Are morals derived from religion/God??

[Keltoi]

what? well N korea obviously is trying to keep the people happy so godzilla doesnt come over. See he smells blood and he comes across from japan to S and N Korea. And we all know that Godzilla is crazy..


Serious now. What is yours? It was suggested by some on this thread that not having religion will ruin a country. Ive shown this to be false. Ive also shown that having religion will not save a country either.

What is yours?

Now i have to go. I have to go feed mothra.. Do you know how much cotton a giant mutant moth eats?

Put the mothball down and step away...very slowly.

[Sunnih]

I will take my chances. :skeleton:

I wish you good luck then. You'll need it.

[Sunnih]

Are you seriously arguing in favour of a totalitarian dictatorship theocracy?
And you think that'll be GOOD for progress and human rights?

I am only against the globalisation of the democratic dictatorship. :thumbs_up

[Sunnih]

Isn't it odd that he lives in the UK? I don't understand why these West Haters stay. I think it is just a case of denial. :skeleton:

It is indeed odd to you to see how someone other than an arab or asian speaks in this way. Nothing against the west, just against their idiotic systems. Case of denial?! Lol. Healthy consience instead.

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

[Sunnih]

Ive noticed how Japan and Sweden are some of the most violent places on earth. Japan frenquently has entire cities destroyed by monsters. ;)

Ok serious now. Japan and Sweden are probably some of the most secular contries in the world and are hardly falling apart and overall have some of the lowest crime rates in hte world. Where as if you look at the USA, Iraq, Iran or other very religous places you see high crime rates.

Crime is not the only measure stick to judge whether a society is falling apart.

[Sunnih]

what? well N korea obviously is trying to keep the people happy so godzilla doesnt come over. See he smells blood and he comes across from japan to S and N Korea. And we all know that Godzilla is crazy..


Serious now. What is yours? It was suggested by some on this thread that not having religion will ruin a country. Ive shown this to be false. Ive also shown that having religion will not save a country either.

What is yours?

Now i have to go. I have to go feed mothra.. Do you know how much cotton a giant mutant moth eats?

If not having religion does not save a country, why blame religion then? What have you got to offer? If you have something to offer, and it makes so much sense, I wander why you do not stand for election and become the president and then show the world the path. It should not be very difficult for you to win the elections seeing that your ideas make sense!

[Philosopher]

what? well N korea obviously is trying to keep the people happy so godzilla doesnt come over. See he smells blood and he comes across from japan to S and N Korea. And we all know that Godzilla is crazy..


Serious now. What is yours? It was suggested by some on this thread that not having religion will ruin a country. Ive shown this to be false. Ive also shown that having religion will not save a country either.

What is yours?

Now i have to go. I have to go feed mothra.. Do you know how much cotton a giant mutant moth eats?

This entire post is a strawman argument. Maybe if you stop relying on emotional appeal (like Guliani against Ron Paul) and state the facts, we can progress in this ongoing discussion.

I never said that not having a religion will ruin a country. In fact, I support the contrary.

Did you know there are as many stars in the universe as there are sand grains in all the beaches of the world put together??

[Skavau]

If not having religion does not save a country, why blame religion then? What have you got to offer? If you have something to offer, and it makes so much sense, I wander why you do not stand for election and become the president and then show the world the path. It should not be very difficult for you to win the elections seeing that your ideas make sense!

All Ranma asserted is that there is no correlation in a prosperous country and religion. Does anyone who advocates a certain opinion have to be electable in your eyes?

[Pygoscelis]

I am only against the globalisation of the democratic dictatorship. :thumbs_up

democratic dictatorship? Um... contradiction in terms there. If you speak of the USA and are saying it is not a democracy but only claims to be one for the image, then just say that. I'd even agree with you.

[Keltoi]

democratic dictatorship? Um... contradiction in terms there. If you speak of the USA and are saying it is not a democracy but only claims to be one for the image, then just say that. I'd even agree with you.

Curious statement. What makes you believe that the U.S. is democratic for image only? From my personal standpoint, I think if anyone should be blamed for weakening the democratic tradition in the U.S. it is the voting public themselves. Not because of who they vote for, but because a majority of people don't even bother participating.

[barney]

I am only against the globalisation of the democratic dictatorship. :thumbs_up

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

[Philosopher]

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

It's easy to say that. Tell me that when China invades the US and builds bases here.

[ranma1/2]

What a load of nonsense. What contributions:these societies are crumbling. ....

I believe sunnih stated that secular societies are crumbling, implying that non secular ones were not. Of course maybe Sunnih did not imply that but thats what the words seem to imply.

[ranma1/2]

This entire post is a strawman argument. Maybe if you stop relying on emotional appeal (like Guliani against Ron Paul) and state the facts, we can progress in this ongoing discussion.

I never said that not having a religion will ruin a country. In fact, I support the contrary.

Did you know there are as many stars in the universe as there are sand grains in all the beaches of the world put together??

emotional appeal? and i never said you said that. and what does stars in the universe have to do with this conversation? "although to my knowledge there are more stars than grains of sand"

[Pygoscelis]

Curious statement. What makes you believe that the U.S. is democratic for image only? From my personal standpoint, I think if anyone should be blamed for weakening the democratic tradition in the U.S. it is the voting public themselves. Not because of who they vote for, but because a majority of people don't even bother participating.

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government. If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

[Sunnih]

All Ranma asserted is that there is no correlation in a prosperous country and religion. Does anyone who advocates a certain opinion have to be electable in your eyes?

No this is not what I am saying. You should read the posts from before and not just base the understanding from the last post or the last posts.

[Sunnih]

democratic dictatorship? Um... contradiction in terms there. If you speak of the USA and are saying it is not a democracy but only claims to be one for the image, then just say that. I'd even agree with you.

No I do not speak in relation of USA in particular. What I meant by the democratic dictatorship was that in democracy, all you do is elect whoever you want. After you have elected them, they will rule according to what they deem sound and will pass laws for you and you will have to obey them whether you like it or not. Yes you may not elect them another term but while they are elected you have no choice but to obey. You might say that it is possible to remove them from office by the vote of the other elected members and so on. Still the decision is theirs whether this is acceptable or not. So it is democracy in relation to the way how they are elected, but it is dictatorship in ruling although the dictatorship is a bit harsh only because when you say dictator immediately Stalin and others like him come to mind. But if you keep in mind that in a system where the individual/s dictate the rules of the game, then this is dictatorship whether shared or not shared. In this respect I say democratic dictatorship. I hope you grasp the point now.

[Sunnih]

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

No I am not talking about Iraq.

[Sunnih]

I believe sunnih stated that secular societies are crumbling, implying that non secular ones were not. Of course maybe Sunnih did not imply that but thats what the words seem to imply.

No I did not imply neither. What I said was in responce to secular=progress in totality.

[Keltoi]

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government. If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

Well, I'm not sure I buy into the "4 year dictatorship" theme, but I do agree that the U.S. isn't a pure democracy, it was never intended to be. Those who believe in pure democracy believe that the majority will of the people should always be followed. I don't believe that at all. That is why we have a constitution.

As for electoral system, I think it does the job it was intended to do. Not completely, but it is much more fair to the country as a whole than simply allowing New York, California, and Florida to decide our elections by default. Some would say that is what is happening anyway, but I think that has more to do with the political makeup of red vs. blue at the moment.

I do agree that our politicians are mostly from the upper classes, but we have had presidents recently who did not come from wealthy roots. Bill Clinton as an example, preceded by Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Yes, they became independently wealthy, but they weren't born into wealth. I do agree that something should be done to counter the amount of money it currently takes to seriously pursue the presidency.

