/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Are morals derived from religion/God??



Pages : [1] 2

Philosopher
05-08-2007, 07:16 PM
If so, I have 2 questions:

1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
2.) How come atheists are moral beings?

Thanks
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Philosopher
05-09-2007, 08:04 PM
B-u-m-p
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 08:10 PM

:salamext:


1) Some religions may have codes which were created by the people, other religions may have had moral codes which were distorted because they weren't preserved authentically. We also know that some Messengers of God came with laws which were different in some social aspects to the laws revealed to God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) The reason for this was because the previous Prophets were sent to their people, so the laws were for that certain time period, and for that specific set of people. So due to these factors - the social aspects may have been different. However - all the Prophets had similar moral codes; i.e. to worship none but God Alone, to shun all false deities (no idols, humans, man-made philosophies etc.) To enjoin family ties, to establish the prayer, to help the needy etc.


God's final Messenger is Muhammad (peace be upon him) who recieved the revelation, and his message would be for all of mankind. There wouldn't be any more prophets after him. So the laws revealed to him would be for all of humanity till the Day of Ressurection.

We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom. [Qur'an 14: 4]

"Say (O Muhammad): 'O mankind! ! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." (Qur'an 7:158)

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. [Qur'an 33: 40]


2)
The Fitrah - Allaah has created us all upon the fitrah [the natural disposition.] Our fitrah is to understand the concept of good and bad, so if someone was to force you to hit someone when you were a child, you would know that it's evil, since Allaah has created you in the state of knowing the difference between good/bad.

However, as time progresses - your fitrah can be altered depending on the society you live in. I.e. In a country where violence is more of the norm, you may be taught that hitting someone is okay. The first time you try to hit someone, you'll have an urge not to hit the person, because your fitrah tells you otherwise. But without divine guidance, you don't have a solid basis to tell you that what you're doing is the wrong thing.


This is why Divine Revelation is required. Divine Revelation is the Guideline, and this fits in with your natural disposition hand in hand. I.e. If someone tells you to hit so and so, you might say NO! They'll ask why? You'll then bring proof from the Divine Guidance;

The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:

"A Muslim is the one from whose hands and tongue other Muslims are safe." [Recorded in Tirmidhi]


Now you have a solid basis to tell the person why you won't hit the innocent person, and they can't object if they accept God and His Messenger. You have a foundation to stand on, and your morals are equal since you have something you can agree on together without dispute. And Allaah Almighty knows best.



Whereas those who reject the Messenger, and reject God - then they have to question where the limits are? Who sets these limits? What is your true purpose without a true guidance?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
This notion of an alleged final messenger is only applicable in your faith.

Yeah, i know. :)


The vast majority of the world rejects your beliefs.

They're in doubt about their own beliefs, whereas we're not, and the praise is for Allaah due to that.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
05-09-2007, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Yeah, i know. :)

They're in doubt about their own beliefs, whereas we're not, and the praise is for Allaah due to that.
1.8 billion Muslims and the fastest growing religion-- at one point will be the dominant religion insha'Allah.. go ahead fi throw in some stats.
:w:
Reply

Talha777
05-09-2007, 08:27 PM
How come atheists are moral beings
Is this some kind of joke?
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 08:33 PM
I suppose the ideals of people who "hate our freedom" and the incessant need to import democracy to other nations is indeed a form of insecurity enhanced ever more in gitmo or stripping people nude in Abu Gharib ... I am so glad it is out in the open for all to see.
Reply

Talha777
05-09-2007, 08:34 PM
Atheists just haven't been convinced of the morality of mass murder / suicide bombings.
The greatest mass murder in history is said to have been committed by an atheist - Josef Stalin.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
There's no reason to believe that.

Actually, it's those who are insecure in their own faith who are the ones who feel a need to deride the faith of others.

No, its those who are confident in their faith to actually put it forward to others to show how it is the truth. Otherwise they wouldn't be confident enough to actually spread it to others.

I seriosly don't want to argue with you, because its not part of Islaam to have bad manners. So i won't mention where the irony is in your post.


It's those whose religious belief is tenuous who are the ones who compell others to believe as they do under threat of death.

The Praise is for Allaah that that's not a part of Islaam. :)

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. [Qur'an 2: 256]
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
1.8 billion Muslims and the fastest growing religion-- at one point will be the dominant religion insha'Allah.. go ahead fi throw in some stats.
:w:

I cant find that specifically, but i found this:


Listen What the World says about the Fastest Growing Religion


"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people..." [HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p.3]

Already more than a billion-people strong, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. [ABCNEWS, Abcnews.com]

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the country." [NEWSDAY, March 7, 1989, p.4]

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the United States..." [NEW YORK TIMES, Feb 21, 1989, p.1]


Moslems are the world's fastest-growing group..." [USA TODAY, The Population Reference bureau, Feb. 17,
1989, p.4A ]

"Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities. " [Encyclopedia Britannica]

"There are more Muslims in North America then Jews Now." [Dan Rathers, CBSNEWS]

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America." [TIMES MAGAZINE]

"Islam continues to grow in America, and no one can doubt that!" [CNN, December 15, 1995]

"The Religion of Islam is growing faster than any other religion in the world." [MIKE WALLACE, 60 MINUTES]

"Five to 6 million strong, Muslims in America already outnumber Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Mormons, and they are more numerous than Quakers, Unitarians, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, combined. Many demographers say Islam has overtaken Judaism as the country's second-most commonly practiced religion; others say it is in the passing lane." [JOHAN BLANK,
US NEWS (7/20/98)]

"In fact, Religion experts say Islam is the second-largest religion in the United States... Islam has 5 million to 6 million members, followed by Judaism, with approximately 4.5 million..... And Islam is believed to be fastest-growing religion in the country, with half its expansion coming from new immigrants and the other half from conversions." [By ELSA C. ARNETT Knight-Ridder News Service]

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ion-earth.html
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 08:38 PM
indeed Atheist philosophy is more familiar with mass extinction than any unrest created sectarian violence..Which wouldn't have escalated to this point anyhow had the true axis of evil had not gone on to imperialize half the world and rob it of their natural resources. I think the world has seen its most profound ethnic cleaning under Atheism and communism -- if not actually Christianity a la mode of the (crusades) & the ( holocaust) --
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 08:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
I cant find that specifically, but i found this:


