone.

Peace!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

new questions arrived :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

I assume you mean 'materialist' in the philosophical sense of having a purely physical understanding of the universe, rather than the social sense of living one's life according to material wealth.

I'm a promissory materialist, i.e. I believe that all psychological states and other immaterial phenomena can in theory be explained in physical terms, but that many of them are currently unexplained. There are things in the universe that cannot currently be explained by science, but I believe that the scientific method is the best way of exploring and developing an understanding of them.

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

Do you mean something like this?:

I have never seen the Great Wall of China. I've seen pictures of it and so on, but I've never seen the real thing with my own eyes. Do I believe it exists? Yes, because I think that its existence is more likely than the idea that every known image of it has been faked and that people have been led by mass mind-control to believe it exists.

the things you didn't smel or hear or see or touch or taste ... can be the facts you never got the chance to examine .although they are facts and the problem is with you ..

So they are facts that are unknown to me. What is the problem with that? I have on my bookshelf a book about the Russian Revolution that I haven't read yet. I'm sure there are plenty of facts in there that I don't know. That doesn't stop them being facts, though, does it?

i mean that it is a fact that many things do exist but me and you didn't know because me and you didn't deal with them ..

True - like the newly-discovered species of leopard that was found recently in Borneo. Nobody knew about it until it turned up as living, breathing evidence of its own existence.

for example before the scientist discover that there is something called a Galaxy ,all people didn't know there is a galaxy ,although there was many galaxies..

Right, astronomers discovered galaxies. I'm not sure what point you're making now.

i hope i made my question clear ... and as someone here said " Lack of reasons is not a reason enough to assume the non existences of things."

Lack of evidence is enough to doubt it, though, isn't it?

Peace

[wilberhum]

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

A pure materialist only cares about wealth and possessions. Past the point of need, enough to eat Etc., wealth would be great but not the most precious. My wife, my children, my parents, my health, and my experiences are of much more value than some more money. So the answer would have to be no.

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

Well, I just can’t deal with things I can’t deal with. I don’t know about things I don’t know about. I assume that people who did not/do not know about Galaxies didn’t think about them. So the question is not clear at all.

[Grace Seeker]

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

If they are so remote that they have no impact on my life, measurable by my senses, then I really don't care about them whether they exist or not. It is irrelevant.

They may not be so remote as you think. Carbon monoxide is a tasteless, odorless, invisible gas that is completely undetectable to our 5 senses, yet it kills hundreds of people every year.

You see light, but the spectrum of light is much larger than that portion of it which is detectable by our sense of sight. Yet it is not only very real, but can have a huge impact on our life. How much exposure to those ultra-violet waves may be particular relevant to whether you are at risk for sunburns and skin cancer or not.

So, even though you can't measure things with your 5 senses, I believe that maybe you should, and probably do, care about many of them. Now, just as there are light waves that would be visible to you if you had a better developed sense of sight, say that of a bee, so too might there be other things that would observable to you if some other sense was better developed? I want to suggest that latent within most people is a 6th sense, a spiritual sense. I do not think this sense is particularly well developed in anyone, but I do think that it exists. By it some people become aware of the presence and existance of God, that to others is about as discernable as the presence of carbon monoixde to a sleeping baby or ultra-violet rays to a man sleeping on the beach. The question is not about the reality of God's presence, but our ability to perceive or relate to God.

Fortunately, just as we can develop some of our senses by careful use and attention to them, so even this latent and underdeveloped spiritual sensitivity can be exrecised to enable one to become more aware of and sensitive to God's presence. You may not wish to do so. You may feel perfectly suited for this world using just the senses you have. If so, that is your decision to make. But that doesn't make it as wise of a deicsion as you might think if you are only using your 5 senses and not exploring the 6th.

Indeed you could find yourself waking up dead and burned as a result of it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

They make not be so remote as you think. Carbon monoxide is a tasteless, odorless, invisible gas that is completely undetectable to our 5 senses, yet it kills hundreds of people every year.

This isn't analogous to god, though, is it? People can detect the presence of carbon monoxide objectively using scientific instruments. The only way to detect the presence of god is to find someone who already believes in god and ask them if they 'feel his presence'.

I want to suggest that latent within most people is a 6th sense, a spiritual sense. I do not think this sense is particularly well developed in anyone, but I do think that it exists.

What evidence do you have that this sixth sense exists?

By it some people become aware of the presence and existance of God, that to others is about as discernable as the presence of carbon monoixde to a sleeping baby or ultra-violet rays to a man sleeping on the beach. The question is not about the reality of God's presence, but our ability to perceive or relate to God.

Your argument seems circular: god exists because some people believe god exists. Hardly a rational basis for a belief, is it?

Fortunately, just as we can develop some of our senses by careful use and attention to them, so even this latent and underdeveloped spiritual sensitivity can be exrecised to enable one to become more aware of and sensitive to God's presence. You may not wish to do so. You may feel perfectly suited for this world using just the senses you have.

Does this not imply that only people who want to believe in god actually do? That belief in god is a question of volition? I may want never-ending chocolate bars to exist, but it doesn't mean they do.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

This isn't analogous to god, though, is it? People can detect the presence of carbon monoxide objectively using scientific instruments. The only way to detect the presence of god is to find someone who already believes in god and ask them if they 'feel his presence'.

I wasn't trying to be analogous to God. I was just calling the logic of the previous argument, and thus the conclusion that it reached, into question.

What evidence do you have that this sixth sense exists?

In a world of blind people, what evidence would there be for the existence of the sense of sight?

Someone would tell you that they could see, but everyone could simply say prove it. I find those who tell me that they have sensed God to be credible, if you want to call the circular, that really is more your problem than mine, because I believe I've sensed him myself, so I don't need anyone to prove it to me. And if you won't accept my testimony, I can't prove it to you.

Your argument seems circular: god exists because some people believe god exists. Hardly a rational basis for a belief, is it?

So, you believe that before admitting to the existence of something that there has to be a rational basis for a belife in that objects existence.

Isn't that itself a belief you've reached on the basis of an apriori assumption in it? What is the rational basis for all things needing to be rational? Talk about a circular belief.

Fortunately, just as we can develop some of our senses by careful use and attention to them, so even this latent and underdeveloped spiritual sensitivity can be exrecised to enable one to become more aware of and sensitive to God's presence. You may not wish to do so. You may feel perfectly suited for this world using just the senses you have.

Does this not imply that only people who want to believe in god actually do? That belief in god is a question of volition? I may want never-ending chocolate bars to exist, but it doesn't mean they do.

I don't think it implies that.

I do begin with a belief that God does exist. I write from that persepctive. And from that perspective, I believe that even those who don't believe may have this undeveloped spiritual sense. I think that we are created and born with it and that it is just as real as any of the other senses. But I would agree for it to develop that it needs contact with God. So, belief in never-ending chocolate bars doesn't make them so. But if we begin with an assumption that God does exist, then it would follow that learning to exercise and develop our spiritual sense will make those who have done so more aware of the presence and nature of God than those who don't. Likewise, if never ending chocolate bars do exist, then it would be an advisable thing to develop whatever sense would help us find and consume them, assuming this is your goal.

[snakelegs]

new questions arrived :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

of course not. the world is full of mysteries and questions with no answers.

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

the things you didn't smel or hear or see or touch or taste ... can be the facts you never got the chance to examine .although they are facts and the problem is with you ..

i mean that it is a fact that many things do exist but me and you didn't know because me and you didn't deal with them ..

for example before the scientist discover that there is something called a Galaxy ,all people didn't know there is a galaxy ,although there was many galaxies..

i hope i made my question clear ... and as someone here said " Lack of reasons is not a reason enough to assume the non existences of things."

the questions again :

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

there are many things that i cannot detect with my senses and many questions without answers. personally, i rather like that. i am very comfortable with the concept that ultimately, there is much that is unknowable.

[Trumble]

do you consider your self a pure materialist ?

Most certainly not.

what about things that do exist but you didn't have the chance to deal with it with your 5 sences ?

the things you didn't smel or hear or see or touch or taste ... can be the facts you never got the chance to examine .although they are facts and the problem is with you ..

i mean that it is a fact that many things do exist but me and you didn't know because me and you didn't deal with them ..

What about them? They are certainy there, I think. Where I would differ with yourself is in thinking that belief in God is a very simplistic way of addressing such things. Rather than determined spiritual effort to find out and experience what really is, the whole kaboodle of anything not immediately explainable in materialistic terms just gets assigned to God and effectively forgotten about. How much is then missed, I wonder?

[Pygoscelis]

What evidence do you have that this sixth sense exists?

A sixth sense actually does exist. The kinestetic sense (not sure if I spelled that right - its how you know where your arms are if you have them behind your back and can't feel them). I believe there is a seventh sense too. But it too is not anything magical.

As for a "spiritual sense"? No. It is nothing more than your subconcious mind expressing wants and needs.

[Pygoscelis]

If they are so remote that they have no impact on my life, measurable by my senses, then I really don't care about them whether they exist or not. It is irrelevant

They make not be so remote as you think. Carbon monoxide is a tasteless, odorless, invisible gas that is completely undetectable to our 5 senses, yet it kills hundreds of people every year.

Carbon monoxide is not so remote that it has no impact upon my life, measurable by my senses. If I get carbon monoxide poisoning I feel all sorts of sensations.

[Tiger_Stripes]

If I get carbon monoxide poisoning I feel all sorts of sensations.

Thats after it enters your system.

[Grace Seeker]

As for a "spiritual sense"? No. It is nothing more than your subconcious mind expressing wants and needs.

And that too is a belief. As Mr. Gibson asked of me, can you rationally prove it?

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed. And there is evidence that it has gotten into some peoples' systems and done them harm - so it is relevant. There is no such evidence regarding anything "spiritual".

[Pygoscelis]

And that too is a belief. As Mr. Gibson asked of me, can you rationally prove it?

Well that depends on how you define your terms.

Scientists can poke at your brain to make you "feel" a profound spiritual experience, indistinguishable from "contact with God". They can do the same with drugs.

But then I suppose you could always argue that God is more likely to connect with us if we are brain damaged or on drugs. One great thing about "spiritual" and "God" beliefs is that you can change them to match pretty much any data we collect.

[Grace Seeker]

Well that depends on how you define your terms.

Scientists can poke at your brain to make you "feel" a profound spiritual experience, indistinguishable from "contact with God". They can do the same with drugs.

But then I suppose you could always argue that God is more likely to connect with us if we are brain damaged or on drugs. One great thing about "spiritual" and "God" beliefs is that you can change them to match pretty much any data we collect.

Well, certainly changing one's beliefs to match the data one collects would be a reasonable thing to do, if one was wanting to operater purely rationally.

But in this case I don't think your suggestion has much weight. Those same techniques can be used to make you sense all sorts of things. My wife has had two strokes. So I don't take brain injuries lightly. In the second it profoundly effected her affect and the perception centers of her brain. She saw things that were not there. She saw people as perfectly whole if on her right side and as being just skeletons with bloody sinew hanging from the bones if standing to her left side. And those standing directly in front of her she saw both halves at the same time. It was a very traumatic time for her, and for all who cared for her, because the experiences were so vivid that she could not tell whether they were real or not. Nor could she be confident that normal things were not hallucinations as well.

A nuerosurgeon will stimulate the brain as you described to find out where she is as she operates. The patient may even smell Grandma's muffins, though Grandma has been dead many years. The fact that these things can be artificially induced does not mean that there is no real set of Grandma's muffins. In fact, the ability to stimulate them in the brain makes me more certain that there must be something real for the brain to correlate those sensed experiences to in real life.

Indeed. And there is evidence that it has gotten into some peoples' systems and done them harm - so it is relevant. There is no such evidence regarding anything "spiritual".

Have you not in the past commented on the number of atrocities commited in the name of relgion? It seems that when people become spiritually perceptive, it very much matters whether they are breathing in good or poisionous spiritual perceptions.

[Woodrow]

Well that depends on how you define your terms.

Scientists can poke at your brain to make you "feel" a profound spiritual experience, indistinguishable from "contact with God". They can do the same with drugs.

But then I suppose you could always argue that God is more likely to connect with us if we are brain damaged or on drugs. One great thing about "spiritual" and "God" beliefs is that you can change them to match pretty much any data we collect.

That is very true. If fact my former mentor would have carried it much further. I too agree that many physical stimuli can can be interpreted to be a mysterious spiritual experience.

I will go even further and state that many teenagers at about the age of 16 become overwhelmed with a sense of insight and feeling of contact with a level beyond themselves. I would even say that is the result of the beginning adult neurological maturity and an awareness of bicameral thought process.