[borboski]

How amazing that for at least one century (a little less) the world has had no religious control and the "human laws" derived from humans and not based on any religious laws have governed the west at least. Well, gues what. It is a mess. So to all you that shout so much against religions: What have you achieved? What have you brought to humanity as a whole? What did you do to make peoples life better? What has come out (and what is comming) from these new age generation? What have you got to offer?

Heheh. There may be persistent inequalities in wealth and even life expectancy - but just THINK for one second about the difference in most people's lives in Western liberal democracies and life for every other person in previous history. Never mind public health, education and technology, for 60 years the majority of Europeans haven't been under the threat of war.

So how's that for an offer?

[borboski]

Sunnih - I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack - but reading your posts on the one hand you see quite educated, and even open minded, e.g. open to debate, and talking to people. But a lot of your posts also seem desperately fearful, and negative, and distrusting? Why are you so unhappy? Would you recognise this in yourself? Just a thought... I could do my Maslow's heirarchy of need argument next...!

[Sunnih]

Heheh. There may be persistent inequalities in wealth and even life expectancy - but just THINK for one second about the difference in most people's lives in Western liberal democracies and life for every other person in previous history. Never mind public health, education and technology, for 60 years the majority of Europeans haven't been under the threat of war.

So how's that for an offer?

Tell this to the Bosnians and Kosovians:D

[Sunnih]

Sunnih - I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack - but reading your posts on the one hand you see quite educated, and even open minded, e.g. open to debate, and talking to people. But a lot of your posts also seem desperately fearful, and negative, and distrusting? Why are you so unhappy? Would you recognise this in yourself? Just a thought... I could do my Maslow's heirarchy of need argument next...!

I am not unhappy at all. As for fearfulness, negativeness and distrustingness, well, this is the way you see it. I guess I can't please everyone!:?

[borboski]

Tell this to the Bosnians and Kosovians:D

Presumably you're conceding the point? That is - in liberal democracies most people have it pretty incredibly well, and the one major conflict we've seen within Europe over the last 60 years was a reaction to liberal democracy, rather it was a retreat to tribalism and nationalism and racism, the politics of difference.

Have you read Amartya Sen's last book? I think you would like it, I forget what it's called, something like Identify and Power, very readable and thougtful.

[Sunnih]

Presumably you're conceding the point? That is - in liberal democracies most people have it pretty incredibly well, and the one major conflict we've seen within Europe over the last 60 years was a reaction to liberal democracy, rather it was a retreat to tribalism and nationalism and racism, the politics of difference.

Have you read Amartya Sen's last book? I think you would like it, I forget what it's called, something like Identify and Power, very readable and thougtful.

Depends from which angle you view things. As for the reaction to liberal democracy, the conflict starts even from such definition and as you delve into this matter the gap becomes wider and wider between different understandings and rulings on democracy even between these democratic societies themselves, but as we are not discussing such, it is not the place to get involved into that.

However, if you find the title of the book you point at, I might find some time to read it, seeing that you say that I would like it. :thumbs_up

[borboski]

Well let me suggest a few angles:

- Life expectancy
- Access to education
- Access to employment
- Likelihood of being killed in warfare
- Likelihood of being killed by the state

It's not really good enough to just run your mouth off, you know, I mean what *angles* are you thinking of?

Paul Berman writes very well on the Bosnia/Kosovo disaster, if anything it was a failure of liberal democracy to defend the values that are essential to it. Liberal complacency you might say.

[Sunnih]

Well let me suggest a few angles:

- Life expectancy
- Access to education
- Access to employment
- Likelihood of being killed in warfare
- Likelihood of being killed by the state

It's not really good enough to just run your mouth off, you know, I mean what *angles* are you thinking of?

Paul Berman writes very well on the Bosnia/Kosovo disaster, if anything it was a failure of liberal democracy to defend the values that are essential to it. Liberal complacency you might say.

As for the angles you suggest: These do not measure democracy in and of themselves as these are applicable to any given time, location and regime and it's implied factors and preponderating conditions are not specific to democracy or any other regime for that matter. Yes they are part of the matter but not specifically to it. There are more particular angels to view this topic from. Such as democracy in theory and in practice, the possibility of aplying the general and the particulars of what it stands for, the need for such, the possibility of attainment and failure of the whole or of the part off, the result in any scenario, balancing between it's achievements and their "side effects", terms and deffinitions and so on and so forth. When I speak about such angles I mean speaking in relation to it from an academic or quasiacademic point.

As for Paul Berman and his comments and writtings on both Bosnia and Kosovo, I say: you should check his theories with the historical facts and culture of both Bosnia and Kosovo, their traditions and what they stand for and as not a member of any of these countries He can not be objective into his approach and his findings remain purely upon speculative, theoretical and oportunistic approach. Any way this is not a thread for democracy and I will not waste time to delve into these notions and it'a particulars.

Whoever knows them knows them and whoever does not now them is ignorant thereof (this is a general statement and not directed to you so do not missunderstand me in this last statement please).

[borboski]

Crikey! Is English your first language? If not, I can only say that your first paragraph is one of the most messy I've ever seen!

When you say "angles" that confusing - How about we approach it like this:
- We need a definition of liberal democracy. A standard definition would be along the lines of - freedom of the press, market economy with some state regulation, rule of law (this one being crucial), recognition of *universal* human rights, and so on.
- Those things I mentioned - which you called "angles" - are better seen as "positive outcomes" of liberal democracy.

So the question is - do you agree or disagree that within Western Europe liberal democracies (and in fact liberal democracies across the globe) we tend to see a correllation with access to education, employment (including freedom to join trade unions), absence of the threat of death from war, absence of the threat of death from the state, and increased life expectancy?

That's where we started - my guess is you'd probably concede that but have other, more deep rooted, reasons for feeling threatened by liberal democracy, but I'd be interested to hear more.

- What is a "quasi-academic" point???

- Paul Berman isn't an expert on Bosnia or Kosovo. But it is absolutely clear that the genocide that took place within the conflicts was not due to competing party politics with all parties adhering to the principles of liberal democracy. But more importantly, you seem to think that you can't validly comment on a situation unless you are a member of that country. This is a truely ridiculous idea - can I not comment on who won the Seria A football league, and why, unless I'm Italian? That's just a total fallacy.

Anyway, you raised Bosnia and Kosovo as an example of why liberal democracies are stagnate. You haven't demonstrated this at all, I can do into more detail about the failure of the European Union to vigorously defend it's values - and that in the end we needed NATO to protect people, but I'm not going to - not unless you can demonstrate that the internecine violence and state authoritarianism in the region were meaningfully "liberal democratic" trends.

[Sunnih]

Crikey! Is English your first language? If not, I can only say that your first paragraph is one of the most messy I've ever seen!

When you say "angles" that confusing - How about we approach it like this:
- We need a definition of liberal democracy. A standard definition would be along the lines of - freedom of the press, market economy with some state regulation, rule of law (this one being crucial), recognition of *universal* human rights, and so on.
- Those things I mentioned - which you called "angles" - are better seen as "positive outcomes" of liberal democracy.

So the question is - do you agree or disagree that within Western Europe liberal democracies (and in fact liberal democracies across the globe) we tend to see a correllation with access to education, employment (including freedom to join trade unions), absence of the threat of death from war, absence of the threat of death from the state, and increased life expectancy?

That's where we started - my guess is you'd probably concede that but have other, more deep rooted, reasons for feeling threatened by liberal democracy, but I'd be interested to hear more.

- What is a "quasi-academic" point???

- Paul Berman isn't an expert on Bosnia or Kosovo. But it is absolutely clear that the genocide that took place within the conflicts was not due to competing party politics with all parties adhering to the principles of liberal democracy. But more importantly, you seem to think that you can't validly comment on a situation unless you are a member of that country. This is a truely ridiculous idea - can I not comment on who won the Seria A football league, and why, unless I'm Italian? That's just a total fallacy.