Listen What the World says about the Fastest Growing Religion


"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people..." [HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p.3]

Already more than a billion-people strong, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. [ABCNEWS, Abcnews.com]

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the country." [NEWSDAY, March 7, 1989, p.4]

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the United States..." [NEW YORK TIMES, Feb 21, 1989, p.1]


Moslems are the world's fastest-growing group..." [USA TODAY, The Population Reference bureau, Feb. 17,
1989, p.4A ]

"Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities. " [Encyclopedia Britannica]

"There are more Muslims in North America then Jews Now." [Dan Rathers, CBSNEWS]

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America." [TIMES MAGAZINE]

"Islam continues to grow in America, and no one can doubt that!" [CNN, December 15, 1995]

"The Religion of Islam is growing faster than any other religion in the world." [MIKE WALLACE, 60 MINUTES]

"Five to 6 million strong, Muslims in America already outnumber Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Mormons, and they are more numerous than Quakers, Unitarians, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, combined. Many demographers say Islam has overtaken Judaism as the country's second-most commonly practiced religion; others say it is in the passing lane." [JOHAN BLANK,
US NEWS (7/20/98)]

"In fact, Religion experts say Islam is the second-largest religion in the United States... Islam has 5 million to 6 million members, followed by Judaism, with approximately 4.5 million..... And Islam is believed to be fastest-growing religion in the country, with half its expansion coming from new immigrants and the other half from conversions." [By ELSA C. ARNETT Knight-Ridder News Service]

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ion-earth.html
Thanks akhi-- as so it was decreed by the divine--
:w:
Reply

Keltoi
05-09-2007, 08:45 PM
Morals are products of law. This can be God's Laws, or it can be secular law. Usually the two overlap without meaning to in many ways. Meaning the laws against murder, theft, etc. An atheist can be just as moral as a religious person when it comes to following secular law, if not more or vice versa.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 08:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
It seems you're really quite desperate to spread those wonderful qualities that are so apparent in the Middle East: Poverty, un-treated disease, ignorance, early death, and of course, leadership toward these goals.

Nah :) i'm just desperate to spread the true teachings of Islaam, which is quite lacking in the middle east today. That's one of the reasons why people are being punished and trialled in this world;


Allaah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

“This community of mine is a community blessed with mercy. It is not punished in the Hereafter. Instead, it is punished in this world with strife, instability, and bloodshed.” [Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Abî Dâwûd, and Mustadrak al-Hâkim] It is an authentic hadîth. It indicates that Allah has shown mercy on the Islamic community and that its punishment will be in this world instead of the Hereafter.
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 08:51 PM
middle east is home to only 20% of the worlds Muslims--- nonetheless was the cradle of civilization... desperation really comes with thievery-- people who think they can go colonizing other nations under the guise of democracy... good will toward man, only to rape, murder, imprison-- build bases and steal oil and spread propaganda which is easily picked up by the small minded.... And there is no shortage!
Reply

Trumble
05-09-2007, 09:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher

How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
I'm not sure they are all that different, are they? They all contain much the same things. If you observed the moral behaviour (without any other religious observation, ritual, etc) I doubt you could tell a devout muslim from a devout Christian or a devout Buddhist. The same rules are there; don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, avoid improper sexual conduct and so on. All of the things observation of which helps society to function smoothly. Which is, of course, why morals evolved in the first place among people of every religion and no religion and, to answer your second question, why atheists are every bit as 'moral' as theists.

There is, sadly, no shortage of exceptions among either group.
Reply

Ruggedtouch
05-09-2007, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Talha777
The greatest mass murder in history is said to have been committed by an atheist - Josef Stalin.
How many wars did Mohammed lead?
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 10:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Talha777
The greatest mass murder in history is said to have been committed by an atheist - Josef Stalin.
between Stalin and Mao Xedong.. you'd think the Atheists would shut their trap-- instead of kibitzing!
Reply

Snowflake
05-09-2007, 10:46 PM
Of course atheists have morality. How else would God protect us from those who deny His existence.



RuggedTouch: Atheists just haven't been convinced of the morality of mass murder / suicide bombings.
Talha777: The greatest mass murder in history is said to have been committed by an atheist - Josef Stalin.
Not forgetting Mao Zedong..
Reply

Keltoi
05-09-2007, 11:03 PM
Atheism and communism are two different things.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-09-2007, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Talha777
The greatest mass murder in history is said to have been committed by an atheist - Josef Stalin.
Also the greatest mass murders where commited by a male
and a male with hair.
and a human.
And an old human.

So all old male humans are immoral? Or they tend to be?

Nope I am afraid not. Stalin may have been an atheist but atheism deals only with the belief in god. It does not provide a moral code. Neither does Soccer. However for most atheist they do have a morral code. Just not one derived from religion.

So since you are hinting that atheism was the cause of stalins mass murders you seem to suggest stalin did it in the name of atheism which is false. However I can think of many an occasion where murder has been done in the name of religion. Even if you are looking at the early idea of human sacrifice to the more agrressive idea of wiping out the other religion.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
How many wars did Mohammed lead?

The truth is that in his entire Prophetic life , he engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as ghazwa (war) were intact examples of avoidance of war, and not instances of involvement in battle.

For instance, in this books of Seerah (Biography) the incident of Al Ahzab is called a ghazwa (battle), where as truth is that on this occasion, the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Madina for waging war, but the Prophet advised his Companions to dig a trench between them. This successfully prevented a battle from taking place. The same is the case of with all the other incidents called ghazwa.
The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to get him embroiled in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort for some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation invariably.


There are only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle. Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. The events tell us that at all these occasions, war had become inevitable.


The prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defence. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning from noon and ending with the setting of the sun.


Thus, it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life-span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half that is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year Prophetic carrier, except one and a half days.




Source
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 11:31 PM
Thanks for your ignorance :) you asked how much wars were lead by him against the enemy. So i gave you the answer, but you chose to reject it, again.

I think i'll let you read the article i posted, i posted a link at the bottom. Maybe you'd like to check it to find out why i posted what i posted.



Regards.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
So I'll take this to mean that you reject the historical record?

It looks like you do, because i answered the question you asked me. If you asked me how much wars were fought against the muslims, then maybe i'll agree with your answer. But if i was to answer your question - then i already have in the previous post.