Now with that said how would one recognize a true spiritual experience? To be honest the only ways I know that a person could recognize a feeling as a spiritual experience will be if they have either total faith and confidence that such exists or they have had the misfortune to have experienced both physical and spiritual stimulus to the limbic system and have felt the differences.

Personaly I would say that one distinguishable difference between stimuli and spiritual experience is the length of time the effects last. With physical stimuli, the person needs to search for the same conditions or substance that caused the feeling over and over again. The search becomes addictive and is an almost insatiable drive.

With a spiritual experience, the feeling never leaves. It needs no further stimuli, the memory alone of it is sufficient and it does result in profound, noticeable personality changes, that can only be described as fulfillment.

[Pygoscelis]

Maybe off topc, but anybody here familiar with the research re the "god gene"?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=16378

[Woodrow]

Maybe off topc, but anybody here familiar with the research re the "god gene"?

Don't know much about it. If it exists. If it was a mytho or what.

I have not come across the "god Gene" however, in physics there is now some speculation about a "God Particle" Which seems to be stirring up some interest.

[Pygoscelis]

Found a link, revised my post.

[snakelegs]

Maybe off topc, but anybody here familiar with the research re the "god gene"?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=16378

pygo,
you might find this interesting. an atheist once gave me some links about memes. according to him, religion could be classified as a "mind virus."
i never got around to reading it and have long ago lost the links but check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes

[Pygoscelis]

pygo,
you might find this interesting. an atheist once gave me some links about memes. according to him, religion could be classified as a "mind virus."
i never got around to reading it and have long ago lost the links but check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes

Its an interesting comparison but really just a metaphor. Religions do spread from parent to child and through communities. And the more aggressive/catchy ones are fittest and the others die out. Evolution of religion :)

[Hemoo]

i have read part of this research named the GOD gene

and i can only tell you about what happened in the times of the prophet Muhammad (peace beupon him)

there was some of the peope of Mekka who was against believeing in one God like Omar ibn elkhattab he used to hate mulsims and hurt them .

but as we muslims know that our prophet prayed and called Allah to guide one of the Omar's and after a while this man Omar Ibn elkhattab became one of the companions of the prophet and he became one of the best defenders of islam against the non muslims.

so his believe did change from many gods to become a believer in one GOD without assosiating any partners with him and he become one of the best muslims that we know about ...

[barney]

[QUOTE=hemoo;689304]

Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?


You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?

QUOTE]

Very Happy thanks! :statisfie

Purpose in Life at the moment is to bring up my children well, with respect for others and beleif in themselves. Also to do what I can to better the lives of those around me and myself. My purpose changes over time and I'm constantly discovering new things. :)

Never get bored. The world is too interesting. Lots to do here.

Suicide? Well thats like cashing in your chips before youve played the game. Theres absolutly no way to know if theres anything after this, so make the utmost of your time here. A very worthwhile way to spend that time is trawl Forums and play online computor games.:rollseyes

Cheers.

[Yanal]

i have some questions to the atheists and agnostics and i hope you all reply honestly and clearly

I want this question to be answered only by atheists and agnostics


Are you atheists and agnostics are happy in your lives ?

Okay, what is your main purpose in life (honestly) ?


You will say my purpose is to enjoy it ,so don’t you ever get bored?

Have you ever thought of committing suicide?


that's it for now and i am waiting to see your responses

and thanks in advance for answering

Assalamu alaikkum wa rahmathullahi wa barakathuhu brothers.. and sisters...
Iwould like to know what does atheists and agnostics mean is this a religon please answer?:w:

[barney]

Atheists beleive that there is no God. No creator.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.

I'm a Monothiest. I beleive theres a Creator, but that it has nothing to do with any man made religion.

[Yanal]

ok i get it thanks :w:

[Hemoo]

i have a new question to all :

what is your explanation of the following red colored portion of the hadith said by the prophet (peace be upon him) from more than 1400 years:

in the book of authentic hadith named "sahih Bukhary"

Narrated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

in your opinion how did the prophet know that their is a cure in some parts of the house fly ?

and thanks all for replying...

[wilberhum]

I don't try to analyze what's in the Hadiths or Quran.
Why would I?

[snakelegs]

i have a new question to all :

what is your explanation of the following red colored portion of the hadith said by the prophet (peace be upon him) from more than 1400 years:

in the book of authentic hadith named "sahih Bukhary"

Narrated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

in your opinion how did the prophet know that their is a cure in some parts of the house fly ?

and thanks all for replying...

well, if this is true (about the fly) - i have no explanation for how the prophet would've known it.
there was a tribe in africa who knew about a binary star system - how did they know it? i think there are different ways of knowing.
but it all boils down to....i don't know either.

[barney]

i have a new question to all :

what is your explanation of the following red colored portion of the hadith said by the prophet (peace be upon him) from more than 1400 years:

in the book of authentic hadith named "sahih Bukhary"

Narrated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

in your opinion how did the prophet know that their is a cure in some parts of the house fly ?

and thanks all for replying...

Can you show the links to some infomation on house flys wings and one being curative of the disease in the other wing? I cant find anything.

[Pygoscelis]

I've never heard of this wing thing either.

But if it turns out that there isn't one wing that causes a disease and another curing it, I really wouldn't hold that against the Quran. This is clearly a metaphor, no?

[Trumble]

what is your explanation of the following red colored portion of the hadith said by the prophet (peace be upon him) from more than 1400 years:

in the book of authentic hadith named "sahih Bukhary"

Narrated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

It would depend on the context, of course (this sort of stuff is totally meaningless in isolation - what was the Prophet talking about?) but I'd also read it as a metaphor, although of course I make no claim of being scholastically competent to do so. Something on the lines of 'while an event or person may seem unpleasant don't immediately dismiss it/them as some good may come of it/them'.

I assume you are referring to THIS article at IslamOnline.net? Folks can form their own opinions as to how 'amazing' or otherwise this may be. Don't get your hopes up, though.

BTW, if the Prophet had any extraordinary knowledge (for his time) on this subject don't you think he mght have known that flies carry disease primarily on their feet, not their wings?

[cali dude]

Religious people might think that agnostics or atheists are bad because they don't believe in God or a religion. But this is not true at all. Not believing in religion or God doesn't make anyone bad. They still have certain values to determine right and wrong. It may not be based upon any particular religion. But still there is right and wrong. In fact, their ethics might be actually better than some of the religious people as they don't blindly follow just about anything a religion says. In certain situations, religion can make you bad as brainwashed people of religion do commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

So I don't think it makes sense for religious people to doubt agnostics and atheists' moral values.

Have a good day...:)

[Trumble]

Religious people might think that agnostics or atheists are bad because they don't believe in God or a religion.

It's also rather disproved by history; both Greek and Roman cultures (and probably others I am less familiar with) had highly evolved ethical and moral codes that were philosophical and not religious in origin. Sure, there were what would be considered today some pretty unpleasant aspects to those societies, but virtually all of them could be found in later Christian and muslim societies as well.

[Grace Seeker]

Religious people might think that agnostics or atheists are bad because they don't believe in God or a religion. But this is not true at all. Not believing in religion or God doesn't make anyone bad. They still have certain values to determine right and wrong. It may not be based upon any particular religion. But still there is right and wrong. In fact, their ethics might be actually better than some of the religious people as they don't blindly follow just about anything a religion says. In certain situations, religion can make you bad as brainwashed people of religion do commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

So I don't think it makes sense for religious people to doubt agnostics and atheists' moral values.

Have a good day...:)

I have a question about the part I've highlighted in bold. I am not arguing that religious people are in fact better. What I want to know is by what standard one would determine that one person is better than another? You gave an example that religious people might following just about anything a religion says and you classify this as brainwashing. You say that thus brainwashed religious people commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

I want to know what makes being brainwashed bad? Why is independent thought a good thing, by what means do you conclude that?

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong in your conclusion, but I want to know by what means you are able to determine that you are right? Other than that you personally value independent thought over brainwashed religious thought, what really makes one better (as opposed to personally preferred) versus the other?

[cali dude]

I have a question about the part I've highlighted in bold. I am not arguing that religious people are in fact better. What I want to know is by what standard one would determine that one person is better than another? You gave an example that religious people might following just about anything a religion says and you classify this as brainwashing. You say that thus brainwashed religious people commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

I want to know what makes being brainwashed bad? Why is independent thought a good thing, by what means do you conclude that?

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong in your conclusion, but I want to know by what means you are able to determine that you are right? Other than that you personally value independent thought over brainwashed religious thought, what really makes one better (as opposed to personally preferred) versus the other?

Of course it would help if you could give us some examples of acts and we could see what makes better sense, whether it's agnostics or atheists' approach or is it religious approach that makes better sense.

But let me give you some examples in from real life.

I know a lady at work who is strict vegetarian and yet doesn't believe in any religion at all. This person is vegetarian because she sees that brutality to animals is wrong. The religion her parents followed does not forbid eating meat at all.

Then I also know another lady at work who considers herself very religious who drinks alcohol and is non-vegetarian. A few times she has asked me why I am vegetarian and how come I don't drink alcohol. I have argued with her in past and she agreed with my reasons not to eat meat. But still she will keep bringing up the subject and I have learned to ignore her.

Now would you agree that it's immoral to keep eating meat even though we know that brutality on animals is wrong? Someone, for example the first lady in my example, doesn't follow any religion and yet knows a good reason not to eat meat but the other lady, who follows religion blindly, doesn't realize this and keeps doing even though on occasions, I have convinced her that eating meat is wrong.

Also as far as brainwashing goes, extreme examples would be 9/11. Those terrorists were probably brainwashed to believe that they would meet Allah if they did this.

[Grace Seeker]

Of course it would help if you could give us some examples of acts and we could see what makes better sense, whether it's agnostics or atheists' approach or is it religious approach that makes better sense.

But let me give you some examples in from real life.

I know a lady at work who is strict vegetarian and yet doesn't believe in any religion at all. This person is vegetarian because she sees that brutality to animals is wrong. The religion her parents followed does not forbid eating meat at all.

Then I also know another lady at work who considers herself very religious who drinks alcohol and is non-vegetarian. A few times she has asked me why I am vegetarian and how come I don't drink alcohol. I have argued with her in past and she agreed with my reasons not to eat meat. But still she will keep bringing up the subject and I have learned to ignore her.

Now would you agree that it's immoral to keep eating meat even though we know that brutality on animals is wrong? Someone, for example the first lady in my example, doesn't follow any religion and yet knows a good reason not to eat meat but the other lady, who follows religion blindly, doesn't realize this and keeps doing even though on occasions, I have convinced her that eating meat is wrong.

Also as far as brainwashing goes, extreme examples would be 9/11. Those terrorists were probably brainwashed to believe that they would meet Allah if they did this.

You didn't even approach my question. As I said it is not about the content: eating meat, brutality to animals, flying airplanes into buildings. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe they are all morally acceptable. You seem to want to focus on the content. I want to focus on the process, so I have no examples, examples get us back to content.

You said: "In fact, their ethics might be actually better than some of the religious people as they don't blindly follow just about anything a religion says." That is a comment about the process by which we determine something to be right or wrong.

I'll rephrase my question for you: What makes a list of right and wrong that is determined apart from religion any better than one that is determined through religion?

[Hemoo]

and why are you "cali dude" don't eat meat ,do you think that you will not be able to digest it or what ?

i will ask you "is your body equipped with the tools to be able to cut the meat and chew it by your teeth and then your digestion system can extract the usefull elements to your body ?"

so your body itself is a prove that humans can eat meat ...

i do agree with you for not eating the pig's meat ...

[cali dude]

and why are you "cali dude" don't eat meat ,do you think that you will not be able to digest it or what ?

i will ask you "is your body equipped with the tools to be able to cut the meat and chew it by your teeth and then your digestion system can extract the usefull elements to your body ?"

so your body itself is a prove that humans can eat meat ...

i do agree with you for not eating the pig's meat ...

It isn't matter of digesting meat. It's matter of moral values. If causing pain is wrong, then it seriously doesn't make sense to cause pain to the animals. Sure we need to cause some pain to vegetables and fruits in order to survive, even if this can be scientifically proven that it's pain, but our intent should always be to minimize the pain. Our intent should always be to minimize what's bad...

[cali dude]

You didn't even approach my question. As I said it is not about the content: eating meat, brutality to animals, flying airplanes into buildings. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe they are all morally acceptable. You seem to want to focus on the content. I want to focus on the process, so I have no examples, examples get us back to content.

You said: "In fact, their ethics might be actually better than some of the religious people as they don't blindly follow just about anything a religion says." That is a comment about the process by which we determine something to be right or wrong.