Anyway, you raised Bosnia and Kosovo as an example of why liberal democracies are stagnate. You haven't demonstrated this at all, I can do into more detail about the failure of the European Union to vigorously defend it's values - and that in the end we needed NATO to protect people, but I'm not going to - not unless you can demonstrate that the internecine violence and state authoritarianism in the region were meaningfully "liberal democratic" trends.

Perhaps you should check your understanding of the english language as there is nothing messy about my post or the first paragraph. It might be that you never heard before those deffinitions and that way of analysis. Whatever the case, it is not my problem. As for the rest of your post: If you were to have digested what I wrote you would not keep going to and fro in what has already been remarked. However as this thread is not about "liberal democracy", I see no benefit in delving into that. It would be a waste of time and a worthless subject. Bye now.

[borboski]

I think it's a real shame you won't answer my questions. Perhaps I have been a bit agressive, but I think this topic matters.

The only thing I can gather from that paragraph is that you say the "factors and conditions" of liberal democracy are not specific to democracy or any other political system. I don't understand how that statement could be true - if there isn't consensus about what liberal democracy is, e.g. its factors and conditions, then how can one discuss/compare/criticise it? I can only conclude that you use "factors and conditions" very loosely.

You then give a long list of the different ways in which one could have a discussion about liberal democracy. Well, of course - but would any of these ways lead to us concluding that living in a modern liberal democracy meant that you were less likely to access education, employment, live freely and securely without the threat of war or persecution from the state?

The relevance is your suggestion that for a century the West has lived without religious control and on the basis of human laws - if you really do think the sky is falling in, then you need to give some reasoned examples. "It's a mess" - that's what I mean by your seeming desperately fearful...

[KAding]

No I do not speak in relation of USA in particular. What I meant by the democratic dictatorship was that in democracy, all you do is elect whoever you want. After you have elected them, they will rule according to what they deem sound and will pass laws for you and you will have to obey them whether you like it or not. Yes you may not elect them another term but while they are elected you have no choice but to obey. You might say that it is possible to remove them from office by the vote of the other elected members and so on. Still the decision is theirs whether this is acceptable or not. So it is democracy in relation to the way how they are elected, but it is dictatorship in ruling although the dictatorship is a bit harsh only because when you say dictator immediately Stalin and others like him come to mind. But if you keep in mind that in a system where the individual/s dictate the rules of the game, then this is dictatorship whether shared or not shared. In this respect I say democratic dictatorship. I hope you grasp the point now.

This would be a parliamentary democracy. Every few years we elected a ruling class. Your description is inaccurate though, since almost all developed democracies are constitutional democracies. Your statement that the rulers 'will rule according to what they deem sound' is only true as long as they stay within the rules of the constitution. This constitution that can generally only be changed through a lenghty process requiring large majorities and usually spanning several elections. As such calling modern democracies 'dictatorial' is incorrect, since dictatorships by definition do not abide to a constitution or the rule of law in general. Modern democracy is not just about elections. It is also about the rule of law.

[KAding]

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government.

Well, that only because he has been directly elected. In the British and Canadian system the PM is not directly elected and thus does not have a mandate of the people. In Britain or Canada the parliament can also not be removed by a vote of no-confidence, because they were elected by the people, like the president.

It is interesting that you would refer to the US as a '4 year dictatorship' unlike Britain while it is in fact Britain that is generally considered the 'elected dictatorship'. After all, theoretically Bush cannot do as he pleases, he has to abide by the constitution. He cannot simply change how the state rules, grant himself more rights or in any other upset the formal balance of power. Compare that with the British system in which one party can a have large majority in parliament with only 40% of the popular vote. The party also strongly controls its members of parliament. Theoretically they can pass a law abolishing elections, they do not need a constitutional amendment to do so. The only reason this works in Britain is because of the strong sense of tradition and the strength of institutions and democratic values.

If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

This is off-topic so I will just say: modern democracy is not a direct democracy.

[KAding]

So much talk about the "horrible things" that the religions offer and about the "broadmindedness" and "modernity" of the non religions option. How amazing that for at least one century (a little less) the world has had no religious control and the "human laws" derived from humans and not based on any religious laws have governed the west at least. Well, gues what. It is a mess. So to all you that shout so much against religions: What have you achieved? What have you brought to humanity as a whole? What did you do to make peoples life better? What has come out (and what is comming) from these new age generation? What have you got to offer?

Well, except for the obvious material wellbeing. Maybe happiness?

http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap...ort2006-1d.htm

AVERAGE HAPPINESS IN 95 NATIONS 1995-2005
How much people enjoy their life-as-a-whole on scale 0 to 10

Nation			Satisfaction with life
Denmark			8,2
Switzerland		8,1
Colombia (5)	      8,1
Austria			8,0
Iceland			7,8
Finland			7,7
Sweden			7,7
Australia		7,7
Luxembourg		7,6
Guatemala (4)	     7,6
Mexico			7,6
Norway 			7,6
Ireland			7,6
Canada 			7,6
Netherlands		7,5
Malta			7.5
USA			7,4
Belgium			7,3
Germany			7.2
El Salvador		7,2
New Zealand		7,2
Britain			7,1
Honduras (4)	    7,1
Kuwait (4) 		7,0
Saudi Arabia	     7,0
Italy  			6,9
Spain			6,9
Cyprus			6,9
Brazil 			6,8
Venezuela		6,8
Argentina		6,8
Dominican Republic	6,8
Singapore		6,8
Uruguay			6,7
Israel			6,7
Slovenia		6,7
Chile			6,7
Indonesia		6,6
France			6,5
Philippines		6,4
Greece 			6,4
Nigeria			6,4
Czechia			6,4
China (1)		6,3
Uzbekistan (4)	     6,2
India			6,2
Japan  			6,2
Taiwan			6,2
Kyrgezigstan	       6,1
Vietnam			6,1
Portugal		6,0
Iran			6,0
Peru			6,0
Poland 			5,9
Croatia			5,9
Bolivia (4)		5,8
South-Korea		5,8
Bangladesh		5,7
Ivory Coast (4)	        5,7
Senegal (4)		5,7
Hungary			5,6
Morocco			5,6
Montenegro		5,5
Slovakia		5,5
South-Africa	       5,5
Lebanon (4)		5,3
Kenya (4)		5,2
Jordan			5,2
Algeria			5,2
Turkey 			5,2
Bosnia			5,1
Uganda			5,1
Estonia			5,1
Serbia			5,1
Romania			5,0
Macedonia		4,9
Mali (4)		4,9
Azerbaijan		4,9
Egypt			4,8
Ghana (4) 		4,8
Iraq			4,7
Latvia  		4,7
Lithuania		4,6
Albania			4,4
Russia 			4,4
Angola (4)		4,4
Pakistan		4,3
Bulgaria		4,2
Georgia			4,1
Belarus			4,0
Armenia			3,7
Ukraine			3,6
Moldova			3,5
Zimbabwe		3,3
Tanzania		3,2

[Sunnih]

I think it's a real shame you won't answer my questions. Perhaps I have been a bit agressive, but I think this topic matters.

The only thing I can gather from that paragraph is that you say the "factors and conditions" of liberal democracy are not specific to democracy or any other political system. I don't understand how that statement could be true - if there isn't consensus about what liberal democracy is, e.g. its factors and conditions, then how can one discuss/compare/criticise it? I can only conclude that you use "factors and conditions" very loosely.

You then give a long list of the different ways in which one could have a discussion about liberal democracy. Well, of course - but would any of these ways lead to us concluding that living in a modern liberal democracy meant that you were less likely to access education, employment, live freely and securely without the threat of war or persecution from the state?