Regards.
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 11:39 PM
Who is Frank E. Smitha? that we should consider his re-writing of history as the source? I challenge this guy to prove that Jews or Christians even existed in Arabia if it weren't for Islamic sources and then his secondary opinion on that... suddenly everyone is an expert. What a load of crock. If you want people to at least look at your posts with respect bring a piece of history from a respectful source not one that fosters your ignorance.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-09-2007, 11:42 PM
It's okay sister PurestAmbrosia, he'll continue bringing forward his claims which have been refuted already, and we'll keep refuting them easily by the will of Allaah. And then we will return to Him, and with Him is our reckoning.


Anyway i gota go sleep now, but insha Allaah i'll be back tomorrow if i'm still alive. :) Take care.


PS: Ruggedtouch, context - remember that :p


Peace.
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 11:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
It's okay sister PurestAmbrosia, he'll continue bringing forward his claims which have been refuted already, and we'll keep refuting them easily by the will of Allaah. And then we will return to Him, and with Him is our reckoning.


Anyway i gota go sleep now, but insha Allaah i'll be back tomorrow if i'm still alive. :) Take care.


PS: Ruggedtouch, context - remember that :p


Peace.
Akhi-- you should read the article and play "can you spot the bull" code brown-- it is an inaccurate historical account by some nameless guy ... for one thing claiming the prophet and the companion raided Caravans-- I am going to report it to one of the mods. This guy comes here with a condemning words a pompous attitude adorned with false information, I am not sure why he is still so well received... what a waste of everyone's time!
Reply

جوري
05-09-2007, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
I'm still trying to get you to understand the concept of honesty.
perhaps it is because you have a difficult time understanding/ and adhering to it, that you can't convey it as well-- after all Faqid Alshy'e la yo3teeh!
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
If so, I have 2 questions:

1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
2.) How come atheists are moral beings?

Thanks
How come poeple of other religions are moral beings?
If morality comes from religion and there are multiple religions then..that leads to many possiblities.

Mankind is incapable of being moral by itself and since there are mulitple religions and those members are moral then each of those religions that have morality must be correct religions with multiple gods. Or there is only one true religion and the others are essentially atheists in that they do not believe in that one true god and then they must therefore be immoral "as well as atheists".

Or

Mankijng is capable of being moral by itself and
if there is one true religion and all the others are essentially atheists inregards to the true religion but they are still moral then religion clearly is not needed.
if there is no true religion and all morals are made by mankind then morality is definitly able to be had without a god or a religion.

those are a couple ideas off the top of my head. im sure i can clarifiy them better but i got to go to class.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 01:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Morals are products of law. This can be God's Laws, or it can be secular law. Usually the two overlap without meaning to in many ways. Meaning the laws against murder, theft, etc. An atheist can be just as moral as a religious person when it comes to following secular law, if not more or vice versa.
Actually it is the other way around. Laws are derived from morals. Why do you think murder is illegal? It is BECAUSE they are immoral.

For those who say atheists are immoral -- why do you think atheists believe rape, murder, stealing etc are all immoral acts??
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 01:22 AM
In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures. Atheists are the product of their lifetime.That is why they adopt religious morals into their own worldview.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 01:31 AM
Maybe the next car bomb in Iraq was started by an American not a Muslim..

Robert Fisk: Seen through a Syrian lens, 'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
Published: 28 April 2006
In Syria, the world appears through a glass, darkly. As dark as the smoked windows of the car which takes me to a building on the western side of Damascus where a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source", which is the name given by American correspondents to their own powerful intelligence officers - waits with his own ferocious narrative of disaster in Iraq and dangers in the Middle East.

His is a fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties. It is a scenario in which Saddam Hussein remains Washington's best friend, in which Syria has struck at the Iraqi insurgents with a ruthlessness that the United States wilfully ignores. And in which Syria's Interior Minister, found shot dead in his office last year, committed suicide because of his own mental instability.

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.

"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."

Just who these "Americans" might be, my source did not say. In the anarchic and panic-stricken world of Iraq, there are many US groups - including countless outfits supposedly working for the American military and the new Western-backed Iraqi Interior Ministry - who operate outside any laws or rules. No one can account for the murder of 191 university teachers and professors since the 2003 invasion - nor the fact that more than 50 former Iraqi fighter-bomber pilots who attacked Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been assassinated in their home towns in Iraq in the past three years.

Amid this chaos, a colleague of my source asked me, how could Syria be expected to lessen the number of attacks on Americans inside Iraq? "It was never safe, our border," he said. "During Saddam's time, criminals and Saddam's terrorists crossed our borders to attack our government. I built a wall of earth and sand along the border at that time. But three car bombs from Saddam's agents exploded in Damascus and Tartous- I was the one who captured the criminals responsible. But we couldn't stop them."

Now, he told me, the rampart running for hundreds of miles along Syria's border with Iraq had been heightened. "I have had barbed wire put on top and up to now we have caught 1,500 non-Syrian and non-Iraqi Arabs trying to cross and we have stopped 2,700 Syrians from crossing ... Our army is there - but the Iraqi army and the Americans are not there on the other side."

Behind these grave suspicions in Damascus lies the memory of Saddam's long friendship with the United States. "Our Hafez el-Assad [the former Syrian president who died in 2000] learnt that Saddam, in his early days, met with American officials 20 times in four weeks. This convinced Assad that, in his words, 'Saddam is with the Americans'. Saddam was the biggest helper of the Americans in the Middle East (when he attacked Iran in 1980) after the fall of the Shah. And he still is! After all, he brought the Americans to Iraq!"

So I turn to a story which is more distressing for my sources: the death by shooting of Brigadier General Ghazi Kenaan, former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon - an awesomely powerful position - and Syrian Minister of Interior when his suicide was announced by the Damascus government last year.

Widespread rumours outside Syria suggested that Kenaan was suspected by UN investigators of involvement in the murder of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in a massive car bomb in Beirut last year - and that he had been "suicided" by Syrian government agents to prevent him telling the truth.