I'll rephrase my question for you: What makes a list of right and wrong that is determined apart from religion any better than one that is determined through religion?

There are a few ways to determine right and wrong. One of them is that you should look at your own self and see whether or not you would consider it wrong if it was done to you. Another way is to see if certain act helps humanity or if hurts humanity. If it hurts humanity, then it's wrong, if it helps humanity, it's right but we should still keep individual rights into consideration.

[Hemoo]

I assume you are referring to THIS article at IslamOnline.net? Folks can form their own opinions as to how 'amazing' or otherwise this may be. Don't get your hopes up, though.

BTW, if the Prophet had any extraordinary knowledge (for his time) on this subject don't you think he mght have known that flies carry disease primarily on their feet, not their wings?

First : to the disease to be primarily concentrated on the feets of the fly doesn't deny or contradict that its whole body and wings also have this disease .


Second: in the times of the prophet the bacteriology field of science has not been invented yet.


so how can any one knows that there is a cure or antibiotic in any part of the fly's body ?????


third: this fact of the antibiotics that exists on the house fly and exists on its body has only been proved by non-muslim australian scientists here is the link in year 2002 and also this site named www.abc.net.au is not an islamic site its a science and health magazine


so the question remains how did the prophet (peace be upon him) know that there is a cure(antibiotic) on any part of the house fly ?????:?

[Hemoo]

actually i wanted to write the hadith with another words that was mentioned also in the same book of sahih bukhary:

Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (into the vessel) and then throw it away, for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is healing (antidote for it) i e. the treatment for that disease." (authentic Sahih Bukhari)

and here is the link that says what did the australian scientists discover.

and its wonderfull that they discovered something that was already mentioned inthe islamic texts

i will try soon to mention other scientific miracles in the islamic text (Quran & Sunna)

[Hemoo]

here is another verse in the Quran :

chapter 006 verse 125 :-

YUSUFALI translation: Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

SHAKIR translation: Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe.

so what do you know about the pressure and oxygen levels when you go up higher ??

[snakelegs]

can anyone say definitively that the prophet didn't have this knowledge from god? of course not.

[Pygoscelis]

This wasn't directed at me, but if I may comment anyway,

You say that thus brainwashed religious people commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

I want to know what makes being brainwashed bad? Why is independent thought a good thing, by what means do you conclude that?

Brainwashed thinking is robotic. Done not because something is right (by which I mean socially constructive) or wrong (by which I mean socially destructie) but just because it is the thing you ae told you are supposed to do.

In my opinion, absent some independent thought, you can not have morality and immorality. You can only have obedience and disobedience. People cloud it with emotionalism and dub it "morality", but it isn't. Morality requires you to draw on your empathy to others and consider what is going to benefit and what is going to harm.

Submission or Nonsubmission to authority has no moral dimension. Blind and unquestioning submission PRECLUDES morality. For in such case one doesn't do something good because its right, one does it because they are commanded to. And if they were commanded something wrong, they'd do it just as readily.

What worries me is when people declare "Right" and "Wrong" as obedience and disobedience to the authority figure. This is scary. And it is a big part of why people fly planes into buildings, drink poisoned cool aid and burn witches.

I believe that we all have an inate sense of what is right and what is wrong, based on simple empathy and self preservation. And I believe that dogma (be it religious or political or otherwise) and social programming (such as trends, fashion and peer pressure) can often subdue this inate sense and enable people to do terrible things they'd otherwise never consider.

Some religious people have hidden their inate moral compass from themselves so well that they wonder if Ateists can have any sense of morality. It scares me when they question this, and makes me ask them if they would become murderous theiving monsters if they lost their faith. Many upon considering this rediscover their inate moral sense. But some others actually respond that they WOULD become such monsters. And that is very scary indeed!

This is not easy for me to explain. I hope the above was coherent.

[Hemoo]

can anyone say definitively that the prophet didn't have this knowledge from god? of course not.

thanks for your neutral comment

i think that you are really seeking the truth

so visit this site it may help you http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

or download the whole pdf book http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.pdf

i also recommend The Bible, The Qur'an & Science by French prof. Moris bocay ,i have it printed in arabic and i am reading it this days.

i also wanted to tell you something about the FITRA (Remember it) ,here is a hadith of the prophet (peace be upon him)

in the book of sahih bukhary

Narated By Abu- Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "No child is born except on Al-Fitra (Islam) and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian, as an animal produces a perfect young animal: do you see any part of its body amputated?" Then he recited:
"The religion of pure Islamic Faith (Hanifa),(i.e. to worship none but Allah), The pure Allah's Islamic nature with which He (Allah) has created mankind. Let There be no change in Allah's religion (i.e. to join none in Allah's worship). That is the straight religion; but most of men know not..." (30.30)

and i will also mention that i know that christians in my country must take their childs to the church after they are born for the baby to become a christian (so what was he before becoming christian , it is like they know that he is born a muslim)

also i would like to say that the right fitra in every human leads him to believe the existence of a GOD but if this fitra is corupted then you will see what i see here from some of the members...

[Grace Seeker]

There are a few ways to determine right and wrong. One of them is that you should look at your own self and see whether or not you would consider it wrong if it was done to you. Another way is to see if certain act helps humanity or if hurts humanity. If it hurts humanity, then it's wrong, if it helps humanity, it's right but we should still keep individual rights into consideration.

Don't you suppose that some one else may have a different set of values than you? There are those that actually enjoy pain, maybe we should inflict pain on them? Why is it a good thing to treat others the way we wish to be treated? Why not just look out for No. !? What is so wrong with that? Why are the things that you hold as good, good? You say that they are so, you believe them to be so, but what is it that really makes them good beyond your simple belief that they are good?

Is an infant morally wrong because just wants what it wants and doens't think of the things you say may for good morals?

[snakelegs]

thanks for your neutral comment

i think that you are really seeking the truth

so visit this site it may help you http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

or download the whole pdf book http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.pdf

i also recommend The Bible, The Qur'an & Science by French prof. Moris bocay ,i have it printed in arabic and i am reading it this days.

i also wanted to tell you something about the FITRA (Remember it) ,here is a hadith of the prophet (peace be upon him)

in the book of sahih bukhary

Narated By Abu- Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "No child is born except on Al-Fitra (Islam) and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian, as an animal produces a perfect young animal: do you see any part of its body amputated?" Then he recited:
"The religion of pure Islamic Faith (Hanifa),(i.e. to worship none but Allah), The pure Allah's Islamic nature with which He (Allah) has created mankind. Let There be no change in Allah's religion (i.e. to join none in Allah's worship). That is the straight religion; but most of men know not..." (30.30)

and i will also mention that i know that christians in my country must take their childs to the church after they are born for the baby to become a christian (so what was he before becoming christian , it is like they know that he is born a muslim)

also i would like to say that the right fitra in every human leads him to believe the existence of a GOD but if this fitra is corupted then you will see what i see here from some of the members...

i share your belief in the concept of fitra - i just interpret it a bit less narrowly than you. i am not looking for a religion.

[Woodrow]

This wasn't directed at me, but if I may comment anyway,



Brainwashed thinking is robotic. Done not because something is right (by which I mean socially constructive) or wrong (by which I mean socially destructie) but just because it is the thing you ae told you are supposed to do.

In my opinion, absent some independent thought, you can not have morality and immorality. You can only have obedience and disobedience. People cloud it with emotionalism and dub it "morality", but it isn't. Morality requires you to draw on your empathy to others and consider what is going to benefit and what is going to harm.

Submission or Nonsubmission to authority has no moral dimension. Blind and unquestioning submission PRECLUDES morality. For in such case one doesn't do something good because its right, one does it because they are commanded to. And if they were commanded something wrong, they'd do it just as readily.

What worries me is when people declare "Right" and "Wrong" as obedience and disobedience to the authority figure. This is scary. And it is a big part of why people fly planes into buildings, drink poisoned cool aid and burn witches.

I believe that we all have an inate sense of what is right and what is wrong, based on simple empathy and self preservation. And I believe that dogma (be it religious or political or otherwise) and social programming (such as trends, fashion and peer pressure) can often subdue this inate sense and enable people to do terrible things they'd otherwise never consider.

Some religious people have hidden their inate moral compass from themselves so well that they wonder if Ateists can have any sense of morality. It scares me when they question this, and makes me ask them if they would become murderous theiving monsters if they lost their faith. Many upon considering this rediscover their inate moral sense. But some others actually respond that they WOULD become such monsters. And that is very scary indeed!

This is not easy for me to explain. I hope the above was coherent.

Sounds like you been brainwashed.




















It can be said that all of our beliefs or disbeliefs are the result of brainwashing. That is not necessarily a bad thing. As we go through life we do not have sufficient time to learn all things. In many area we have to accept the practices of people we admire and respect as a starting point. All any of us can do is accept what we are taught, but stay instilled with the curiosity to always question, and seek to verify that which we believe.

The same reasons an athiest says a religious belief is the result of brainwashing, a religious person can use to say a nonbelief is the result of brainwashing.

[Hemoo]

Don't you suppose that some one else may have a different set of values than you? There are those that actually enjoy pain, maybe we should inflict pain on them? Why is it a good thing to treat others the way we wish to be treated? Why not just look out for No. !? What is so wrong with that? Why are the things that you hold as good, good? You say that they are so, you believe them to be so, but what is it that really makes them good beyond your simple belief that they are good?

Is an infant morally wrong because just wants what it wants and doens't think of the things you say may for good morals?

i agree with you on what you said here

and thats why humans must have a standard laws

this laws must come from the creator as the manual comes with the TV and radio and electronic machines.

so we all need to see where is the perfect manual for all humans

[Pygoscelis]

The same reasons an athiest says a religious belief is the result of brainwashing, a religious person can use to say a nonbelief is the result of brainwashing.

No, I don't think that follows. Brainwashed by who to believe what? Perhaps it would follow if the nonbeliever put forth a positive belief that there is no God, following the dictates of a anti-religious authority (Communist Russia perhaps?). But refusing to accept the claims of others and to consider things for yourself - that isn't brainwashed. Its the opposite.

[Woodrow]

No, I don't think that follows. Brainwashed by who to believe what? Perhaps it would follow if the nonbeliever put forth a positive belief that there is no God, following the dictates of a anti-religious authority (Communist Russia perhaps?). But refusing to accept the claims of others and to consider things for yourself - that isn't brainwashed. Its the opposite.

That can be the case, but it is not necessarily so. A person can be raised in an atheistic setting with atheistic parents and totally removed from all religious concepts. That person will be an atheist, as a result of their environment and not by what they learned on their own. In this case the brainwashing is the prevention of exposing the person to other thoughts, rather then the exposure to a belief.

I suspect that you have experienced exposure to several belief systems and that your choice is a choice based on your own conclusions. But, that is not true for all people who profess to be an atheist.

A person who becomes an atheist as the result of the withholding of information is brainwashed just as much as a person who becomes religious as the result of forcibly receiving information.

To go further I would say that many people on this planet have been brainwashed into their beliefs or non-beliefs, because they have never learned to accept responsibility for their own actions and fail to see that to learn they need to take an active role in their exposures.

[Pygoscelis]

A person who becomes an atheist as the result of the withholding of information is brainwashed just as much as a person who becomes religious as the result of forcibly receiving information.

People who are never exposed to religion (not sure such people exist) due to a withholding of information do not become athests. They already were atheists and remain such. That isn't brainwashing. That's just a lack of cultural awreness.

I think I see your point though.

fail to see that to learn they need to take an active role in their exposures.

That may be so for another reason too. They simply may not care to explore theolgy. I've met numerous atheists and cultural (name-only) Christians who are wat they are because its how they were raised, who gave no thought to the actual ideas, and who don't find it important to do so.

I suppose this would be more the atheist / cultural believer than the harcore believer view though. Whereas souls and afterlife matter to a hardcore believer, If you don't believe in a God and afterlife or you believe there is probably a God but if there is he's probably going to be good to you if you were good (instead of if you lived according to such and such a law), you're not likely to care about Souls or afterlives or other religious information/claims/stories.

[Grace Seeker]

Not sure exactly where exactly, but I think this fits into your conversation somehow. I know a man who is a nominal (in name only) Christian. I can't call him a cultural Christian because he is from Turkey (hardly a Christian culture). He was raised a Christian and so he celebrates Christmas and Easter, but though 25 years old and a university graduate didn't even realize until this week that Easter celebrates Jesus rising from the dead, after dying on the cross. Living in a Muslim country, and attending only on Easter and Christmas, he had managed to miss the message of the cross all these years. Yet he calls himself a Christian, and a Catholic at that.