The relevance is your suggestion that for a century the West has lived without religious control and on the basis of human laws - if you really do think the sky is falling in, then you need to give some reasoned examples. "It's a mess" - that's what I mean by your seeming desperately fearful...

Borboski. As I have said before most of what you ask has been clarified before and it does not matter what me or you will say on the topic as you will stay with your oppinion and I will stay with my oppinion. The main difference comes again at the belief in God. So until we agree in that we will never agree on what is connected to that. Therefore I see no benefit whatsoever to discuss any further on this topic. I might sound fearful? It may be so, but the situation is fearful too. Whatever the case, I can not waste more time on this topic. Thank you for your time.

[Sunnih]

This would be a parliamentary democracy. Every few years we elected a ruling class. Your description is inaccurate though, since almost all developed democracies are constitutional democracies. Your statement that the rulers 'will rule according to what they deem sound' is only true as long as they stay within the rules of the constitution. This constitution that can generally only be changed through a lenghty process requiring large majorities and usually spanning several elections. As such calling modern democracies 'dictatorial' is incorrect, since dictatorships by definition do not abide to a constitution or the rule of law in general. Modern democracy is not just about elections. It is also about the rule of law.

No. The dictatorshipsh have a constitution that they abide by but the constitution itself is biased and in their interest. Also you seem to forget that the constitution of the "Constitutional democracies" is also formulated and chosen by this "elected ruling class". Whatever the case the argument is the same as I have said before although as I said dictatorship is a bit harsh to use in the case of ruling within democracy. However, the underlying principle is the same. This is the point.

[Sunnih]

Well, except for the obvious material wellbeing. Maybe happiness?

http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap...ort2006-1d.htm

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

[wilberhum]

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

Sure he is serious. :thumbs_up I have seen several similar stats. Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results? :skeleton:

[Sunnih]

Sure he is serious. :thumbs_up I have seen several similar stats. Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results? :skeleton:

No. Just because statistics in general are a very wild guess. This one in specific is dreaming with your eyes wide open. :D

[wilberhum]

No. Just because statistics in general are a very wild guess. This one in specific is dreaming with your eyes wide open. :D

Then why don't you find some stats? :skeleton:

[Sunnih]

Then why don't you find some stats? :skeleton:

Because I do not believe in their authenticity and correctness. Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought. But I can not present to you what I myself do not believe even if it justifies my position.

[wilberhum]

Because I do not believe in their authenticity and correctness. Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought. But I can not present to you what I myself do not believe even if it justifies my position.

Well I ask the question;

Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results?

So I guess the answer would be YES!:D

[Sunnih]

Well I ask the question;

So I guess the answer would be YES!:D

No. Can you assure me that it is correct and that really at least the majority of people have answered whether they are happy or not? Just to believe that such is correct is madness. (Sorry no offence meant).

[Pygoscelis]

An interesting way to get rid of the ruling elite in a democracy would be to have some government officials be drafted instead of elected. Random draw. The implications of that (good and bad) are rarely discussed.

[KAding]

No. The dictatorshipsh have a constitution that they abide by but the constitution itself is biased and in their interest.

That is not the definition of 'dictatorship' generally used in the social sciences. Normally it is defined as control by a person or small group without any serious constitutional oversight. It usually means there is no independent judicial branch. Another problem with your approach is that it completely ignores the other branch in modern democracies, that of the legislative branch. The whole principle of separation of powers is non-existent in dictatorships. Since neither the legislative branch, nor the judicial branch are independent there are no real institutions that can check if the rulers are abiding by any kind of constitution. Same goes for the press, which is usually very restricted in dictatorships.

Some definitions of dictatorship:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorship
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...7/dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

Also you seem to forget that the constitution of the "Constitutional democracies" is also formulated and chosen by this "elected ruling class".

Thats why I said the process of constitutional change is lengthy and complex. In almost all countries it requires at the very minimum fresh elections and thus a fresh parliament. Any rulers wanting to change the constitution will have to face the electorate before their changes can become law. So they are very much restricted in their actions. Formally, a ruler can't grant himself more powers based on a one-time popular mandate alone without first facing the 'will of the people'.

Whatever the case the argument is the same as I have said before although as I said dictatorship is a bit harsh to use in the case of ruling within democracy. However, the underlying principle is the same. This is the point.

It is not correct though. There is no opposition in a dictatorship, there is no independent judiciary, there is no free press, no right to demonstrate, no right to create political parties, there is no independent legislative branch. All these factors, which are as much considered a core of modern liberal democracy as elections, fundamentally change the dynamics of rule. Dictators are simply not restricted in such ways.

[KAding]

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Suicides are IMHO not a valid indicator for measuring the average happiness among a population. Suicide is clearly a cultural phenomenon, it is more accepted in some cultures and a taboo in others. And lets not forget that there are hardly any mental health doctors in the developing world, so there are few to actually diagnose it.

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

Of course I take the statistic with a grain of salt, but it certainly can't be dismissed that easily. How can it be verified? I would say, read the research paper and the methodology they used. I'll quote a bit from the FAQ from the studies website:

Definition of happiness:
Happiness is defined as 'the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of her/his life as-a-whole favorably'. In other words: how much s/he likes the life he leads.

Can happiness be measured?
Thus defined, happiness is something that we have in mind and that can be measured by questioning. The affective component of happiness (hedonic level of affect) can also be measured using non-verbal indications.

Can I trust self-reports of happiness?
Like any self-reports, self-reports of happiness are liable to various distortions. Still these distortions appear to be modest. Research has shown reasonable validity and reliability. The literature on this matter can be found in section 2 of the Bibliography of Happiness and a good review papers is Ed Diener’s. ‘Assessing Subjective Well-Being: Progress and Opportunities’ in Social Indicators Research, 1994, Vol. 31, 103 - 157

So this is the measure of self-reported happiness. A simple question. "Are you happy?". Of course there are cultural issues with this, perhaps in some cultures there is a certain stigma attached to saying you are unhappy? But still, I think it is a fair indicator. You want to dismiss all statistics (except oddly enough those of rape and suicide apparently), but what is the alternative really? Anecdotal evidence? Gut feeling? You'll be hard pressed to use in-depth qualitative research methods and be able to compare countries as a whole. Whatever you want to say against statistics, they perform reasonably well when predicting elections, so on what grounds can you so easily reject them when people are asked if they are satisfied with their lives?

And as a final teaser:

Does happiness decline in modern society?
No, happiness is on the rise. Not only has average happiness risen somewhat over the last 30 years, but due to rising longevity the number of happy life years has increased spectacularly. A recent paper is ‘Rising happiness in nations 1946-2004. By Ruut Veenhoven and Michael Hagerty, in Social Indicators Research, 2006, vol. 77, 1-16.More literature can be found in the Bibliography of Happiness, section 5a2 on Trends in happiness

[Trumble]

Theoretically they can pass a law abolishing elections, they do not need a constitutional amendment to do so. The only reason this works in Britain is because of the strong sense of tradition and the strength of institutions and democratic values.

Not quite true. They could pass such a law in the House, but it would only become law if the monarch, as Head of State, consents to it. How much of a safeguard that would be is questionable, of course. In practice royal consent is just window dressing today but in the case of the sort of changes you suggest it might well not be.

Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought.

You can't measure 'happiness' reliably, of course, but if the stats are based on 'quality of life', perceptions of quality of life or general contentment the figures are pretty much what I would expect and are certainly not just a "very wild guess". It's particularly significant that places like Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Austria (rather than the US, UK, France, etc) are at the top; those countries consistently place top in such surveys and anyone who has visited them will understand why. The only one that looks odd to me is Columbia, but then I've never been there so can't really comment.

If you are claiming that somehow folks in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Iraq, Serbia, Macedonia etc are actually much 'happier' than those in the countries I listed above I think it's up to you to produce something to back it up.