Not so, insisted my original interlocutor. "General Ghazi was a man who believed he could give orders and anything he wanted would happen. Something happened that he could not reconcile - something that made him realise he was not all-powerful. On the day of his death, he went to his office at the Interior Ministry and then he left and went home for half an hour. Then he came back with a pistol. He left a message for his wife in which he said goodbye to her and asked her to look after their children and he said that what he was going to do was 'for the good of Syria'. Then he shot himself in the mouth."

Of Hariri's assassination, Syrian officials like to recall his relationship with the former Iraqi interim prime minister Iyad Alawi - a self-confessed former agent for the CIA and MI6 - and an alleged $20bn arms deal between the Russians and Saudi Arabia in which they claim Hariri was involved.

Hariri's Lebanese supporters continue to dismiss the Syrian argument on the grounds that Syria had identified Hariri as the joint author with his friend, French President Jacques Chirac, of the UN Security Council resolution which demanded the retreat of the Syrians from Lebanese territory.

But if the Syrians are understandably obsessed with the American occupation of Iraq, their long hatred for Saddam - something which they shared with most Iraqis - is still intact. When I asked my first "security" source what would happen to the former Iraqi dictator, he replied, banging his fist into his hand: "He will be killed. He will be killed
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 01:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures. Atheists are the product of their lifetime.That is why they adopt religious morals into their own worldview.
I couldn't agree more--they keep redefining values and laws-- things that were considered illegal and in need of remedy on the account of being classifed under mental disorders just as recent as 1973 in the DSM-IV are now legal under heavy lobbying rallies and organizations and support groups-- who knows how much more they will push and what they will get away with...
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 01:37 AM
this didn't take very long either

Robert Fisk: Seen through a Syrian lens, 'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
Published: 28 April 2006
In Syria, the world appears through a glass, darkly. As dark as the smoked windows of the car which takes me to a building on the western side of Damascus where a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source", which is the name given by American correspondents to their own powerful intelligence officers - waits with his own ferocious narrative of disaster in Iraq and dangers in the Middle East.

His is a fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties. It is a scenario in which Saddam Hussein remains Washington's best friend, in which Syria has struck at the Iraqi insurgents with a ruthlessness that the United States wilfully ignores. And in which Syria's Interior Minister, found shot dead in his office last year, committed suicide because of his own mental instability.

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.

"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."

Just who these "Americans" might be, my source did not say. In the anarchic and panic-stricken world of Iraq, there are many US groups - including countless outfits supposedly working for the American military and the new Western-backed Iraqi Interior Ministry - who operate outside any laws or rules. No one can account for the murder of 191 university teachers and professors since the 2003 invasion - nor the fact that more than 50 former Iraqi fighter-bomber pilots who attacked Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been assassinated in their home towns in Iraq in the past three years.

Amid this chaos, a colleague of my source asked me, how could Syria be expected to lessen the number of attacks on Americans inside Iraq? "It was never safe, our border," he said. "During Saddam's time, criminals and Saddam's terrorists crossed our borders to attack our government. I built a wall of earth and sand along the border at that time. But three car bombs from Saddam's agents exploded in Damascus and Tartous- I was the one who captured the criminals responsible. But we couldn't stop them."

Now, he told me, the rampart running for hundreds of miles along Syria's border with Iraq had been heightened. "I have had barbed wire put on top and up to now we have caught 1,500 non-Syrian and non-Iraqi Arabs trying to cross and we have stopped 2,700 Syrians from crossing ... Our army is there - but the Iraqi army and the Americans are not there on the other side."

Behind these grave suspicions in Damascus lies the memory of Saddam's long friendship with the United States. "Our Hafez el-Assad [the former Syrian president who died in 2000] learnt that Saddam, in his early days, met with American officials 20 times in four weeks. This convinced Assad that, in his words, 'Saddam is with the Americans'. Saddam was the biggest helper of the Americans in the Middle East (when he attacked Iran in 1980) after the fall of the Shah. And he still is! After all, he brought the Americans to Iraq!"

So I turn to a story which is more distressing for my sources: the death by shooting of Brigadier General Ghazi Kenaan, former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon - an awesomely powerful position - and Syrian Minister of Interior when his suicide was announced by the Damascus government last year.

Widespread rumours outside Syria suggested that Kenaan was suspected by UN investigators of involvement in the murder of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in a massive car bomb in Beirut last year - and that he had been "suicided" by Syrian government agents to prevent him telling the truth.

Not so, insisted my original interlocutor. "General Ghazi was a man who believed he could give orders and anything he wanted would happen. Something happened that he could not reconcile - something that made him realise he was not all-powerful. On the day of his death, he went to his office at the Interior Ministry and then he left and went home for half an hour. Then he came back with a pistol. He left a message for his wife in which he said goodbye to her and asked her to look after their children and he said that what he was going to do was 'for the good of Syria'. Then he shot himself in the mouth."

Of Hariri's assassination, Syrian officials like to recall his relationship with the former Iraqi interim prime minister Iyad Alawi - a self-confessed former agent for the CIA and MI6 - and an alleged $20bn arms deal between the Russians and Saudi Arabia in which they claim Hariri was involved.

Hariri's Lebanese supporters continue to dismiss the Syrian argument on the grounds that Syria had identified Hariri as the joint author with his friend, French President Jacques Chirac, of the UN Security Council resolution which demanded the retreat of the Syrians from Lebanese territory.

But if the Syrians are understandably obsessed with the American occupation of Iraq, their long hatred for Saddam - something which they shared with most Iraqis - is still intact. When I asked my first "security" source what would happen to the former Iraqi dictator, he replied, banging his fist into his hand: "He will be killed. He will be killed


Who stands to gain the most out of civil unrest in the middle east... once the erudite can figure this one out can we lay the bull to rest
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 01:43 AM
At least he won the British press award --and IS world renowned ... where do you get your sources? considering the very last BS article of yours we just had removed for lack of credibility against what is written in any history book!....
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 01:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures.
We eat babies and rape puppies too. But only the cute ones.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 02:19 AM
Just noticed this thread, and its already on page 3. You folks been busy!

I notice that a lot of RuggedTouch's posts seem to have been mysteriously deleted. I keep reading quotes of his that don't appear as posts of his. It has made this conversation very difficult to follow as somebody who only now is reading the thread.

Not sure if it is too late to contribute to this thread constructively or if its already devolved into pointless mudslinging as these threads often do. But here's my take on it, just in case anybody still cares.