[Trumble]

Yet he calls himself a Christian, and a Catholic at that.

Hardly a unique phenomenon, I suspect. Probably a good half of the English population would unthinkingly write "Church of England" in the appropriate box despite the fact that the last time they visited a church other than for a wedding or funeral was when the vicar dunked them in the water as a baby.

[cali dude]

Don't you suppose that some one else may have a different set of values than you?

Yes, that's why I said, treating others the way you would want to be treated is one of the ways, not the only way. Some times, it does make sense to ask yourself whether or not you would wanna be treated the way you treat others.

There are those that actually enjoy pain, maybe we should inflict pain on them?

It really doesn't matter if others enjoy pain but you wouldn't inflict pain on them unless you enjoy pain on yourself.

Why is it a good thing to treat others the way we wish to be treated?

As I said, some times, it's one of the ways to figure out whether or not ours acts will be good.

Why not just look out for No. !? What is so wrong with that?

I am confused what you are trying to say...:)

Why are the things that you hold as good, good? You say that they are so, you believe them to be so, but what is it that really makes them good beyond your simple belief that they are good?

Because they can not be proven wrong.

Is an infant morally wrong because just wants what it wants and doens't think of the things you say may for good morals?

We should ask ourselves whether or not an infant is really capable of right decision. Is an infant capable of purposely killing? If no, then he can't be immoral...

There is something within us that never lies and that something is soul. But soul is covered with what we call maya. Maya is anything and everything in this world that keeps us from realizing truth from within us. Some times, even religion can be part of maya as it brainwashes people in certain ways and keeps them from thinking logically and making right decisions.

So if we have ability to remove all maya and think logically to search the truth from within us, we will find the truth.

So basically, religion is for those who do not have ability to think logically and they need direction to be on certain path, not necessary the right path. Those, who can think logically, can have high moral values even without following any religion.

Therefore, even atheists and agnostics can have high moral standard as long as they have ability to think logically.

[Grace Seeker]

Therefore, even atheists and agnostics can have high moral standard as long as they have ability to think logically.

I have concurred with you all along on this point. I have only been asking question to get you to think deeper, not attack you.

Why is it that you call a good thing good? Why do you not only have an expectation that most others, even those of different cultures would probably also recognize it as good? And deeper still, why do you expect us to understand what you mean by a concept of goodness, unless you see us as having some similar way of thinking with regard to the idea that a thing that might be termed goodness actually exists, as opposed to have also been created out our respective and different cultures?

[cali dude]

Why is it that you call a good thing good?

Something that has positive effect or influence on God's creation in general must be good as long as we didn't have to compromise someone's personal rights. Even if something doesn't have major positive contribution to God's creation but has no negative effect on God's creation, it's still better than something that has any negative effect on God's creation.

Why do you not only have an expectation that most others, even those of different cultures would probably also recognize it as good? And deeper still, why do you expect us to understand what you mean by a concept of goodness, unless you see us as having some similar way of thinking with regard to the idea that a thing that might be termed goodness actually exists, as opposed to have also been created out our respective and different cultures?

Like I said, there is soul within us all which is pure and never misleads us. We only need to learn how to listen to soul. Yes sure our personalities are products of culture, religion and social influence that we grow up in and in most cases these are simply obstacles and keep us from listening to the soul. But I am confident that if we learn to remove all of the obstacles. i.e. forget what religion, culture and society say and try to concentrate within ourselves, we will all find the same answer.

So cultural, religious and social influences are superficial but if we try our best and try to find the answer within, we will all find the truth.

[barney]

The Prophet would appear to be , if you squint a bit, correct. Flys have antibiotics, in a unworkable form, on their bodies.

Personally i wouldnt submerge a fly in my drink based on his advice due to the millions of harmful bacteria on flys and the hundreds of millions of deaths that disease carrying flys have caused humanity.

But like fungi and sponges and lots of other stuff with antibiotics, he would appear to have been correct. He was (arguably) scientifically wrong about loads of other stuff, so I'm still agnostic, but It certainly makes you think.

[Woodrow]

Not sure exactly where exactly, but I think this fits into your conversation somehow. I know a man who is a nominal (in name only) Christian. I can't call him a cultural Christian because he is from Turkey (hardly a Christian culture). He was raised a Christian and so he celebrates Christmas and Easter, but though 25 years old and a university graduate didn't even realize until this week that Easter celebrates Jesus rising from the dead, after dying on the cross. Living in a Muslim country, and attending only on Easter and Christmas, he had managed to miss the message of the cross all these years. Yet he calls himself a Christian, and a Catholic at that.

I do notice you stated the man was Catholic so you may not agree with what I am trying to explain what I'm trying to say.

There are several Christian Denominations that are non-Trinitarian and see Isa(as) as simply a normal human being and served as an example of what we should strive to become.

These are mostly some of the Unitarians, JWs and Mormons. I can not say for certain that all of them believe that but many do.

They do often set up religious education classes and some Christians do not understand the concept of denominations, so figure all Bible classes are the same. It is not that unusual in the less industrialized nations for the adherents of a denomination to practice something that has little resemblance to the denomination they proclaim to be.

[Hemoo]

Personally i wouldnt submerge a fly in my drink based on his advice due to the millions of harmful bacteria on flys and the hundreds of millions of deaths that disease carrying flys have caused humanity.

the state of the prophet came to the one who will drink what's in his cup anyway so he advised him to make sure that the cure is also in the drink and not only the disease . and even for muslims its not obligatory to drink it..

He was (arguably) scientifically wrong about loads of other stuff

what other stuff ?? , i am curious :rollseyes

and finally i thank you for sharing your opinions with me ...

[barney]

That could take some time.
In Breif
360 joints in the human body
Adam 90 foot tall
The cosmos and earths relationship to it
Volcano's and structure of the earth
Bird flight
Shape of the earth.

Lots of others, If you want to pick one, I'll debate it with you.

[Hemoo]

That could take some time.
In Breif
360 joints in the human body
Adam 90 foot tall
The cosmos and earths relationship to it
Volcano's and structure of the earth
Bird flight
Shape of the earth.

Lots of others, If you want to pick one, I'll debate it with you.

First : if you can really debate on those things then i guess you know the arabic language (because both the Quran and Sunna is originaly in Arabic)

so if you can understand arabic and can read what is in the Arabic -Arabic Dictionaries then i am ready for your debates ,cause i only can make you understand what i will say if you understand the arabic refrences that i have.

so if you will then you have two choices

1-to open a new thread and put the Quran or Hadith verses and show me how they contradict with the modern sciences and i will answer you ..

2- you can wait for me for about two weeks or so untill i (If Allah wills) make a thread about the amazing compatibility between Islam and modern science

and then you can tell me your opinions.

Second : i want you to answer my question about

what was your religion or your parents religion before you became agnostic ?? this will help me to be able to make you understand what i will write in our debates

Third : i want you to read what french Dr. Maurice Bucaille said about Islam and science in his book "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science"

and here is a little quotation from his translated book

-------------------------
(The Qur'an and Modern Science

Introduction

The relationship between the Qur'an and science is a priori a surprise, especially when it turns out to be one of harmony and not of discord. A confrontation between a religious book and the secular ideas proclaimed by science is perhaps, in the eyes of many people today, something of a paradox. The majority of today's scientists, with a small number of exceptions of course, are indeed bound up in materialist theories, and have only indifference or contempt for religious questions which they often consider to be founded on legend. In the West moreover, when science and religion are discussed, people are quite willing to mention Judaism and Christianity among the religions referred to, but they hardly ever think of Islam. So many false judgements based on inaccurate ideas have indeed been made about it, that today it is very difficult to form an exact notion of the reality of Islam.
As a prelude to any confrontation between the Islamic Revelation and science, it would seem essential that an outline be given of a religion that is so little known in the West.
The totally erroneous statements made about Islam in the West are sometimes the result of ignorance, and sometimes of systematic denigration. The most serious of all the untruths told about it are however those dealing with facts; for while mistaken opinions are excusable, the presentation of facts running contrary to the reality is not. It is disturbing to read blatant untruths in eminently respectable works written by authors who a priori are highly qualified. The following is an example taken from the Universalis Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Universalis) vol. 6. Under the heading Gospels (Evangiles) the author alludes to the differences between the latter and the Qur'an: "The evangelists (. . .) do not (. . .), as in the Qur'an, claim to transmit an autobiography that God miraculously dictated to the Prophet . . .". In fact, the Qur'an has nothing to do with an autobiography: it is a preaching; a consultation of even the worst translation would have made that clear to the author. The statement we have quoted is as far from reality as if one were to define a Gospel as an account of an evangelist's life. The person responsible for this untruth about the Qur'an is a professor at the Jesuit Faculty of Theology, Lyon ! The fact that people utter such untruths helps to give a false impression of. the Qur'an and Islam.)end quotation

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

and here is a link to the full book

and if you really understand islam and you know it contradicts with science then i suggest that you make a reply to what is in this book about islam and science..

[wilberhum]

Since this is:

Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

How many atheists and agnostics think there is anyting to
The Qur'an and Modern Science?
Is there Modern Science there?
Or is it just a case of twisting the statements to fit the answers?

[Hemoo]

Since this is:

How many atheists and agnostics think there is anyting to
The Qur'an and Modern Science?
Is there Modern Science there?
Or is it just a case of twisting the statements to fit the answers?

the matter is not what atheists and agnostics think.

but the matter is what the science discoveries say

and i asked before questions and no one replied ,i said :

this fact of the antibiotics that exists on the house fly and exists on its body has only been proved by non-muslim australian scientists here is the link in year 2002 and also this site named www.abc.net.au is not an islamic site its a science and health magazine.

so the question remains how did the prophet (peace be upon him) know that there is a cure(antibiotic) on any part of the house fly ?????:?

and also asked :

here is another verse in the Quran :

chapter 006 verse 125 :-

YUSUFALI translation: Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

SHAKIR translation: Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe.

so what do you know about the pressure and oxygen levels when you go up higher ??



but no one replied , so who thinks that he is able to reply ,plz open another thread and i will be glad to explain to you what you don't understand

[wilberhum]

the matter is not what atheists and agnostics think.

And why not? :?
Remember the title of this thread? :thumbs_up

Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

Or are you now the directer of who can ask what? :D :skeleton:

[Pygoscelis]

What amazes me is that believers can actually interpret the words of their texts so selectively.

That fly quote you gave us talked about one wing being a curse and the other being a cure. So, is the cursed wing the left one or the right one? No? That is just metaphorical? Yet the Quran *IS* somehow refering to antibiotics?

Then you take a quote saying something about a guy straightening up in good posture and you somehow relate it to air pressure?

Are there not meanwhile dozens of things in the Quran that completey defy science, and are thus interepretted to be metaphorical?

[Pygoscelis]

I'm also impressed that we've managed to go on for 10 pages now asking and answering questions about atheism, when atheism is nothing but a lack of a belief (there is really nothing to say about it).

:)

So to pre-empt any future questions to atheists, I reply that we atheists lack a belief in Gods. And anything else beyond that is going to vary from atheist to atheist. We have no common code. We have no common ideology.

[Grace Seeker]

How about Nessie, Bigfoot, and UFOs? Do atheists also lack belief in these things?:D

[wilberhum]

How about Nessie, Bigfoot, and UFOs? Do atheists also lack belief in these things?:D

I think you need a massive belief system to accept those things. :D

[Muezzin]

I think you need a massive belief system to accept those things. :D

You know, if you hadn't said such a mean thing, I would at this moment be presenting you with your very own tin-foil hat I spent all afternoon making.

:p

[Grace Seeker]

What I find funny, is the number of people who will reject the existence of God, when talking to a Christian, Muslim or Jew. But when talking to a Native American fully "buy" into their form of spirituality. Don't they realize that in so doing they are no longer truly atheists?

[Hemoo]

i wasn't refering to the Quran at all in the antibiotic verse ,that proves to me that either you don't read what others write or you don't understand what you read..

and when someone said "How many atheists and agnostics think there is anyting to The Qur'an and Modern Science? "

i replyed "the matter is not what atheists and agnostics think."

because they are not building their thoughts and arguments upon Facts and logic but they mostly build it above theroies and weak assuptions .and you are not the most intelligent people on earth for your thoughts to be unquestionable.

so unfortunatly i came to a conclusion whish is :-

atheists don't have any kind of logic nor scientific arguments...

its like saying " i deny every thing then i am alive "


and finally i hope you accept my opinion
and i ask you to think about it without letting yourself as being a fanatic for your background thoughts even when you know you are wrong ..


and i ask the moderators to close this threat if they see that is okay because i don't think i will be willing to ask athiest or agnostics anything after that..