[KAding]

No. Can you assure me that it is correct and that really at least the majority of people have answered whether they are happy or not? Just to believe that such is correct is madness. (Sorry no offence meant).

Assurances? These figures are the result of scientific research on happiness. If you want details and 'assurances' read the website, or even better, read the scientific papers that form the basis for these figures I posted:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/keyliterature.htm

Website:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/

[ranma1/2]

Lets get off the politics discussion and stay on topic if possible.

[wilberhum]

Lets get off the politics discussion and stay on topic if possible.

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up
This morning on CNN I heard that there is some scientific evidence that morals evolved. I have looked for supporting evidence, but I haven't found any.

But it makes sense. If your group has morals, your chance of survival is increased.

[ranma1/2]

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up
This morning on CNN I heard that there is some scientific evidence that morals evolved. I have looked for supporting evidence, but I haven't found any.

But it makes sense. If your group has morals, your chance of survival is increased.

I wouldnt say Moral persay since we cant get a clear def of that. But I would say that in general behaviors that aid the group had an advantage.

[Sunnih]

That is not the definition of 'dictatorship' generally used in the social sciences. Normally it is defined as control by a person or small group without any serious constitutional oversight. It usually means there is no independent judicial branch. Another problem with your approach is that it completely ignores the other branch in modern democracies, that of the legislative branch. The whole principle of separation of powers is non-existent in dictatorships. Since neither the legislative branch, nor the judicial branch are independent there are no real institutions that can check if the rulers are abiding by any kind of constitution. Same goes for the press, which is usually very restricted in dictatorships.

Some definitions of dictatorship:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorship
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...7/dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship



Thats why I said the process of constitutional change is lengthy and complex. In almost all countries it requires at the very minimum fresh elections and thus a fresh parliament. Any rulers wanting to change the constitution will have to face the electorate before their changes can become law. So they are very much restricted in their actions. Formally, a ruler can't grant himself more powers based on a one-time popular mandate alone without first facing the 'will of the people'.



It is not correct though. There is no opposition in a dictatorship, there is no independent judiciary, there is no free press, no right to demonstrate, no right to create political parties, there is no independent legislative branch. All these factors, which are as much considered a core of modern liberal democracy as elections, fundamentally change the dynamics of rule. Dictators are simply not restricted in such ways.

First of all let me say that the discussion is about the reality of dictatorship or any regime. I fyou were to base your discussions only on definitions and what is on the paper, you will be surprised as to how "good" the socialism and comunism seem. Also any dictatorship will not be seen as a dictatorship while refering to it's own definitions. So the whole idea of looking at the definitions of any democratic society toward dictatorships would be equally repugnant as looking at the definitions of any dictatorship toward democracy. You should remember that any two conflicting groups will build definitions upon their understanding and at the same time hinting at the other group that they try to define in debasing tones, prases or comments. My point is in no way to defend dictatorships but to view the raised principles and any references with the same standard and constituency. If you keep this is mind you will see that what I am pointing at is correct although as I have said before the similarities are not equal and coherent but only in underlying principles and systematic aproach.

As for the process of constitutional changes and the time it takes, this goes for both parties although the balance is havier on the legislative side. Remember that most of the legislative or governing individuals or groups are upon consistent principles that may or may not neccessary be understood by the masses. You should remember that the formulation of any constitution in the first place is build upon principles and values agreed between the legislative class whether ruling or/and in opposition and any drafts and amendments are guided by this force. The people only chose what is being served on the table for them by these political forces. On the other hand the asumed neutrality of the enforcement bodies are one more obstacle of narrowing the gap between the legislative class and those who have to obey and abide by the legislation. I do accept that it is impossible to have the voice of the masses on every single matter and it's details and this is why the whole notion presented and pretended of democracy as the ultimate system of promugulating, delivering and ensuring the rule of the people, for the people and by the people is only a theoretical and oportunist notion. Empty slogans that never materialize.

As for opossition, independant judiciary, free press and maters such as these, if you wish we can discuss them but they too are no more free from criticism as the whole system itself. (very quickly) As for the judiciary, do not forget that it only opperates within the margins allowed and permitted by the legislation. This in itself makes it not completely independant but only independant of the dissagrements between the ruling and oposition legislative classes. as for free pres this to can be left free as long as you say what the legislative classes have allowed you to say and in the manner they have allowed you to say it. There is no need to mention examples as both you and me see them on daily basis. I agree that the comparison is not the same in dictatorship and democracy in a detailed manner but again the foundations are the same in principle though not exactly matching in observance and enforcement. We could go on and on on these topics but try to understand that I am talking from the point of foundations, branches and principles and guides only.

[Sunnih]

Suicides are IMHO not a valid indicator for measuring the average happiness among a population. Suicide is clearly a cultural phenomenon, it is more accepted in some cultures and a taboo in others. And lets not forget that there are hardly any mental health doctors in the developing world, so there are few to actually diagnose it.



Of course I take the statistic with a grain of salt, but it certainly can't be dismissed that easily. How can it be verified? I would say, read the research paper and the methodology they used. I'll quote a bit from the FAQ from the studies website:



So this is the measure of self-reported happiness. A simple question. "Are you happy?". Of course there are cultural issues with this, perhaps in some cultures there is a certain stigma attached to saying you are unhappy? But still, I think it is a fair indicator. You want to dismiss all statistics (except oddly enough those of rape and suicide apparently), but what is the alternative really? Anecdotal evidence? Gut feeling? You'll be hard pressed to use in-depth qualitative research methods and be able to compare countries as a whole. Whatever you want to say against statistics, they perform reasonably well when predicting elections, so on what grounds can you so easily reject them when people are asked if they are satisfied with their lives?

And as a final teaser:

Every single word and line you have posted can easily be rebuted and shown to be false. You would be very surprised indeed from the results of statistics if some learned people (from those whom you would mostly abhor), were to formulate questions and ask the masses about such. Statistics do not prove anything on the reality of the matter. Yes it can hint and be used to raise hypothesis, but that as far as it goes.

[Sunnih]

perceptions

With this I agree. But let us not forget that all that can be easily manipulated or altered if questions are asked the other way around.

[Sunnih]

Assurances? These figures are the result of scientific research on happiness. If you want details and 'assurances' read the website, or even better, read the scientific papers that form the basis for these figures I posted:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/keyliterature.htm

Website:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/

This is no analysis. This is blind following. As for websites and scientific papers and so on, this is all relative and it goes both ways. But this is another topic altogether.

[borboski]

Sunnih, your argument is basically:
A term like liberal democracy or dictatorship doesn't not accurate described liberal democracies or dictatorships.
I have worked this out.
Therefore I can decide what is or is not a dictatorship.
I do not have to share my own understanding of the characteristics of a dictatorship or liberal democracy.

[Sunnih]

Sunnih, your argument is basically:
A term like liberal democracy or dictatorship doesn't not accurate described liberal democracies or dictatorships.
I have worked this out.
Therefore I can decide what is or is not a dictatorship.
I do not have to share my own understanding of the characteristics of a dictatorship or liberal democracy.

Borboski. Neither do I have to share my understanding of such. None of us is under any obligation to do any of it and finally I see that we do agree on that. :D :thumbs_up

[borboski]

If you aren't going to give a clue of what you mean by the definitions you use, this makes language extremely difficult. At some point, you'll have to learn this, especially if you want to have constructive debate using the written word.

[Sunnih]

If you aren't going to give a clue of what you mean by the definitions you use, this makes language extremely difficult. At some point, you'll have to learn this, especially if you want to have constructive debate using the written word.