Religion isn't the source of morality. It is a codification of it with some added arbitrary bits. The source of morality is multifactorial, three important factors being empathy, self interest, and socialization.

Empathy is seeing yourself in others. The more the other thing reminds you of yourself, the more you can relate to it, the more empathy you have for it and the more interested you will be in helping it. This is why people can hear statistics of millions of people getting killed and not really care much, but get all upset if they hear details about the dead, especially if those details allow them to relate to the dead. The more you tell a potential killer about his victims the less likely he is to kill. And the more you depersonalize or dehumanize a victim the easier they are to kill. This is why war propaganda often depicts the enemy as nameless and faceless monsters out to get us. It is why US news won't show the people of Iraq and their stories.

Self interest, is self explanatory and far reaching. We don't want to live in a society where we could be killed, so we push for laws against killing. Pretty much every action we take has some aspect of self interest to it.

By Socialization I mean social programming. This can be religious idoctrination, or it can simply be the way your parents raise you. Most of us grow up being told that to lie is bad and to steal is bad, we carry these "values" throughout our lives and will see them as "bad" even absent any parental or other supervision.

Socialization can work with or against empathy and self interest. Some of us are socialized that homosexuality is wrong and that genital mutilation of children is good. Others are socialized that certain groups of people (blacks, jews, nonbelievers, whatever) are the enemy and inherently bad. Some even come to believe that it is a moral act to engage in suicide bombing (the strongest example of socialization going against self intererst and empathy I can think of). These are all things that would be unlikely to occur to somebody absent extensive social programming.

Social values change over time and religions change with them, but act as a buffer to sudden change. I think one of the major influences of religion is this conservatism (whether that is good or bad I leave to the reader). Written holy books are codification of moral values held by people in a society - because they are written they are resistent to change. The same could be said of a country's constitutional documents. But they aren't imune, because the words can be interpreted. Some can be stressed and others ignored. So change happens, but more slowly.

Ok, now I'm rambling, so I'll take my leave.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 02:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
Nonsense.

The acts of immorality committed under the name of religion would fill my 80 gig hard drive.

Look at current events in the Moslem world. Make your case for morality as the next car bomb explodes in Iraq.
Obviously the truth angers you. We had few atheist leaderships in the world, all of who are mass murderers, from Nero to Stalin and Mao. These few indivisuals surpass "immorality" caused by religion a few times over. According to neo-Atheist Sam Harris, it is better to eliminate religion than rape.

The Muslim moral code has been fixed 1400 years ago. Atheists are still catching up. As the next terrorist blows up another car, you will find Islamic scholars condemning them.

Atheists are still behind in their moral values even after centuries of religious progress. Maybe you guys should break news grounds by PROHIBITING homosexuality ;) Remember, atheist, we are humans, not savages.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 02:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Just noticed this thread, and its already on page 3. You folks been busy!

I notice that a lot of RuggedTouch's posts seem to have been mysteriously deleted. I keep reading quotes of his that don't appear as posts of his. It has made this conversation very difficult to follow as somebody who only now is reading the thread.
.

Indeed.. he enclosed a questionable website to enforce his points-- it reflects poorly on his credibility and goes against forum rules...

I don't doubt that you are a moral person... I don't want to bring the points from previous posts
1- of morality being innate ( that went in circles)--
2- upheld only as mandated by society -- in which case we asked what it is that keeps committing the perfect crime, if you knew two things one- you'd benefit and two-get away with it!
further the morals of an Atheist would indeed evolve to fit the times and that makes for questionable morals..


peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
As the next terrorist blows up another car, you will find Islamic scholars condemning them.
This needs to be more widely distributed. One argument I often hear from american muslim haters (who believe it or not I spend as much time debating against and debunking as I spend here with you folks) is that muslims never stand up against the terrorists who act in the name of Islam. Now, I know that claim isn't true, but it would be much easier to shoot it down if the muslim scholars you speak of were better heard. There must be a way to amplify their voices in the west.

Maybe you guys should break news grounds by PROHIBITING homosexuality ;) Remember, atheist, we are humans, not savages.
Break new grounds by expressing arbitrary intolerance and telling people how they must live and who they can boink? No thanks. It isn't my place to tell people who to fall in love with.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 02:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by RuggedTouch
That didn't take long!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6637957.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6636343.stm

:)
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 02:33 AM
It would probably be deemed another conspiracy theory... they take your faults and make them bold, front and center-- on the news round the clock... and their own folly hardly makes it in some illegible writing on page 56... if at all and then cast with one of the usual excuses, swept under the rug... can we spell hypocrisy please!
Reply

Gator
05-10-2007, 02:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
If so, I have 2 questions:

1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
2.) How come atheists are moral beings?

Thanks
I believe 1) humans developed in differnt areas and came up with some different ideas. And 2) It's more beneficial to be social (moral) than unsocial so general adaption of emapthy, and other feelings for positive social behavior, led to better survivability.

Probably already been thrown out there, but wanted to give you my thoughts uncolored by reading the other posts.

Thanks.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 03:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
Actually it is the other way around. Laws are derived from morals. Why do you think murder is illegal? It is BECAUSE they are immoral.

For those who say atheists are immoral -- why do you think atheists believe rape, murder, stealing etc are all immoral acts??
I would kinda agree with you there. I think its kind of a give and take bit though. We grow up in a socieity that has laws and we often derive our morals from those laws. But the other way is true too. If we were born on a deserted island we would not go causing caos but as long as we lived in a society we would create our own morals. Of course if you were in competition with another "tribe" you may do many immoral things to them but not to your society. So basically morals are personal laws.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 03:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures. Atheists are the product of their lifetime.That is why they adopt religious morals into their own worldview.
Evidence? Though shall not kill existed long before any religion said it. As has been posted in other threads "im pretty sure it has" morality is usally a result of social behavior and survival.

Not to mention that atheists make up a smaller percent of the prison population than what they are of the US population. From your opinion you would expect to see more. Instead the majority of prisoners are of christian background and in far greater percentages than what they make up of the US population. Ill try to find a source later if you want.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 03:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Evidence? Though shall not kill existed long before any religion said it.
Do you have any evidence for that?
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 04:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
Do you have any evidence for that?
Well lets look at other apes. They have social groups and they dont go about killing each other. Instead they live in a social group that aids in survival.