[barney]

[B]i replyed "the matter is not what atheists and agnostics think."

[B]because they are not building their thoughts and arguments upon Facts and logic but they mostly build it above theroies and weak assuptions

How would you define facts and logic? Would somethings inclusion in a reliable Hadith or the Quran be sufficiant to be classified as fact or logical?

[wilberhum]

so unfortunatly i came to a conclusion whish is :-

atheists don't have any kind of logic nor scientific arguments...

Which means your conclusion is totally flawed.

[Philosopher]

Which means your conclusion is totally flawed.

LOL @ agnostic

[barney]

How many agnostics does it take to change a lightbulb?

They have absoloutly no idea!

[wilberhum]

How many agnostics does it take to change a lightbulb?

They have absoloutly no idea!

How many theists does it take to change a light bulb?
1,000
1 to do it after the 999 makes up all the rituals.

[barney]

i have more questions :

what stops you from harming any one else ?? ]

That there is no reason to go around harming people, that I would not do to anyone something that I would not do to me.

what stop you from stealing or killing others ? ][/QUOTE]

Ditto above.

is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?]][/QUOTE]

Nope,It's my own ethics. although some bad things I do, such as not paying my car tax for a few weeks, I dont feel too bad about. I rationalise this by the state of the roads. Why should I give them 100% of their money if they dont give me 100% of my road?

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else ?][/QUOTE]

What would I gain from that? Would i want someone to do that to me?

EDIT : and what if you can do whatever you want to do even if it hurts others and you are sure that you can get away with it , so what will stop you from doing all that you desire even if it is wrong ?[/QUOTE]

Same answer. I just dont need to fear shirts of pitch in endless succession to kepp me from going postal.

[Pygoscelis]

What I find funny, is the number of people who will reject the existence of God, when talking to a Christian, Muslim or Jew. But when talking to a Native American fully "buy" into their form of spirituality. Don't they realize that in so doing they are no longer truly atheists?

Depends on what you mean by "buy into" and their "spirituality".

Do you mean ancestor worship? Animal worship? Or do you just mean feeling communion with nature?

Many native american cultures are very respectful of nature (the wild) and in tune with it. Many atheists find this refreshing. It is a stark contrast to the judeochristian idea that God created all of the rest of the creatures on earth to serve man - that nature is subordinate to man and there to be exploited rather than equal to and joined with man.

I admire a lot abour various native american outlooks and beliefs. I don't share in ancestor worship, but I sure do love to take my canoe out into the wild, without another human being within miles, just me and the wild. That's "spiritual" in a sense. But it isn't hocus pocus gods and faeries spiritual.

[Grace Seeker]

My goodness. Where did the nice polite discussion disappear to.

Come on, guys. Disagreements are to be expected. Take pot-shots at one another is not.

Where are all the values and ethics people were talking about a couple of pages ago? I'm not seeing them in our treatment of one another anymore.

(Note: not aimed at you're last post, Pygoscelis. I think you must have posted it while I was typing this one.)


Btw, "THE judeochristian idea that God created all of the rest of the creatures on earth to serve man" probably ought to be re-wrod to read "A judeochristian idea..." I say that because my judeochristian ethic is that mankind has the responsibility to be a steward of the earth, not it's exploiter.

[Pygoscelis]

Well, I'm sorry if my canoeing offended you :D

[Woodrow]

Let us keep this thread peacefull. Keep the discussions to the topic and not the poster.

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I'm sorry if my canoeing offended you :D

Well, what do you call it when someone tries to steer from the front of the canoe or can't tell the differnece between a "J" stroke and a draw?

[Pygoscelis]

Well, what do you call it when someone tries to steer from the front of the canoe

Usually its a case of a the person at stern not knowing what they are doing, so the bow has to compensate.

or can't tell the differnece between a "J" stroke and a draw?

A novice.

I don't see your point.

[barney]

I don't see your point.

the points at the bow (and the stern)

[InToTheRain]

Sup Folks,

To all fellow LI Athiests and agnostics is belief in God something you believed in since childhoodand lost through out some point in your life? How did your parents or friends influence your belief (are they athiests or agnostics, the majority of them :O )?


Regards

[snakelegs]

Sup Folks,

To all fellow LI Athiests and agnostics is belief in God something you believed in since childhoodand lost through out some point in your life? How did your parents or friends influence your belief (are they athiests or agnostics, the majority of them :O )?


Regards

i was raised in no religion and religion really wasn't discussed much in my family. (mother agnostic, step-father atheist - but not the preachy kind). i've always been agnostic, long before i ever heard the word. so i never had a belief and lost it.
until this last decade or so, i never concerned myself with god one way or the other. i now believe (it's been a gradual process) in god, but i am still agnostic, because i believe that ultimately, there is much that is simply unknowable.

[Grace Seeker]

Usually its a case of a the person at stern not knowing what they are doing, so the bow has to compensate.



A novice.

I don't see your point.

Never mind. I was just trying to comment on why I found your canoing offensive. But then, I've been known to take a class III rapid backwards in an open canoe, with only half of it planned that way.:exhausted

[Joe98]

To all fellow LI Athiests and agnostics is belief in God something you believed in since childhoodand lost through out some point in your life?

My parents told me there is a god. But I never really believed.

As I grew up I realised I never believed.

-

[Woodrow]

My parents told me there is a god. But I never really believed.

As I grew up I realised I never believed.

-

That makes sense.

I'm sort of like that. When I was a kid my teachers told me that Duck Billed-Platypus's existed, but I never believed them.

As I grew up I realized I never believed in platypus's.

[cali dude]

i have more questions :

what stops you from harming any one else ??

what stop you from stealing or killing others ?

is it the rules of law in your countries that make you don't do bad thing ?

or what ??

what if you live on an island and there is no laws ,what will motivate you to not oppress any one else ?

EDIT : and what if you can do whatever you want to do even if it hurts others and you are sure that you can get away with it , so what will stop you from doing all that you desire even if it is wrong ?

Although I don't consider myself atheist or agnostic, let me ask you how you would answer these questions if they were directed at you when you know very well that religious people do harm others, steal, kill, and violate law of humanity...

[cali dude]

i was raised in no religion and religion really wasn't discussed much in my family. (mother agnostic, step-father atheist - but not the preachy kind). i've always been agnostic, long before i ever heard the word. so i never had a belief and lost it.
until this last decade or so, i never concerned myself with god one way or the other. i now believe (it's been a gradual process) in god, but i am still agnostic, because i believe that ultimately, there is much that is simply unknowable.

somehow you seem to have interest in Sikhi. is it because of your Sikh or Indian background?

[Grace Seeker]

For those of who are lacking a belief in God, what would it take to alter your present belief system?

a) Would you have to have a personal encounter with God that you could verify through your 5 senses? If so, would that encounter have to be supernatural in nature or could it be ordinary?

b) If you had an encounter with God so as to convince you of his/her/its existence, would you share that encounter with others? If you did, how would you go about getting disbelievers who had not had the same experiences as you to accept what you had to say as true. What if others said they too had had an encounter with God, but the God they described was unlike the God you had encountered, how would you resolve that?

c) If the God you encountered proposed a different ethic for you to follow than the one you presently do, would you change or stay with that which you have already settled on as most desirable?

[cali dude]

For those of who are lacking a belief in God, what would it take to alter your present belief system?

a) Would you have to have a personal encounter with God that you could verify through your 5 senses? If so, would that encounter have to be supernatural in nature or could it be ordinary?

b) If you had an encounter with God so as to convince you of his/her/its existence, would you share that encounter with others? If you did, how would you go about getting disbelievers who had not had the same experiences as you to accept what you had to say as true. What if others said they too had had an encounter with God, but the God they described was unlike the God you had encountered, how would you resolve that?

c) If the God you encountered proposed a different ethic for you to follow than the one you presently do, would you change or stay with that which you have already settled on as most desirable?

Why would you want them to believe in something they don't want as long as they are ethical people? Yes if they harmed anyone, it would be of a concern. But since they seem to be pretty civilized decent people, in fact in certain situation, they even better off than being religious, then why worry about them accepting God? If God wants, He will somehow give them a reason to do so.

[Gator]

For those of who are lacking a belief in God, what would it take to alter your present belief system?

a) Would you have to have a personal encounter with God that you could verify through your 5 senses? If so, would that encounter have to be supernatural in nature or could it be ordinary?

b) If you had an encounter with God so as to convince you of his/her/its existence, would you share that encounter with others? If you did, how would you go about getting disbelievers who had not had the same experiences as you to accept what you had to say as true. What if others said they too had had an encounter with God, but the God they described was unlike the God you had encountered, how would you resolve that?

c) If the God you encountered proposed a different ethic for you to follow than the one you presently do, would you change or stay with that which you have already settled on as most desirable?

Hello -
a) Not necessarily 5 senses. Big booming voice would be sufficient. She would have to provide evidence of godness. Something hopefully physical as I would have to eliminate any hallucination or insanity on my part.

b)Yes. I'd show them the concrete evidence God provided me, but if they didn't believe me that would be their deal. God moves in mysterious ways.

c) Maybe. The usual caveat that it depends on what it is and what the punishment would be. If it was I had to grow a beard or spend the rest of eternity in hell, I would grow the beard. If she says I had to discriminate or kill a certain group of humans because they were different and no punishment either way, I would not do that.

[snakelegs]

somehow you seem to have interest in Sikhi. is it because of your Sikh or Indian background?

yes, i have an interest in sikhi but not in the sense of seeking a religion. there is much to admire in sikhism - that's for sure and there is also much that makes sense.
and i listen to gurbani a lot and find it very beautiful and grounding. (the rest -most - of the time, i fly with qawwali.)

[Pygoscelis]

Sup Folks,

To all fellow LI Athiests and agnostics is belief in God something you believed in since childhoodand lost through out some point in your life? How did your parents or friends influence your belief (are they athiests or agnostics, the majority of them :O )?


Regards

I was raised by a Anglican mother and closeted agnostic father (he went along with my mother for her sake). They never really pressured me to follow religion, and I never was a believer.

I became interested in religion as I met hardcore religious fundamentalist types, Christians mostly, and found their thought process to be disturbing and alarming, and overly authoritarian.

I've not faced much ostracization or hostility due to my lack of religion, thanks to the very multicultural society I live in, but I have many friends who live in environments more hostile towards nonbelievers (ie, the bible belt in the US).

[Grace Seeker]

Why would you want them to believe in something they don't want as long as they are ethical people? Yes if they harmed anyone, it would be of a concern. But since they seem to be pretty civilized decent people, in fact in certain situation, they even better off than being religious, then why worry about them accepting God? If God wants, He will somehow give them a reason to do so.

I'm not wanting them to believe in somehting they don't want. That wasn't the nature of my question. But open minded people are usually amenable to the idea that there are things that they don't know about. Even things they once believed in or did not believe in that now the reverse is the case. Few people have exactly the same beliefs at 7, 17, and 70. Thus we change, we modify our beliefs, based on our experiences. Those that don't either know it all (or think they do) or have egos so overinflated they can't admit to themselves the possibility of having ever been wrong.

But again, I just wanted to know what might cause some one who didn't believe in something (in the case of this thread, the subject is God) to believe. I can imagine many different responses, including that some would not be convinced should God introduce him/her/itself to them personally over breakfast.

I don't see what is so bad about my question. In another thread I might have asked the same thing about UFOs. By the way, I don't believe in UFOs and for me to believe, it would take either first-hand experience or the testimony of someone that I found consistently trustworthy and a chance to question them about their experiences.

Or are you suggesting an unwillingness to consider anything that is outside your present worldview?

[Pygoscelis]

a) Would you have to have a personal encounter with God that you could verify through your 5 senses? If so, would that encounter have to be supernatural in nature or could it be ordinary?

Define supernatural. Besides that, I'd have to have SOME sort of evidence for a start. Anything beyond cultural memes would peak my curiousity. Certainly if God spoke to me directly, I'd want to investigate that. But I'd also be curious if even indirect evidence appeared that could not be rationally explained. In that case I'd not leap to a god-of-the-gaps conclusion, but I'd want to investigate and maybe just maybe that would lead to God.

I do however not feel a huge burning desire to know one way or the other if God actually does exist. If he does, he hasn't had any meaninful impact on my life, and if he is a nasty God who punishes non believers in teh afterlife, I'd not respect him or want to worship him anyway.

Any god who isn't a monster can safely be ignored until it presents itself clearly. Any god who is a monster isn't deserving of my respect, much less my obedience or worship.

b) If you had an encounter with God so as to convince you of his/her/its existence, would you share that encounter with others? If you did, how would you go about getting disbelievers who had not had the same experiences as you to accept what you had to say as true.