Borboski. The definitions I use are not new or unheard of before. You might not have heard them before. This does not make them obscure or components which make the language "difficult". You might want to check your knowledge about definitions in general and those I have used in particular. This particular post of yours shows that you have been "debating constructively" without even understanding what I said. This is further proof that I would be wasting time by continuing to discuss things with you in this thread. Stay safe.

[Muezzin]

What exactly does the definition or lack thereof of 'liberal democracy' have to do with whether or not morality is derived from religion/God?

[ranma1/2]

In my personal opinion, no, you don't need religion to have morals. However, religion is there to perfect morality and how these morals work. :) Not a huge article, but just something to think about.

if this is true then religion has been doing a bad job.
religion in general is used to give justification for certain rules or actions. "in general"

these same justifications can be done without religion as well.

[borboski]

Borboski. Neither do I have to share my understanding of such. None of us is under any obligation to do any of it and finally I see that we do agree on that. :D :thumbs_up

I hate to bump this - I haven't been on for ages. I should have put my response above all in a text box - I was trying to characterise how your position comes across:

E.g.

1. I (Sunnih) have concluded that the term "liberal democracy" doesn't accurately describe liberal democracies, nor "dictatorships" dictatorships.
2. I (Sunnih) can therefore decide what is or is not a LD or a dictatorship.
3. I (Sunnih) do not have to share my own characteristics of an LD of dictatorship.

You'll note that 1 + 2 or fine on their own, but to hold those positions and 3 as well makes for a pointless discussion, and will make you come across as either shifty or ill informed.

To then read your following response - if I point out that I don't understand what you mean by the terms you use (and honestly mate, you are throwing around terms like liberal democracy and dictatorship that no news agency, never mind academic would accept) and you feel that neither of us are under any obligation to explain what we mean by the terms we use... well, what on earth is the point of participating in debates? How are you ever going to learn anything or persuade anyone? Very disappointing.

[kwolney01]

Different religions have different morals and also different cultures/groups of people have different morals. Also when you look at morals from 50 years ago and today you'll seen that a lot has changed. In the west people have changed their morals what use to be wrong may not be looked at now today that doesn't mean that it really isn't wrong becuase it may be.


:sl:

[root]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

lol is extelligence really a word?


anyway i kind of agree, morals and values are something we grow up with. Then its hard to see things another way, unless we have a serious change of heart :)

[ranma1/2]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

what morals and evidence?

im sure that we have developed some behavior patterns that have been passed down genetically but specific morals?

[root]

lol is extelligence really a word?

Extelligence

what morals

a passenger on an-out-of-control train or trolley. The conductor has fainted and the trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that they won't be able to get off the track in time. The track has a side track leading off to the left and the passenger can turn the trolley onto it. There is, however, one person on the left hand track, the passenger can turn the trolley killing the one, or refrain from flipping the switch letting the five die.

Is it morally permissible for the passenger to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

[ranma1/2]

Extelligence




a passenger on an-out-of-control train or trolley. The conductor has fainted and the trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that they won't be able to get off the track in time. The track has a side track leading off to the left and the passenger can turn the trolley onto it. There is, however, one person on the left hand track, the passenger can turn the trolley killing the one, or refrain from flipping the switch letting the five die.

Is it morally permissible for the passenger to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

?? you have only stated a moral dilema that people will choose different moral actions.

so??

[root]

?? you have only stated a moral dilema that people will choose different moral actions.

so??

Stay with me here, answer the question?

[ranma1/2]

Stay with me here, answer the question?

show how we all have the same morals built in.

[ranma1/2]

but just to humor you.

you will get a variety of answers.

some may not care. if they are dumb enough to be on the tracks and not being careful they get what they deserve.

some will try to save 5 some will prefer not to cause the death of any and let the 5 die.

there are a variety of answers and they typically are based off of the cultureal and social upbringing.

[Md Mashud]

think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion.

Is is a scientifically false, for the information of everyone.

Morals are not hard wired. People sometimes think things like empathy/sympathy have to do with natural being, but this is far from truth. Its the way you have been brought up/surround which makes you gain these qualities.

As for if morals were derived from religion - Looking at ancient history, it could be seen as though this is indeed truth. Some even predict that if religious was never in existance in human civilisation, that greed would have created a "survival of the fittest" kind of civilisation, which would be scary now wouldn't it. Some studies believe that, the fear of a God, had affected peoples way of life, being the only means in which people should care for strangers and actually self-account for their deeds. Kind of makes sense in terms of self-experience, alot of "evil thoughts" or deeds which I had considered, I had to not do in fear of having to account for it with God, so Its not a non-deciding factor. Religion does help keep ones ego/elitist attitudes at bay, whenever you even get the slightest hint you are applying those characteristics, you automatically tend to correct it rather then letting it happen, so I can say religion has made me a better person.

[ranma1/2]

....As for if morals were derived from religion - Looking at ancient history, it could be seen as though this is indeed truth. Some even predict that if religious was never in existance in human civilisation, that greed would have created a "survival of the fittest" kind of civilisation, which would be scary now wouldn't it. Some studies believe that, the fear of a God, had affected peoples way of life, being the only means in which people should care for strangers and actually self-account for their deeds. Kind of makes sense in terms of self-experience, alot of "evil thoughts" or deeds which I had considered, I had to not do in fear of having to account for it with God, so Its not a non-deciding factor. Religion does help keep ones ego/elitist attitudes at bay, whenever you even get the slightest hint you are applying those characteristics, you automatically tend to correct it rather then letting it happen, so I can say religion has made me a better person.

how? if we look at history it would appear that culture, society and upbringing is what makes morals. also its important to point out the religions often were or are a reflection of the culture. "if not and there was one true gos then they would likely be the same"
and i think most people that dont do Evil do to fear of a god need help.
I dont do "evil" for many reasons. the golden rule for one. laws. its in general not benefitial. empathy etc... fear of a god has nothing to do with it.

[Md Mashud]

Not that kind of evil, like murder or somthing :S, lighter stuff ^^, muuch lighter stuff. Also, theres economical incentives at play when it comes to "behaving" - but meh thats another long essay to write :).

Culture/society is a product of previous things in my opinion. I think we would have to look deeper in the history of the early civilisations to come to more conclusion - I guess maybe I'll read more books on it.

[ranma1/2]

Not that kind of evil, like murder or something :S, lighter stuff ^^, much lighter stuff. Also, theres economical incentives at play when it comes to "behaving" - but meh thats another long essay to write :).

Culture/society is a product of previous things in my opinion. I think we would have to look deeper in the history of the early civilizations to come to more conclusion - I guess maybe I'll read more books on it.

I didn't say you were. But the fact that the only reason you may not steal or be rude or what ever you might want to do is because you think god will punish you seems scary to me. Even if we lived in a land with out laws i would still act a certain way due to how i was brought up.

Culture and society is a product of what? Not religion. Religion couldn't even form without a society for it to be in. And in order for societies to survive there would have to be certain rules,laws, or actions that keep living in a society benefitial. The basics of not stealing, killing etc... would be essential for these social groups.

[islamic]

In the Bible there are a lot of stories without moral on them, meaning, they are immoral stories. So, from the Bible, from Christianity, moral can not be derived!
In the case of Islam, we have the Holy Quran and the Hadiths of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with the greatest moral lessons on them.

[ranma1/2]

how do you decide if something is moral or not?

[InToTheRain]

how do you decide if something is moral or not?

We use Qur'an and Examples of our Prophet(SAW) AKA Sunnah

[ranma1/2]

We use Qur'an and Examples of our Prophet(SAW) AKA Sunnah

but how?

Does it litterally say..

This is moral..
this isnt.

And what did you do before you read those books?

[InToTheRain]

but how?

Does it litterally say..

This is moral..
this isnt.

you could say that.

And what did you do before you read those books?