Not to mention that humans have existed long before christianity, islam and many others.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 04:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Well lets look at other apes. They have social groups and they dont go about killing each other. Instead they live in a social group that aids in survival.

Not to mention that humans have existed long before christianity, islam and many others.
We can look at other animals though. Many animals are cannibals, interbreed and some even eat their excretions.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
We can look at other animals though. Many animals are cannibals, interbreed and some even eat their excretions.
Um humans do that too, interbreed, eat other humans, and some eat their own poo. Heck christianity in some of its forms support canablism. But now your getting off of topic. We are talking about morality. Other animals can act "moral" without a god.
Reply

Philosopher
05-10-2007, 04:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Um humans do that too, interbreed, eat other humans, and some eat their own poo. Heck christianity in some of its forms support canablism. But now your getting off of topic. We are talking about morality. Other animals can act "moral" without a god.
Those cases are extremely rare and humans have enough common sense to know these acts are immoral.

Also, do you also have evidence that animals dont have their own dogmas?
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 05:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
Those cases are extremely rare and humans have enough common sense to know these acts are immoral.

Also, do you also have evidence that animals dont have their own dogmas?
wow so all we neeed is common sense, well i guess you just proved my point.

And as for animal dogma. Currently their is no known non human animal religious text. Even if they do it would be clear that they had to make their own up unless your saying there are other gods?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-10-2007, 12:04 PM
Hey Ranma. :) If you've read my first post - you'll realise that Islaam has always been the religion of ALL the Prophets of God; including Adam (the first human), Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc. all 124,000 of them.


Ruggedtouch, your articles don't mean nothing - because all of them have been refuted, and the praise is due to Allaah for that. It seems as if you're just on a hate spree. So if you want to continue that, then please do so elsewhere.


Regards.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 01:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey Ranma. :) If you've read my first post - you'll realise that Islaam has always been the religion of ALL the Prophets of God; including Adam (the first human), Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc. all 124,000 of them.


Ruggedtouch, your articles don't mean nothing - because all of them have been refuted, and the praise is due to Allaah for that. It seems as if you're just on a hate spree. So if you want to continue that, then please do so elsewhere.


Regards.
Thats very fine and nice to say but there is no evidence of that apart from the quran which is not good evidence.
Reply

Malaikah
05-10-2007, 01:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Thats very fine and nice to say but there is no evidence of that apart from the quran which is not good evidence.
At least we have some kind of evidence. You have no evidence at all to suggest that the concept of murder being evil existed before any religion did. :thumbs_up
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 02:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
At least we have some kind of evidence. You have no evidence at all to suggest that the concept of murder being evil existed before any religion did. :thumbs_up
Wait we are talking about if morals are derived from god or religion. I have shown that creatures withour religion have morals. And religions with out an actual god is no different from atheism in their source of morality.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 02:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey Ranma. :) If you've read my first post - you'll realise that Islaam has always been the religion of ALL the Prophets of God; including Adam (the first human), Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc. all 124,000 of them.


Ruggedtouch, your articles don't mean nothing - because all of them have been refuted, and the praise is due to Allaah for that. It seems as if you're just on a hate spree. So if you want to continue that, then please do so elsewhere.


Regards.
We've got one clueless bozo steering the threads to a direction of his desires... The articles can't be verified from any ACCURATE historical record. Another of numerous conjectures to fit the tides, from someone with an obvious agenda.
Makes you wonder the underlying psychology of people who would go so far to color history with their own visions of what they wish happened. What an embarrassment to admit to the world that you are willing to go so low to prove how much hatred is brewing there in your heart! Or maybe just counting that we'll be as under educated as he?
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 03:17 PM
The so-called moral code of the animals is defined as instincts not morals! A moral is sanctioned by or operated on one's conscience or ethical judgment... What animal do for survival whether they stay in groups, hunt together is done solely for their survival as a specie not because they want to socialize over a cup of coffee and a bagel.. their so-called "moral" codes are concrete not abstract....

Sobhan Allah -- people are dignified through religion yet some still wish to subscribe to the habits of animals-- wonders never cease!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
The so-called moral code of the animals is defined as instincts not morals! A moral is sanctioned by or operated on one's conscience or ethical judgment...
What a silly assumption to make. How could you possibly know that nonhuman animals don't ponder the morality of certain actions? We do it. We're animals. Seems only natural that other animals would also do it, at least to some degree.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 03:35 PM
The articles can't be verified from any ACCURATE historical record. Another of numerous conjectures to fit the tides, from someone with an obvious agenda.
That's the unfortunate thing about deleting his posts. You may very well be right, but nobody is going to take your word for it, given your less than polite hostility towards him. So with his posts deleted we are all left wondering if they actually were of any value.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
05-10-2007, 03:43 PM
this is simply my understanding, if you disagree then lets respect the difference in opinion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
every religion considers itself to be the truth, every religion considers the other religion to either be false or a distorted copy of the true religion. Thus in the same way every religion considers itself to have the best moral code (well us muslims certainly take this stance) whilst others will disagree. Going into discussion as to what makes our religion moral and the others immoral is a completely different topic but to just mention a little, we believe our religion is most fair and is from the true creator of all of creation. to prove this is again a lengthy discussion.

2.) How come atheists are moral beings?
Atheists consider themselves to be moral according to whos guideline? According to the law of society? secular law? their own manmade law? If morality was to be defined by man then it should be accepted that the moral code has changed innumerable times throughout existence.

I as a muslim, according to the guideline of Islam, believe that the moral code which never changes (the one set out in Quran Majeed) dictates that all Atheists are immoral.

Below are a few points why:

*they allow drinking
*Dating
*Fornicating
*Usury
*No sense of jelousy for their women (ie allow them to dress tarty etc)

There are many more points but i dont want to offend people too much.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-10-2007, 03:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That's the unfortunate thing about deleting his posts. You may very well be right, but nobody is going to take your word for it, given your less than polite hostility towards him. So with his posts deleted we are all left wondering if they actually were of any value.

His posts weren't even related to the topic of the thread. :)


Regards.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 03:52 PM
This is off topic, but...