If I had a strictly personal experience, for which I could produce no objective evidence, I'd first question my own sanity. As for proving it to others, by the definition of above, it couldn't be done, so why spin your wheels?

What if others said they too had had an encounter with God, but the God they described was unlike the God you had encountered, how would you resolve that?

Well, clearly I'd be right and they'd be wrong, and I'd have to forcibly convert them for their own good, or kill them, for they'd taint the rest of us with their horrible heathen ways. Maybe I'd burn them at the stake. It'd make for quite a show, to get the others in line, and it could be used as a fuel source. :D

Kidding. Kidding.

c) If the God you encountered proposed a different ethic for you to follow than the one you presently do, would you change or stay with that which you have already settled on as most desirable?

Well if I found a God and he had a code of behaviour to follow that was to me unethical, I like to think I'd have the guts to stand up to him. I'd certainly like to think I'd not bow down to a tyrant God, out of fear and cowardice.

[Grace Seeker]

Well if I found a God and he had a code of behaviour to follow that was to me unethical, I like to think I'd have the guts to stand up to him. I'd certainly like to think I'd not bow down to a tyrant God, out of fear and cowardice.

It is also possible that this, as yet, unknown God might be more liberal than you. Condoning as permissible, even valued, things that having adopted many of societies standards you subconsciously perceive as taboo.

For instance, the Incas had no concept of private property. If respect personal space, but property cannot be private own, it belongs to all was part of the ethic of this God, That would not make him a tyrant. Yet, it might challenge your present lifestyle if you are a typical participant in western capitalistic society. Would you contine to conform to your culture or change to conform to God's will and ethic?

[Pygoscelis]

For instance, the Incas had no concept of private property. If respect personal space, but property cannot be private own, it belongs to all was part of the ethic of this God, That would not make him a tyrant. Yet, it might challenge your present lifestyle if you are a typical participant in western capitalistic society. Would you contine to conform to your culture or change to conform to God's will and ethic?

A liberal God simply isn't relevant. For example, lets say God doesn't mind you killing people. I'm still not going to start killing people, because I have a complete set of ethics completely separate from what this God may have to say.

A God who wants me to conform to a particular commandment or lifestyle, be it capitalism or communism (like the Incans you describe) is not being liberal. A liberal God would not wish me to do either, and not punish me for doing either.

If God exists, I like to believe that she'd not be upset with me for engaging in capitalism, or engaging in communism. I don't see why she'd care either way. And any God who would punish me for doing either is a monster and not deserving of my respect.

As I said above, a decent loving God can be ignored until she makes herself clear. And a tyrant God should not be respected.

[cali dude]

A liberal God simply isn't relevant. For example, lets say God doesn't mind you killing people. I'm still not going to start killing people, because I have a complete set of ethics completely separate from what this God may have to say.

This is wonderful. I often have the same problem with people of religion, some times even some of Sikhs. They try to convince me that there is nothing wrong with eating meat referring to what their religion. I don't care what religion says but it doesn't make sense to me, I am not going to do it.

We shouldn't forget that not all religions are absolute truth. I am not even convinced that they all came from God. So we should rely on something that makes the most sense, even if it's only our own belief.

[barney]

Define supernatural. Besides that, I'd have to have SOME sort of evidence for a start. Anything beyond cultural memes would peak my curiousity. Certainly if God spoke to me directly, I'd want to investigate that. But I'd also be curious if even indirect evidence appeared that could not be rationally explained. In that case I'd not leap to a god-of-the-gaps conclusion, but I'd want to investigate and maybe just maybe that would lead to God.

I do however not feel a huge burning desire to know one way or the other if God actually does exist. If he does, he hasn't had any meaninful impact on my life, and if he is a nasty God who punishes non believers in teh afterlife, I'd not respect him or want to worship him anyway.

Any god who isn't a monster can safely be ignored until it presents itself clearly. Any god who is a monster isn't deserving of my respect, much less my obedience or worship.



If I had a strictly personal experience, for which I could produce no objective evidence, I'd first question my own sanity. As for proving it to others, by the definition of above, it couldn't be done, so why spin your wheels?



Well, clearly I'd be right and they'd be wrong, and I'd have to forcibly convert them for their own good, or kill them, for they'd taint the rest of us with their horrible heathen ways. Maybe I'd burn them at the stake. It'd make for quite a show, to get the others in line, and it could be used as a fuel source. :D

Kidding. Kidding.



Well if I found a God and he had a code of behaviour to follow that was to me unethical, I like to think I'd have the guts to stand up to him. I'd certainly like to think I'd not bow down to a tyrant God, out of fear and cowardice.

Smack on ditto answers for me. I'd strongly go with the sanity thread and if my God couldnt come up with a darn good reason why they were only appearing to me and not the guy on the train next to me, I'd get myself totally medicated. If I found that it was asking me to do things I felt to be wrong, like waste people, i'd prolly top myself as i'm a danger to others.

The points about a tyrant God I strongly support. And If God was responsible for the floods in New Orleans or the Famine in Ethiopia or the tsunami, then i wouldnt wave it's banner at all. Id not do that anyway. i'd say "Cool World you made...can you step in now and stop people blowing kids to peices with Assault Rifles"

Of course there may be some other supernatural force out there 1 good 1 evil, and the evil one is battling the good . But it's a bit of a bite-your-fingers-and say-hmmm, for me. Still if it could be proved, i'd go along with that.

The old atheist motto springs to mind.
Follower of religion X : " My gods terriffic..he does fantastic stuff"
Atheist: "So whats with the tens of millions of people suffering them"
Follower of religion X:" Satan"
Atheist:" Okies"
Follower of religion X:" Look at the Banana, Easy to peel, nutritious, tapered at both ends so it's easy to fit in the mouth, soft...the banana is a creationists nightmare..The Banana is from god"
Atheist:" Coconuts?"
Follower of religion X: "Satanic"

[Pygoscelis]

Follower of religion X:" Look at the Banana, Easy to peel, nutritious, tapered at both ends so it's easy to fit in the mouth, soft...the banana is a creationists nightmare..The Banana is from god"
Atheist:" Coconuts?"
Follower of religion X: "Satanic"

Satanic Coconuts. That there is a classic.

[ManchesterFolk]

An interesting thing that I have debated for a long time is the existent of a conscience that we have, which I am not sure how we developed.

[ranma1/2]

Peace,


clearly i have offended every one of you and i'd like to apologise. Please accept it and hear my explenation.


Due to the fact that you dont have a religion it feels that you rely on your own morals and values to restrict you to do good and keep away from evil. In this society of sex, drugs and rock and roll a man/woman is weak, they are easily seduced by the pleasures of the world and are very likely living with a materialistic mindset (house/wife/car possession/pride etc etc). Therefore when you dont have faith or God to help you to really fight your innerself and restrain yourself from sinning how is it that we can believe that your being honest?


im sorry, im sure many of you have values such as honesty etc and i pray that God guides you all, but you must admit, most without direction/guidance will do as they please... or am i being unfair?

Howdy, 1st post for me.
I am sure most people just get tired of hearing the same accusations and how ill thought out the thoughts are sometimes.

Example you seem to believe that those without a god or dont believe in a god source is worse than someone who has a god.
"religions dont necessary need a god, look at scientology and buddhism."

Everyone chooses there morals without the help of a god or a religion. The fact that they choose and judge what is right and wrong is a testament to that.

Now as for sin, what is it? Restrain oneself from sinning? Lets just say what prevents us from doing bad stuff.
For me its the desire to live in a social group. You know the good old golden rule. Sex , drugs, rock and roll i do not consider sins..
Drugs can be bad and depending on the type i believe shouldnt be used.
Beer, cigarettes "i dont smoke" caffine etc are drugs that are legal in most places and have minor effects on people. sigh i am rambling aint i?

back to the subject.

Morality.

You do not need a god or a imaginary god "from your perspective everyreligion except yours is imaginary or wrong" to give you morals.

Everyone uses what they believe is right and wrong to aid in there actions and lives. You even have used your own judgement to determine what is right and wrong. God had no hand in it. Sure you may have thought something was good and in following a religion you then decided it was bad. But it was still your own choice.

As many have pointed out, they do "good" for no reward or fear of punishment.

well thats enough of a ramble. "im extremly hungry so my brain has gone down the drain.."

[barney]

Howdy, 1st post for me.
"

Whoo! New Atheist in Da House! Welcome, and as per points on sinning.

Yup it's influenced by a desire to live in a social group.

[Pygoscelis]

Personally, I'm atheist for the free satanic coconuts that you get when you sign up.

[ranma1/2]

Personally, I'm atheist for the free satanic coconuts that you get when you sign up.

I hate it when i miss out on a sign up　bonus...Same thing happened at the bank. I missed out on free tuperware....

[snakelegs]

An interesting thing that I have debated for a long time is the existent of a conscience that we have, which I am not sure how we developed.

i believe that we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. maybe it is part of the survival instinct - you don't want to do things to other people that you wouldn't want them to do to you.
but of course, this is another one of those answer-less questions that i love - it's what makes me agnostic, after all.

[ranma1/2]

why didn't all atheists and agnostics respond to my last question about their previous religious experience ,what was your previous religion or your parents taught and the people who have taught you when you was young ????

and thank to you all for your responses ..

I was somewhat raised with a slight religous background.
I remember going to sunday school "argh will i ever get those days back?"

I think the first time i questioned religion was when i use to tease a friend of mine in taekwondo class as a kid. He was indian and i would make fun of him for not believeing in my religion. He then asked me how do i know i know that my religion was right and that got me thinking.
Of course that was when i was around 11 or so and I think by that time I had stopped believing in santa and the easter bunny and i think that also helped me think about religion.

I think I have always believed in evo as well and through study of it I have evo as well and through study of it I have learned more and more about it and I have had doubts put to rest through eductation.

I think also the horrors i have seen and read about done in the name of gods is also another reason why i have been turned off of believeing in a benevolent god.

I think that logically there can not be a typical god as imagined by most monotheistic religions.

I think the very concept of god/s is a very vague and unspecific idea that varies from one relgion to another.

Well thats all for now.

[Woodrow]

Interesting to some degree I actually agree with this statement.

I think that logically there can not be a typical god as imagined by most monotheistic religions.

I think the very concept of god/s is a very vague and unspecific idea that varies from one religion to another.

I believe the form and nature of Allah(swt) is beyond our capabilities to understand. We have even less comprehension of what Allah(swt) is than a Gold fish has of the guy who changes the water in his bowl.

Now as far as to how and why I know Allah(swt) exists, I see that as a fruitless debate that can only lead to needless argument. I will only say that I do and my life experiences have lead me to that belief and not the words of any person.

Outside of that I will say I also agree with these words from the Qur'an.

2:256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


With that said Welcome to the Forum. I sincerely hope you enjoy your stay and that you will share with us what you can.

Please read the FAQ section up at the top of the front page and I am certain it will keep your stay here a pleasant stay.

Now enjoy yourself and always feel free to ask questions.

[ranma1/2]

It would depend on the context, of course (this sort of stuff is totally meaningless in isolation - what was the Prophet talking about?) but I'd also read it as a metaphor, although of course I make no claim of being scholastically competent to do so. Something on the lines of 'while an event or person may seem unpleasant don't immediately dismiss it/them as some good may come of it/them'.

I assume you are referring to THIS article at IslamOnline.net? Folks can form their own opinions as to how 'amazing' or otherwise this may be. Don't get your hopes up, though.

BTW, if the Prophet had any extraordinary knowledge (for his time) on this subject don't you think he mght have known that flies carry disease primarily on their feet, not their wings?

flies huh? from the link you provided it seems that flies as listed eariler dont carry disease on one wing and a cure on the other but rather both on its body. Of course i have yet to see any supposed scientific predictions in the quran. At best the knowledge was known before hand and at worst it is a contrived twisting of poetry.

[ranma1/2]

Trumble how do you feel, do you consider yourself an agnostic or atheist?
What form of buddhists are you?

Remember atheism and agnostism have nothing to do with not having a religion but rather the belief of a god.

[ranma1/2]

I have a question about the part I've highlighted in bold. I am not arguing that religious people are in fact better. What I want to know is by what standard one would determine that one person is better than another? You gave an example that religious people might following just about anything a religion says and you classify this as brainwashing. You say that thus brainwashed religious people commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

I want to know what makes being brainwashed bad? Why is independent thought a good thing, by what means do you conclude that?

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong in your conclusion, but I want to know by what means you are able to determine that you are right? Other than that you personally value independent thought over brainwashed religious thought, what really makes one better (as opposed to personally preferred) versus the other?