I don't understand this question? :O do you mean about us performing abolution? that is something we must do before reading Qur'an.

[ranma1/2]

you could say that.

I don't understand this question? :O do you mean about us performing absolution? that is something we must do before reading Qur'an.

It is a very valid question.

If god does not tell you "this is moral" then how do you decide its moral?

And before you read the books were you immoral?

If not where did these morals come from?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

It is a very valid question.

If god does not tell you "this is moral" then how do you decide its moral?

And before you read the books were you immoral?

If not where did these morals come from?

it's the question of cleaniness. Muslims clean their bodies ( wash face , hand , legs etc ) before entering to mosque .

It's a must to do the wadu/abolution as it is a command of God , mentioned in Quran.

[5.6]


O you who believe!


when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces
and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles;


and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves)

and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith,



Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.

Normally we clean ourself also before touching the holy Quran. But recently i heard lecture of Dr. Zakir Naik .

He said , it's not a must to do so before reading Quran . The verse mentioned in Quran tells about the Quran that is preserved in heaven ....angels who are always clean can touch that Quran.

[InToTheRain]

It is a very valid question.

Yes it is a valid question. I didn't understand it is all :P

If god does not tell you "this is moral" then how do you decide its moral??

1)We have been given something called Fitrah.

[PIE]Fitrah: Inborn Natural Predisposition
Yasien Mohamed

In attempting a definition of ‘fitrâh’, I give an exposition of its linguistic and religious meaning. The religious understanding of fitrah is based on the positive interpretation of fitrah…

Suffice it to say that linguistic and positive religious explanations have one thing in common: both define fitrah as an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. What makes our religious understanding positive is that it not only acknowledges fitrah as a natural predisposition, but also one which is inclined towards right action and submission to Allâh, the One God.

After discussing the implications for human responsibility, I compare, for the benefit of Western readers, the Islamic concept of original goodness with the Christian concept of original sin. I argue that the doctrine of original sin, from an Islâmic point of view, cannot be reconciled with the notion of Divine mercy nor the human responsibility. Since the doctrine of original sin features significantly in the Christian concept of human nature, and as Islâm and Christianity are the world’s largest revealed religions, this aspect of their creeds presents an interesting contrast, well worth investigating.
[/PIE]

2) We have to reason and use Logic. If for example something is wrong with your PS3, the person who can best diagnose the Problem and provide a sollution is the peson who made the PS3. Therefore God, Our creator, is the best source for sollutions to our problems when it come to all issues. If we didn't have revelations it would be a different story but since we have these revelations we should consider it.

3) If what's Moral and Immoral is left to every individual then the frictions caused due to Moral misconduct would be ceaseless as it is today.

For example:
We have Islamic nations where they know the Laws of God and do not enforce it fully, putting in their own self made Laws. And we have the Western Nations who sincerely want to help an Individual but are enforcing man made Laws, but due to their sincerety the Victim finds some Solace.
In both cases we have Injustice which doesn't help stop the problem or from producing further victims.

And before you read the books were you immoral??

If not where did these morals come from?

It came from Fitrah and also from the preservation of what was learnt from the Prophets that were sent to every nation from the time of the first man Adam(AS) to the time of Mohammad(SAW). And Mohammad(SAW) finalised it for us.

[ranma1/2]

Sorry i may have been unclear.

before you became Muslim.

How did you act?

Were you a immoral being?

Did you run rampant killing, stealing, raping etc...?

Even if this was only as a kid.

[ranma1/2]

Salaam/peace;




it's the question of cleaniness. Muslims clean their bodies ( wash face , hand , legs etc ) before entering to mosque .

It's a must to do the wadu/abolution as it is a command of God , mentioned in Quran.

[5.6]


O you who believe!


when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces
and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles;


and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves)

and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith,



Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.

Normally we clean ourself also before touching the holy Quran. But recently i heard lecture of Dr. Zakir Naik .

He said , it's not a must to do so before reading Quran . The verse mentioned in Quran tells about the Quran that is preserved in heaven ....angels who are always clean can touch that Quran.

huh? did you quote the the wrong person? im not sure how this relates.

[InToTheRain]

Sorry i may have been unclear.

before you became Muslim.

How did you act?

Were you a immoral being?

Did you run rampant killing, stealing, raping etc...?

Even if this was only as a kid.

I beleive those questions were answered in my previous post.
Pay particular attention to the Fitrah definition and that there always existed in every nation from the Beginning of mankind Adam(AS) till the time of Mohammad(SAW) prophets who enjoined good and forbade evil. Therefore any Good I had, even before I was practising Islam was from God and through what little was preserved from the Prophets messages from the Past. And any moral miconduct on my part were due to my deviation from the Path adviced by God through his Prophets and massengers for our own good. However even If I were unaware of the Message from God, I still have Fitrah which is from God to decide that which is right and incline towards it.

So in Summary, Any good we have is from God and any evil is from our own deviation from the Message of God and the Fitrah.

[Md Mashud]

I didn't say you were. But the fact that the only reason you may not steal or be rude or what ever you might want to do is because you think god will punish you seems scary to me. Even if we lived in a land with out laws i would still act a certain way due to how i was brought up.

Culture and society is a product of what? Not religion. Religion couldn't even form without a society for it to be in. And in order for societies to survive there would have to be certain rules,laws, or actions that keep living in a society benefitial. The basics of not stealing, killing etc... would be essential for these social groups.

Well actually, I want to expand my previous post.

Humans, are flawed/greedy by nature and need fear to not do things. If you want proof? Look, every country has laws that humans must abide by or will get severe punishment. This itself is a fear. If humans did not need fear not to do bad - laws would never have been made to begin with

God fear, is much better in that nothing goes unseen, so people will not attempt crime with intention they are unlikely to get caught - which is a huge problem atm. The feeling of self-accountability having to take place is quite a scary thing indeed.

To say fear of God being needed is just over the top - is like saying a country should not have laws!

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

huh? did you quote the the wrong person? im not sure how this relates.

ooopsss sorry , i thought u asked about abolution :p

ok , may be these are related verses :) :D

And certainly We raised in every nation an apostle saying: Serve Allah and shun the Shaitan.

So there were some of them whom Allah guided and there were others against whom error was due;


therefore travel in the land, then see what was the.end of the rejecters

[16.36]


And every nation had an apostle;

so when their apostle came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly. [10.47]

And certainly We sent (apostles) before you among the nations of yore [15.10]


God send Prophets (pbut) to each nation . So , people knew about Do's & Dont's

[ranma1/2]

good, you had me confused there for a moment.

Now as i have asked before.
Were you an immoral being before you read the quran?
If not how did you aquire your morals?
Did your family teach them to you?

[Md Mashud]

Would you agree if murder was not illegal - we would have a sharp rise?

Would you agree if stealing was not illegal - their would be some mad looting going on?

Would you agree if vandalism was not illegal - that alot of teenage kids will be having a fun time?

My point being that, do you think, humans can naturally - using this "derived" morale from whatever social, or, as some people believe, humans by nature tend to care for people and wish to treat others as they would like to be treated (ahem..)

There would be total chaos - Infact, I shouldn't ask you the question - because if the laws being their made no difference they wouldn't be their to begin with.

Secondly, if the laws were their just as a guideline for humanity - without strong repurcussion if you do not follow them - do you think it would be good or bad for community? I hope you think the latter...

So as you can see, having Quran/God be someone who you fear from doing wrong is perfectly fine. Hell, its definatly better than relying on you sticking to the law - not saying its not possible - but its less effective for a fact than one who truly believes in God.

My point is, people see religion as a dictator on life - Why can't they accept that humans need guidance, and prevention of anything that can lead to evil? People are willing to rely on people to make rules and punishment - surely it can't be far from normal if we wish to take ours from God?