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
*Dating
Muslims can't date? Is it all arranged marriages?
Reply

Talha777
05-10-2007, 03:57 PM
Yes.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
05-10-2007, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is off topic, but...



Muslims can't date? Is it all arranged marriages?
lol we can get to know each other, have meetings etc but we must always have a third person present :)
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 04:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What a silly assumption to make. How could you possibly know that nonhuman animals don't ponder the morality of certain actions? We do it. We're animals. Seems only natural that other animals would also do it, at least to some degree.
human brain




animal brain



The frontal lobes are responsible for “higher” brain functions, such as planning, decision making, and judgment (which are called “executive functions”--

it is clearly more developed in humans than animals-- I can go into more details of neuroanatomy if you'd like to see in which ways the human brain is more developed than in animals-- including areas in which "morality" is more developed and would be more of an abstract thought in humans than just instinctual (concrete) in animals-- from hippocampus to amygdala to frontal lobe-- and what sort of animal behavior is exhibited when one of such areas is lesioned for instance Klüver-Bucy Syndrome Bilateral destruction of the amygdaloid body and inferior temporal cortex in which men end up displaying behavior observed in monkeys. We can sit here and use romanticized terms of the morality of animals, but it wouldn't cut mustard... You are certainly welcome to run your own random double blinded study with a group of animals and humans and prove common sense wrong but until such a time you are free to believe what you wish.. and we are free to write of what we know!

peace!
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That's the unfortunate thing about deleting his posts. You may very well be right, but nobody is going to take your word for it, given your less than polite hostility towards him. So with his posts deleted we are all left wondering if they actually were of any value.
I didn't delete his posts... obviously a moderator read them and found them unsuitable.. he may very well share his sources with you privately and you are welcome to theorize what you will...
I had a post of mine removed the other day, which was in Arabic and about the prophet, it was removed on the account that the information in it were conjectural and not factual.. I didn't whine about it. I apologized to the mod and moved on with my life... I didn't throw a temper tantrum and seek validation from other members over how my article was removed.

Just for the record-- how do you exactly expect us to meet with open hostility? with open arms and roses? The same expectations your president was hoping for when the American army sets foot on Iraqi soil?
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 05:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Just for the record-- how do you exactly expect us to meet with open hostility? with open arms and roses? The same expectations your president was hoping for when the American army sets foot on Iraqi soil?
Thats another unfortunate thing about his posts being deleted. We are left with only a record of your hostility and mudslinging and personal attacks, not his. If he said anything impolite it has been removed and I never saw it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=PurestAmbrosia;735004]



Interesting that you don't put any other mammalian brains up there besides the human.

it is clearly more developed in humans than animals-- I can go into more details of neuroanatomy if you'd like to see in which ways the human brain is more developed than in animals-- including areas in which "morality" is more developed and would be more of an abstract thought in humans than just instinctual (concrete) in animals-- from hippocampus to amygdala to frontal lobe-- and what sort of animal behavior is exhibited when one of such areas is lesioned for instance Klüver-Bucy Syndrome Bilateral destruction of the amygdaloid body and inferior temporal cortex in which men end up displaying behavior observed in monkeys. We can sit here and use romanticized terms of the morality of animals, but it wouldn't cut mustard... You are certainly welcome to run your own random double blinded study with a group of animals and humans and prove common sense wrong but until such a time you are free to believe what you wish.. and we are free to write of what we know!
Yet you don't know. Your claim doesn't follow from your observations nor from your argument.

Showing that humans have MORE of the stuff that we believe to be required to have thought doesn't show that animals don't have the stuff required to have thought. It doesn't show that all animal behaviour is instinctive, which was your bold claim.

The opposite would seem to follow. If we've come to believe that the prefrontal cortex in human beings is the seat of thought and self awareness in human beings, then it wouldn't be too crazy to suggest tha the frefrontal cortex in monkeys is the seat of thought and self awareness in monkeys. They do have one you know. It may be less developed, but it is there.

Behaviour in many nonhuman animal species further suggests that they are self aware and thinking beings. Many further display empathy, self interest and socialization, three major factors in human morality.

By the way, I am more learned on neuropsychology than you may suspect. I know that if you cut up parts of the brain behaviour will change, including attitude and moral sense. I've even cut up live rat brains in a lab myself (something I regret). And I agree that it is iteresting how chemicals in the brain can account for so much of human behavior. Almost makes you wonder about the notions of the soul and free will.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Thats another unfortunate thing about his posts being deleted. We are left with only a record of your hostility and mudslinging and personal attacks, not his. If he said anything impolite it has been removed and I never saw it.
What would you like me to do about that? To every action there is a reaction... I'd not be reacting to blank... Again inappropriate posts will be removed by a mod not my person.. same as if you were to post photos of jenna jameson .. Such are the forums rules.. if you can't comply with forum rules, no sense in posting here? There are other forums to foster a hateful anything against Muslims... people come here to learn about Islam, not to teach us what Islam is from their own opinion!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 06:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
jenna jameson
Is that wife of Spiderman's boss?

people come here to learn about Islam, not to teach us what Islam is from their own opinion!
Actually this is one section of the board that that may not be true of. This is comparative religion section. People don't come here to learn about Islam. There are other sections for that. They come here to compare and contrast it and other religions to one another, that would include various opinions on Islam.
Reply

Trumble
05-10-2007, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Actually this is one section of the board that that may not be true of. This is comparative religion section. People don't come here to learn about Islam. There are other sections for that. They come here to compare and contrast it and other religions to one another, that would include various opinions on Islam.
I always thought the sub-heading, "Discussions about other religions in existence" was more accurate than 'comparative religion'. 'Comparative religion' requires a degree of tolerance for other beliefs and a genuine desire to understand them that is usually conspicuous by its absence.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Yet you don't know. Your claim doesn't follow from your observations nor from your argument.

Showing that humans have MORE of the stuff that we believe to be required to have thought doesn't show that animals don't have the stuff required to have thought. It doesn't show that all animal behaviour is instinctive, which was your bold claim.

The opposite would seem to follow. If we've come to believe that the prefrontal cortex in human beings is the seat of thought and self awareness in human beings, then it wouldn't be too crazy to suggest tha the frefrontal cortex in monkeys is the seat of thought and self awareness in monkeys. They do have one you know. It may be less developed, but it is there.