I would tend to say that religions typically have Dogma.
Not all mind you but most do. These dogma do not allow for adaptation and change as new knowldge is presented and as socieites change.

[Philosopher]

BTW, if the Prophet had any extraordinary knowledge (for his time) on this subject don't you think he mght have known that flies carry disease primarily on their feet, not their wings?

http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/h//hof.html

[ranma1/2]

First : to the disease to be primarily concentrated on the feets of the fly doesn't deny or contradict that its whole body and wings also have this disease .


Second: in the times of the prophet the bacteriology field of science has not been invented yet.


so how can any one knows that there is a cure or antibiotic in any part of the fly's body ?????


third: this fact of the antibiotics that exists on the house fly and exists on its body has only been proved by non-muslim australian scientists here is the link in year 2002 and also this site named www.abc.net.au is not an islamic site its a science and health magazine


so the question remains how did the prophet (peace be upon him) know that there is a cure(antibiotic) on any part of the house fly ?????:?

he didnt. simple as that.
he was saying , its just a fly, plucking it out wont really matter. But if you are worried about it then believe this and you will feel better.

[ranma1/2]

here is another verse in the Quran :

chapter 006 verse 125 :-

YUSUFALI translation: Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

SHAKIR translation: Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe.

so what do you know about the pressure and oxygen levels when you go up higher ??

this was known knowldged at the time.
people had climbed mountains before and new that it was harder to breath as you got higher.

[ranma1/2]

How about Nessie, Bigfoot, and UFOs? Do atheists also lack belief in these things?:D

it would depend on who you ask, but i imagine there answers would vary as much as if you asked anyone else.
Me based on the evidence no, no, and yes.
UFOs are unidentified flying objects.

Aliens on the other hand is a different matter.

Statistically i expect life to be out there. Intellgent life as well. As for being interstellar capable i would be very skeptical unless they have some unknown tech.

[Pygoscelis]

I would more readily believe in aliens from outer space than in God. In fact, aliens may BE God if you define God as the force that created/planted us here.

[ranma1/2]

What I find funny, is the number of people who will reject the existence of God, when talking to a Christian, Muslim or Jew. But when talking to a Native American fully "buy" into their form of spirituality. Don't they realize that in so doing they are no longer truly atheists?

did you know that atheism only deals with the existence of a god.
Did you know that you can be religous and not believe in a god.
Did you know you can believe in ghost and goblins and magic and the toothfairy and not believe in a god.
I see no problem with an atheists having these beliefs.

Of course there are differnt types of atheism "check wiki for some explainations" i would imagine most strong atheists would reject most religions as well but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather their own personal knowledge.

[Philosopher]

did you know that atheism only deals with the existence of a god.
Did you know that you can be religous and not believe in a god.
Did you know you can believe in ghost and goblins and magic and the toothfairy and not believe in a god.
I see no problem with an atheists having these beliefs.

Of course there are differnt types of atheism "check wiki for some explainations" i would imagine most strong atheists would reject most religions as well but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather their own personal knowledge.

1.) Yes.
2.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."
3.) Yes, but its rather idiotic.

You have proven that atheism can be as dogmatic as Christianity.

[ranma1/2]

1.) Yes.
2.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."
3.) Yes, but its rather idiotic.

You have proven that atheism can be as dogmatic as Christianity.

def via wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religon

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

so how is this wrong? by your def buddhsim is not a religion nor is scientology.

and how have i proven that atheism is dogmatic?
what does it say about morals? "nothing is the answer"
the only thing it takes a stance on is the existence of god/s.

so please state this atheistic dogma.

[Pygoscelis]

Philsopher, you seem to be having difficulty conceptualizing what atheism is. Atheism is NOTHING but a lack of a belief in a God.

It is impossible for atheism to be dogmatic, for there is no dogma. There is no code. No system. No rituals. No directives.

Atheism is not a complete worldview or way of life. It is a statement of what one is not, rather than what one is. Saying that one is atheist is like saying that one is agargoylist, one who doesn't believe in gargoyles. That isn't something you can be dogmatic about.

[Trumble]

1.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."

No it is not. Which 'definition' are you using? 'Religion' is a notoriously difficult word to define, and most dictionary attempts fail miserably. However, even among those definitions, such as the one already quoted, and

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

"a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power"

"generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief."

and (the best of these IMHO), although as with all of them "supernatural" needs to be interpreted with care.

"A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world."

None require a belief in God. Those (English) definitions that do generally come from Christianity-biased sources where such a belief is assumed.

[NoName55]

This is wonderful. I often have the same problem with people of religion, some times even some of Sikhs. They try to convince me that there is nothing wrong with eating meat referring to what their religion. I don't care what religion says but it doesn't make sense to me, I am not going to do it.

We shouldn't forget that not all religions are absolute truth. I am not even convinced that they all came from God. So we should rely on something that makes the most sense, even if it's only our own belief.

Comments of Sikh Scholars

Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi
Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste.


Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar
The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.


A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.


Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar
As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288).


A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England
The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus.


Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi
In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate).


Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi
A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.


Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi
The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.


Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto
There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.


The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver
According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.


Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal
The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.


Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi.
The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.

[NoName55]

It is impossible for atheism to be dogmatic, for there is no dogma. There is no code. No system. No rituals. No directives.

in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?

[Trumble]

in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?

And you don't think exactly the same thing isn't true the other way around?

BTW.. it's hardly "butting in" when the thread is titled "Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only" !

[wilberhum]

in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?

In that case why are they not letting us agnostics and atheists be?

Trumble, you are faster than a speeding bullet.

[Woodrow]

There seems to be an unwritten dogma among some athiests that it is their responsibility to spread knowledge by discrediting theistic beliefs. Some are very Evangelical in their zeal to educate us poor uneducated theists; who corrupt society by placing a God(swt) above solid, verifiable evidence.

It has become their unwritten scripture that theism leads to the pit of ignorance.


I know I just fell off of the turnip truck, but that sounds an awful lot like evangelism.



to be honest I have not seen many of our agnostic or athiestic members act like that. But, there are enough that do to be noticable.

[Pygoscelis]

in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?

You too appear to have difficulty grasping what atheists are. Read my post above again please.

Atheism is NOTHING but a lack of belief in gods.

It is not atheists who crusade against religion. It is anti-religionists. To call thm atheists is like calling them human. Of course, they ARE human that that doesn't define or even hint at the personality you are getting at.

Again, ATHEISM IS NOTHING BUT THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. Period. End of sentence.

You grouping them together in your mind is no different than grouping together Ghandi, Osama Bin Laden, Mother Theresa, a modern hippie, and an acient Incan throwing somebody into a volcano.

[ranma1/2]

in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?

some do some dont, but there is no dogma.
As I have stated before you can still be religous and be an atheists.
As I also pointed out all atheism is is pretty much the non belief in a god or gods.

Now I do know that many atheists get tired of ignorance done in the name or different religons. I personally hate it when people ignore science no matter what. But thats just me not atheists.

As for trying to debunk beliefs. Mosts atheists to my knowledge may say to somneone "if you believe A and B contradicts A do you have a problem with that."

[cali dude]

NoName55, I knew about Sikhs' stand on meat. Unfortunately, some of them refer to gurbani trying to justify eating meat and yet they don't understand that if a guru killed an animal, if it did happen, he is capable of actually blessing the animal and maybe help the animals get out of the cycle of re-incarnation. It wouldn't be the same if I killed an animal. If I killed an animal, I could only cause the pain to the animal and yet can not help it with salvation.

Some of the shabads were written not to encourage eating meat but to prove some kind of hypocrisy, for example the one by Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

[cali dude]

Again, ATHEISM IS NOTHING BUT THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. Period. End of sentence.

I think it's more of lack of belief in God represented by religions. Although not an atheist as God represented by Sikhi makes perect sense to me, I personally think God was ridiculed by most followers of the religions.

[wilberhum]

I think it's more of lack of belief in God represented by religions.

That would be an agnostic. :D Like me.
You need to look up atheist in the dictionary. :skeleton:
It is the simplest of all. No God. :blind:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

wilberhum werent you an aethiest formerly or am i getting it mixed up?

[NoName55]

NoName55, I knew about Sikhs' stand on meat. Unfortunately, some of them refer to gurbani trying to justify eating meat and yet they don't understand that if a guru killed an animal, if it did happen, he is capable of actually blessing the animal and maybe help the animals get out of the cycle of re-incarnation. It wouldn't be the same if I killed an animal. If I killed an animal, I could only cause the pain to the animal and yet can not help it with salvation.

Some of the shabads were written not to encourage eating meat but to prove some kind of hypocrisy, for example the one by Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

are you saying that you are better qualified than Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar ?

how come he made it to Parbandhak Committee while you are here?

wa-salaam

P.S. Those Brothers have dedicated their lives to study of Sikhi literature and texts unlike those who go pinch ideas from hindu sites who only pick selective shabbads to confuse issues also whose aim it is to turn every man woman child into worshippig their gazzilion gods

[wilberhum]

wilberhum werent you an aethiest formerly or am i getting it mixed up?

Never ever been or claimed to be an Atheist. You are getting it mixed up.

Maybe cause I stand up for atheists. You know the old "Atheists don't have morals" crap.
I also think atheists make more sense than the vast majority of theists. :thumbs_up

But then I stand up for gays and I'm not one. I always stand up for women and I'm male. :skeleton:
But that's just me.

[cali dude]

are you saying that you are better qualified than Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar ?

how come he made it to Parbandhak Committee while you are here?

wa-salaam

P.S. Those Brothers have dedicated their lives to study of Sikhi literature and texts unlike those who go pinch ideas from hindu sites who only pick selective shabbads to confuse issues also whose aim it is to turn every man woman child into worshippig their gazzilion gods

Well this is a Sikh issue and should only be discussed at a Sikh site. It doesn't take Ph.D. to understand gurbani, nor does it take any leadership. What it takes is spiritual wisdom. Ph.D. or being leader doesn't make one a spiritually wise person.

[NoName55]

Well this is a Sikh issue and should only be discussed at a Sikh site.

I could have sworn I did not bring it into discussion on a non-Sikh site

It doesn't take Ph.D. to understand gurbani, nor does it take any leadership. What it takes is spiritual wisdom. Ph.D. or being leader doesn't make one a spiritually wise person.

So you are saying that you are better than they are. all I can say to that is "Wow" amazing. that would also make you better than the brothers who select them as leaders. shocked, to say the least!

I need time to recover :(

[cali dude]

So you are saying that you are better than they are. all I can say to that is "Wow" amazing. that would also make you better than the brothers who select them as leaders. shocked, to say the least!

I need time to recover :(

No I am not saying I am better but morally it does make more sense not to eat meat.

[NoName55]

No I am not saying I am better but morally it does make more sense not to eat meat

is it because animals feel pain or because meateater is taking their life?

[ranma1/2]

is it because animals feel pain or because meateater is taking their life?

I assume they are going by their own morals. I find it perfectly moral to eat meat. I think there are good health reasons not to eat meat but as long as you eat healthy thos reasons are pretty poor.

[NoName55]

I assume they are going by their own morals. I find it perfectly moral to eat meat. I think there are good health reasons not to eat meat but as long as you eat healthy thos reasons are pretty poor.

whose morals?
who is "they"?

I suggest you start reading from page 14 post 200 and follow it thru to this page before coming up with these pearls of wisdom. Thank you wa-salaam

[Pygoscelis]

Vegetarianism is cruel. At least animals have a chance to get away.

:D

[NoName55]

Vegetarianism is cruel. At least animals have a chance to get away.

:D

ah shucks I was saving that as a surprise ending, spoil sport

:)

I was going to add:
how many people can be fed with a single cow (1 life lost)?
how many lives would be lost during one single veggie meal?

[ranma1/2]

whose morals?
who is "they"?

I suggest you start reading from page 14 post 200 and follow it thru to this page before coming up with these peals of wisdom. Thank you wa-salaam

those that dont eat meat.. their morals may say that killing animals is not moral.

[cali dude]

When it comes to morality, there is no such thing as their morals or my morals or your morals.

What's morally right and wrong does (must) not change from person to person or religion to religion.

Please tell me why you think eating meat is perfectely fine when there are vegetables available.

Do you actually think that vegetables go through the same pain as animals?

[cali dude]

Ok let's start this way...

Is killing wrong at all? Why and why not?

[wilberhum]

When it comes to morality, there is no such thing as their morals or my morals or your morals.

What's morally right and wrong does (must) not change from person to person or religion to religion.

That is just not true. Morals change from group to group.

Some groups think it is moral to kill people because of there religious beliefs, others don't. Some people think it is immoral to have more than one wife, others don't. Some groups think capital punishment is immoral, others don't.