Some people underestimate, the writings in the Quran and hadith. It has, the solutions, to all problems in life - not just for the 700AD, but for all future generations. Alot of people can't swallow it because of the prevention over cure methodolgy. At first, it does seem like maybe its restriction of freedom, but if you think of it economically and logically, you can see the long term benefits of them, and judging human behaviour it makes 100% sense.

Some of the solutions - are not as clear cut for the disbeliever, and people see it as unfair treatment. Anyone know why men can marry more than 1 women and women can't do vice versa? Their is a surplus of women, in the World. If, if it came to it, it is very possible theirs not enough men to marry for the women, which is a problem in some areas in the world already - especially with the homosexuality spreading. So, this wasn't made for unjust purposes - but a real term solution. Its not exactly easy marrying more than 1 women, its hard work and you would be accounted if not treated them equally (well you won't be judged on emotion).

This is just one of, every solution to mankind - the big ones, even some of the small ones. Its their but unless you see what it has, you would be truly amazed. They have reasons why women must be covered - its not because us men are evil!, heck if we was maybe we would force them to stay uncovered to fullfill our pervertous nature? - Why we can't drink alcohol? Why would someone ban this item if it message of Islam was never real and just to make some men happy, I don't see giving up drinking being fun living? - Why would they permit sex before marriage if the religion was fake -, and so fourth - if you read up on it, its nothing less than the laws which are manmade, except superior in that it would destroy the problem instead of unsuccessfully curing one and creating more problems. After you stomach it all in, its impossible to convince oneself that this is the words, the solutions of an illiterate man, or a greedy liar, or a mad man or a man who is in it for his benefit! So yes, we believe its God's word and we will follow it as we know that God will always have better solutions for men, that he created, then men themselves.

I hope you get what Im getting at anyway.

[Pygoscelis]

So as you can see, having Quran/God be someone who you fear from doing wrong is perfectly fine. Hell, its definatly better than relying on you sticking to the law - not saying its not possible - but its less effective for a fact than one who truly believes in God.

You do have a point here. Fear of punishment does indeed push us to obey the rules of the societies we live in. And hell-fear may add self monitoring to that obedience. And sometimes that obedience may help to prevent horrible actions where people fail to think morally. To the theist Big Brother truly is watching.

But please try not to confuse obedience with morality. Obedience is doing what you are told. Morality is your sense of right and wrong. It is dangerous to confuse the two because they can, do, and should sometimes conflict. Religions and other ideologies can cloud people to these conflicts, and that has too often been a road to attrocity.

Also I think the statistics bare out that religion more often rationalizes immoral behaviour than acts as a safeguard against it. Just look at prison populations.

If religion kept people in line those incarcerated for murder would consist of mostly atheists. Atheists SHOULD be overrepresented in comparison with the general population. But that isn't the case. They are actually underrepresented. Why?

Are atheists simply more moral than theists and don't need religion to keep them from killing people? Or is the "religion keeps people from murder" theory simply false?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ whats there to stop you from going against your morals? Dont tell me desires never go against morals, the amount of times ive heard of rapes and people stealing from ladies aged over 60 etc. Its not enough to know "right or wrong" sometimes, sometimes we need the extra enforcement or encouragement !

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

....Were you an immoral being before you read the quran?
If not how did you aquire your morals?
Did your family teach them to you?

i answered to similar questions earlier .... ok , let me try again.

Of course , my parents taught me to be good , not to lie , steal etc , etc. But what if my parents are not around & Satan tempts me to do some evil things ?

It's because of fear of God Almighty , i will try best not to commit sin. I know , i can keep something secret from parents but not from God.

During Summer while fasting , Muslims don't eat or drink ...why ? We can eat / drink secretly ...no human being will scold us but God won't be pleased with us . So does not how thirsty we are , we even fasting kids won't drink a drop of water .

I love my parents but earlier when i was not that conscius about thier rights over me , sometimes i misbehaved with them :( ...may Allah forgive me .

Now as I m getting more conscious about religion / life hereafter , i try my best to be kind to parent , to listen to them , be good to them . No one in this earth is going to give me any prize for it ....i expect rewards from God.


So , it's the religion who is teaching me the best examples :)

I talked to an athiest in other forum ....he saw no problem in having extra mariatal affairs as long as kids don't find out . He even found no problem with having affair with step mom ( ref : Bold & beautiful )

Do i need to explain why extra marital affairs , live together with step mom are harmful for society ? Thoose who don't have shame & don't have fear of God can do any shamleless acts .

So , from the beginning , God sent Prophets & instructions to human being .

Believers follow the instructions & expect rewards on the Last Day. Let's disbelievers enjoy the temporary world.


verses we all need for this life & the hereafter



A little enjoyment and they shall have a painful punishment.


[16.117]

And on the day when those who disbelieve shall be brought before the fire: You did away with your good things in your life of the world and you enjoyed them for a while,

so today you shall be rewarded with the punishment of abasement because you were unjustly proud in the land and because you transgressed.


[46.20]

[Pygoscelis]

^ whats there to stop you from going against your morals? Dont tell me desires never go against morals, the amount of times ive heard of rapes and people stealing from ladies aged over 60 etc. Its not enough to know "right or wrong" sometimes, sometimes we need the extra enforcement or encouragement !

Indeed. As I noted above, sometimes threats and bribes keep people from behaving in destructive ways. But please keep in mind that just as often threats and bribes can LEAD people to behave in destructive ways.

Obedience is not morality. And blind obedience is dangerous.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

And blind obedience is dangerous.

what an excellent saying, i agree 100%. We should understand who we obey and for what reason :), thats exactly what i do :D

but there are certain occasions, where you would obey although uncertain, these are extremely rare though and i only bring this up due to the event when ismael was to be sacrificed as a test of ibrahims loyalty.

Sometimes when we're so firm in belief it makes it easy to understand that God is just, so obeying will incline our logic to believing only good will come out of it!

[Md Mashud]

Indeed. As I noted above, sometimes threats and bribes keep people from behaving in destructive ways. But please keep in mind that just as often threats and bribes can LEAD people to behave in destructive ways.

Obedience is not morality. And blind obedience is dangerous.

Religion may seem blind obedience to you - because you don't understand it - but really, I cannot be convinced that God cannot exist or this religion is fake. I mean, if someone did put somthing convincing against either - sure why not go for it? I am open minded, I am not stubborn about issue, it is fact nothing has been given which I can deem credible enough... This is a reason why so many muslims stay muslim, they are convinced it is correct, it is not blind following. No law is forcing us to follow it. I would be able to live a "free" life in terms of accountability, where I can be selfish and not worry, as with many other stuff I could have done, or not have done. Being a Muslim, you strive on Earth, to make better the afterlife. Its not all HAVE FUN - But you know, I could never leave Islam - because that truth you learnt in it, I can never imagine how one could leave. Ive seen alot, Ive read alot, from anti-religious people etc, none of them convince me even 1%. Maybe if there was somthing to convince me, it was fake - it is possible I could be long gone. But if you do enough study in Islam, you realise, it really is the perfect thing and nothing can really change that - people have been trying and failing. All people can do is make lies and just blatant wrong statements when putting down Islam, you can see it miles away. When no one can move my stance on Islam, it is clear it must be the way.

The only way I can see myself leaving it is if I wish to d4mn myself to hell. No alternative has yet, seemed to even match its perfection, pretty sure nothing will. Some people think people follow Islam because of the happy factor beleiving that a god exist etc - I can tell you now as a Muslim, that is just an excuse by atheists, I follow it because it is the truth and if it leads to happiness so be it, but never did I base my following in that this is the happy alternative. If it was just for me to be "happy", I would'nt be strict on the rules, If i truly didn't believe in a God existing to account for me.