Not all “Moral Compasses” point in exactly the same direction.

[cali dude]

That is just not true. Morals change from group to group.

Some groups think it is moral to kill people because of there religious beliefs, others don't. Some people think it is immoral to have more than one wife, others don't. Some groups think capital punishment is immoral, others don't.

Not all “Moral Compasses” point in exactly the same direction.

Do you actually think something becomes moral just because people think it's moral to do it?

[wilberhum]

Do you actually think something becomes moral just because people think it's moral to do it?

Comunity norms. Yes.

I do not believe there is such a thing as "god's morals" because I don't believe god has definable communications with us.

If everyone in the village is tought from birth that god demans that you kill deformed children, then I would not call any of the baby killers immoral.

[cali dude]

But we do know that something doesn't become the right to do just because a community thinks it's the right thing to do.

So how else do we determine what's right and what's wrong, leaving religion out?

[wilberhum]

But we do know that something doesn't become the right to do just because a community thinks it's the right thing to do.

So how else do we determine what's right and what's wrong, leaving religion out?

Comunity norms.

So is having more that one wife immoral?

[cali dude]

Comunity norms.

So is having more that one wife immoral?

It probably depends on why you have more than one wife. Does anybody get hurt in the process?

[wilberhum]

It probably depends on why you have more than one wife. Does anybody get hurt in the process?

So if I have 1 wife and treat her badly then marriage is immoral? :skeleton:

You are just avoiding answering the question. :?

Whether you say having multiple wives is moral or immoral, you will find over a billion people that disagree with you.

There is only one explanation of why, dictionaries are wonderful.

Moral (5) good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large

[Pygoscelis]

Communit norms yes. But also add empathy and self preservation. Those three are the source of all "morality" as I see it. Some "moralities" get codified into a religion and holy book, and when they do they often become rigid and resist change as society changes and no longer needs them. For example, there was probably vitally important reason why it was taboo to eat non kosher back in the day.

[ranma1/2]

But we do know that something doesn't become the right to do just because a community thinks it's the right thing to do.

So how else do we determine what's right and what's wrong, leaving religion out?

We do it the same way with religion. Religion does not means its morals are THE morals.

After all religions conflict with one and another over what is and isnt moral.
Also people of religions often cherry pick their morality from their religions to serve their needs. Ultimatly those people still choose what they deem to be right and wrong.

[ranma1/2]

So if I have 1 wife and treat her badly then marriage is immoral? :skeleton:

You are just avoiding answering the question. :?

Whether you say having multiple wives is moral or immoral, you will find over a billion people that disagree with you.

There is only one explanation of why, dictionaries are wonderful.

I think he was saying was do the wives know you are married to more than one person and does it causes harm. Not how you treat your wives or spouse.

[ranma1/2]

When it comes to morality, there is no such thing as their morals or my morals or your morals.

What's morally right and wrong does (must) not change from person to person or religion to religion.

Please tell me why you think eating meat is perfectely fine when there are vegetables available.

Do you actually think that vegetables go through the same pain as animals?

Actually morality does vary from culture to culture, religion to religion, and person to person.

People have a tendencey to learn their morals from the society they grow up in. At some point they will also have the ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

As for pain of animals. I dont think it is immoral to cause to pain to animals since we have to eat. Thats life. Animals are not immoral for eating other animals, neither are we. I do think that causing pain for the sake of causing pain however is immoral.

[NoName55]

No I am not saying I am better but morally it does make more sense not to eat meat

is it because animals feel pain or because meateater is taking their life?

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Vegetarianism is cruel. At least animals have a chance to get away.

ah shucks I was saving that as a surprise ending, spoil sport

:)

I was going to add:
how many people can be fed with a single cow (1 life lost)?
how many lives would be lost during one single veggie meal?

dang it! hijackers have made me invisible to brother cali_dude

[ranma1/2]

Ok let's start this way...

Is killing wrong at all? Why and why not?

Yes, no and maybe.

In general Humans killing humans out of cold blood is bad.
Humans killing animals out of cold blood "no reason except for killing" is bad.

Killing humans in self defence or other similar circumstance is ok.

Killing animals out of self defence or food or protection i would say is in general ok.

[cali dude]

So what you are saying is that basically killing is wrong unless it's done for food or self-defense.

The key word here is "wrong".

But if you could survive without killing, would it make sense not to kill?

As far as polygamy goes, no I don't believe in polygamy at all.

I personally have no justification for polygamy.

[ranma1/2]

So what you are saying is that basically killing is wrong unless it's done for food or self-defense.

The key word here is "wrong".

But if you could survive without killing, would it make sense not to kill?

As far as polygamy goes, no I don't believe in polygamy at all.

I personally have no justification for polygamy.

Well personally i dont kill , i let other people do it and i go to the store and buy the food. Now those people kill in order to make money so they can survive. I buy the dead food and happily eat it. "it would be a waste not to."

As for polygamy i see just as much justification in it as any marriage.
Of course I expect all memebers to be equal in the relationship which could be difficult. The concept is fine the practice is another matter. I myself am happy just marrying one person.

[cali dude]

Well personally i dont kill , i let other people do it and i go to the store and buy the food. Now those people kill in order to make money so they can survive. I buy the dead food and happily eat it. "it would be a waste not to."

As for polygamy i see just as much justification in it as any marriage.
Of course I expect all memebers to be equal in the relationship which could be difficult. The concept is fine the practice is another matter. I myself am happy just marrying one person.

But if you didn't buy the meat, would they still kill? So indirectly, you are causing the killing. There are other means to make money than killing.

[ranma1/2]

But if you didn't buy the meat, would they still kill? So indirectly, you are causing the killing. There are other means to make money than killing.

I admit that i am indirectly responcible for those poor chickens that i eat but that doesnt bug me. 'maybe it would if i had to kill them'
I have a question for you. Do you use products that use animals or animal biproducts in there creation?
Apart from that, are animals immoral for killing other animals for survival?
Like i said i dont think morality has much to do with food.
Of course this goes way off into offtopic land I imagine so if you want you could create a seperate thread on veganism or something similar.
Peace and have fun.

[Grace Seeker]

When it comes to morality, there is no such thing as their morals or my morals or your morals.

What's morally right and wrong does (must) not change from person to person or religion to religion.

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

[ranma1/2]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

Its pretty much is an action moral becuase god says it is or does god say it is moral because it is.
If the first case is true then we are in no better a situtation and morality is only based off of gods whims. If the second case is true then it is possible for us to choose what is good and we dont need god to tell us anyway.

[Pygoscelis]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

I would agree with this, but add that human nature and survival dynamics frequently point each of the societies to find particularly things moral and other things immoral. Morality springs from empathy and self preservation, something common amongst societies. Often religions are grown and dressed around it and often religions are used to override it or subdue it.

And there are of course other cultural and social norms that simply come to be and do so nonuniversally, leading to great differences in what each culture sees as immoral or taboo.

Taboo language is my personal favourite. The concept of words that are not discrimnatory slurs or pejoratives can be taboo is pretty amazing.

[Grace Seeker]

Its pretty much is an action moral becuase god says it is or does god say it is moral because it is.
If the first case is true then we are in no better a situtation and morality is only based off of gods whims. If the second case is true then it is possible for us to choose what is good and we dont need god to tell us anyway.

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

I don't mean is what we think of as good relative or not. Obviously it is. Societies and situations often dictate people to see polar opposite things as good. Or a thing is good in on scenario and bad in another. Thus our perceptions of what is and is not good are indeed relative. But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share? If so, where does it come from?
If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything? If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

[ranma1/2]

Howdy Grace Seeker,

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?
Yes a very important question, of course i guess we would need to define good then too..
I don't mean is what we think of as good relative or not. Obviously it is. Societies and situations often dictate people to see polar opposite things as good. Or a thing is good in on scenario and bad in another. Thus our perceptions of what is and is not good are indeed relative.
Ok
But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share? If so, where does it come from?
As i said we need to define good first.
I can good or bad actions be performed if there is noone to be affected?
If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?
As i think Pygoscelis has said its part of living in a social group. I think it exists as a social construct to define actions that are benefital for the whole. For me a good act is a selfless act and selfish acts tend to be bad.
If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

I would disagree in that we do create in our own minds what we think is right , wrong, good and bad. And if there is no definitive good and bad i see no problem with that.

[cali dude]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

No, I am not saying there is no God. I do believe in God but I am not convinced that everything in religions came from God.

[cali dude]

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

Yes, something that has no negative effect at all

If so, where does it come from?

Of course, it has to come from God or the Creator whoever or whatever power is behind this creation. Having said that, since I don't believe that all religions present the absolute truth, I think we need to know God's reason for considering something good or bad. So, we need to know the basic reason why something could be considered good or bad. For example, alcoholism. Why is it good or bad?

[Pygoscelis]

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

Independent of those to percieve it (being that human, alien or God)? No. The concept loses any coherency in that case. Asking if something is good or bad absent a mind to perceive it is like asking what colour something is absent light or what is the common opinion of people who do not exist.

But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share?

No, we can not share in any concept beyond our perceptions, by definition.

The idea that morality requires an absolute law giver on what is acceptable and what is not is a fallacy. Morality requires no such thing, and if there is an absolute law giver, its laws are not necesarily moral.

If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?

It matters because we ARE here to perceive it. We have empathy for like beings and don't want to see them hurt or cheated.

If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

Are "good", "right" and "moral" not synonyms? If so, your statement is true by definition, and is also meaningless. Without cats there can't really be such a thing as cats.

[Grace Seeker]

Independent of those to percieve it (being that human, alien or God)? No. The concept loses any coherency in that case. Asking if something is good or bad absent a mind to perceive it is like asking what colour something is absent light or what is the common opinion of people who do not exist.



No, we can not share in any concept beyond our perceptions, by definition.

The idea that morality requires an absolute law giver on what is acceptable and what is not is a fallacy. Morality requires no such thing, and if there is an absolute law giver, its laws are not necesarily moral.



It matters because we ARE here to perceive it. We have empathy for like beings and don't want to see them hurt or cheated.



Are "good", "right" and "moral" not synonyms? If so, your statement is true by definition, and is also meaningless. Without cats there can't really be such a thing as cats.

Your view that "good", "right", and "moral" are meaningless, is exactly why I asked the question: "If [there is] not [an absolute good], then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?" As I said, if there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either. Then the behavior of people cannot be judged any differently than the behavior of dogs or ants. We contribute to our society or we don't, but there is no moral value to it, only an economic one at best. Thus, those things which we considered criminal are wrong, not because they are truly wrong, but because they are not in our personal best interest. I don't believe such a position to be true. I think that there actually are moral standards that are good in and of themselves. I am not saying that all laws or religious ethics are based on them or even identify them well. But I do think they exist, however poorly we have been at recognizing them. To think otherwise would be to imply that Hitler is no worse than Mother Theresa, but just made life for some of us more uncomfortable. I am not willing to make that statement, and I don't seek how one can claim that Hitler or anyone is a despot without recognizing that there is some moral authority outside both you and Hitler to which you make that appeal.

[Pygoscelis]

As I said, if there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

As I responded above, if good, right and moral are synonyms, then your statement is a tautology, saying nothing. If there are no dogs, there are no dogs. Um, ya, but so what? I did not say that morality is meaningless. I said your statement was.

We contribute to our society or we don't, but there is no moral value to it, only an economic one at best. Thus, those things which we considered criminal are wrong, not because they are truly wrong, but because they are not in our personal best interest. I don't believe such a position to be true.

Nobody does. You have twisted things and built a bit of a straw man, though I don't think you realize it. You don't need some code of morality that exists absent a mind to perceive it (such a thing isn't coherent anyway) to have moral values. And any code that exists isn't necesarily moral. Why assume it would be? And by whose standards?

I think that there actually are moral standards that are good in and of themselves.

Incoherent. A thought can not exist outside a thinker.

To think otherwise would be to imply that Hitler is no worse than Mother Theresa, but just made life for some of us more uncomfortable.

That is only your straw man.

I don't see how one can claim that Hitler or anyone is a despot without recognizing that there is some moral authority outside both you and Hitler to which you make that appeal.

If you mean we need some concept of morality to judge Hitler as wrong or destructive or evil, then yes we do, and we get that concept from our culture and out sense of empathy. No Gods need apply.

If there are universal morals that we all hold regardless of culture, that is not because morality exists absent a mind to perceive it, that means that human minds and circumstance can come to universal conclusions. And that is not terribly suprising given that we all have brains that pretty much function the same and there are universal circumstances that apply to all of us (ie, none of us are immortal, etc).