Behaviour in many nonhuman animal species further suggests that they are self aware and thinking beings. Many further display empathy, self interest and socialization, three major factors in human morality.

By the way, I am more learned on neuropsychology than you may suspect. I know that if you cut up parts of the brain behaviour will change, including attitude and moral sense. I've even cut up live rat brains in a lab myself (something I regret). And I agree that it is iteresting how chemicals in the brain can account for so much of human behavior. Almost makes you wonder about the notions of the soul and free will.
With all the research done of the brain we still know a very minuscule amount even less so when it comes to animals... we can base our opinion on observation... I don't see animals holding trials for the murder of one of their group... This isn't to belittle your research... In fact I am astounded that you know of Neurochemical and Electrophysiological Pathways what happens if one is lesioned or enhanced and yet make the claim that animal behavior is based on morality ...

The more developed the brain the higher the functions.... you can see just from neglect how one brain develops properly while the other is stultified... and am sure if you have done any psychological research on brain development as a another field of interest you can obviously observe see that concrete thought is more prevalent in children than in adults... That is when we speak of people... If I were to contrast to animals it would be obvious that even a child's brain is more developed than that of any animal even the smartest of them. If you have done research and comparative analysis then you might want to publish for us your finding... I am always open for new research even if not in my field of interest...





peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
If I were to contrast to animals it would be obvious that even a child's brain is more developed than that of any animal even the smartest of them.
That still doesn't suggest animals don't think. Nevermind rats. Even pigeons have shown problem solving skills. Is it pure instinct? I don't think so, but maybe it is. There is no real way to know for sure, without being one of them.
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is that wife of Spiderman's boss?.
Something like that I suppose!

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Actually this is one section of the board that that may not be true of. This is comparative religion section. People don't come here to learn about Islam. There are other sections for that. They come here to compare and contrast it and other religions to one another, that would include various opinions on Islam.

Indeed... whichever way you slice it-- Atheists don't have a religion to compare? feel free to prove me wrong.. further is has to do with the presentation... if you are going to purposefully add a faulty article to assert your point (a hateful one just for the record), than question-- does this article have any validity,--historically speaking, can you bring me other sources that discuss this period of history; then don't be surprised if the posts are removed, or that people aren't welcoming you with a marching band or open arms.....

peace!
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 06:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That still doesn't suggest animals don't think. Nevermind rats. Even pigeons have shown problem solving skills. Is it pure instinct? I don't think so, but maybe it is. There is no real way to know for sure, without being one of them.
Who said anything about thoughts? I am speaking of morality... morality is a higher function!

peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 06:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I always thought the sub-heading, "Discussions about other religions in existence" was more accurate than 'comparative religion'. 'Comparative religion' requires a degree of tolerance for other beliefs and a genuine desire to understand them that is usually conspicuous by its absence.
Indeed.

Too often threads in this section become "debates" where people push for their view, rather than discuss their view. And as we've seen in this thread, it often devolves into something less than polite. But you know what they say about religion, politics, and civil conversation :D
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Who said anything about thoughts? I am speaking of morality... morality is a higher function!

peace!
You called animal behaviour instinctual. What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "higher function".

I don't think its any more complicated than other interplays of nature and nurture, if that is what you mean. It is usually pretty easy to explain why something is viewed as good or bad.

Do you hold the view that opinions on morality are "higher" (whatever that means) than other learned opinions and instincts?
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 06:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You called animal behaviour instinctual. What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "higher function".

I don't think its any more complicated than other interplays of nature and nurture, if that is what you mean. It is usually pretty easy to explain why something is viewed as good or bad.

Do you hold the view that opinions on morality are "higher" (whatever that means) than other learned opinions and instincts?
in some aspects YES... we can get into this some time later this evening as I need to run... I'd be interested however, in learning more about your research with rat brains!


peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-10-2007, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I'd be interested however, in learning more about your research with rat brains!
I worked as a lab assistant during my undergrad (hons bsc in psych) prior to leaving that behind and attending law school. I mostly studied social and cognitive psychology, and my own research was mostly in that direction, but I did lab work for a professor who was studying the rat brain and its interplay with psychoactive drugs. Yes, I not only chopped up the brains of the poor critters, but also got them stoned out of their little minds. Later, while in law school I had 3 pet rats, sort of as penance.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-10-2007, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Who said anything about thoughts? I am speaking of morality... morality is a higher function!

peace!
evidence?
Reply

جوري
05-10-2007, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
evidence?
let's put it this way---Where is your evidence of animal morality?... and pls bring me a research article from something other than wikpedia -- I'll make your life easier
you can start with the following

http://uptodate.com/ << all the latest research and even a section for visitors, so you don't have to incur the hefty $200 charge the rest of us pay

http://content.nejm.org/

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

http://www.thelancet.com/

All have the hugest data base of research in every field up to and including psychology... if you care to offer something of substance.. I'd start there, and I'll gladly bow out gracefully to undisputed research! otherwise stop wasting my time with the usual drivel!

peace!
Reply

Sunnih
05-10-2007, 11:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You called animal behaviour instinctual. What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?...
Hi. I do not intend to turn this topic into a debate but allow me to highlight just one point in this.

You say: "What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?"

I say: How about accidents? It is amazing that those who do not believe in God ascribe acidents to the creation of the universe and acept the idea that things just happen to be like that by acident and without a real purpose yet when they talk about the behaviour of even animals this notion disapears! Here we discuss the division of these occurrences into rational thought and insticts and we devide them into cathegories and subcathegories and all of a sudden we seem to forget the "great theory of the accidents".
Reply

Zulkiflim
05-11-2007, 12:00 AM
Salaam,

i have not read thru the whole posts but here is my 2cents.

Read about story of how a merchant went about his business and encoutnred a scruffy boy in the mnountains.
He looked poor and wore ill fitting clothes.
when the merchant spoke to him,he asked why dont you take a sheep for your own.

Aghast the boy replied,i cna never do that i cna never steal.

so even an illiterate,untutored and un dignified human being of any background are born with intrinsic rights and wrongs.
Reply

Gator
05-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Just something i read recently. Maybe some of the work of the people quoted could be of interest.

Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter


By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: April 17, 2007
Observed in the wild and tested in captivity, chimpanzees invite comparison with humans, their close relatives. They bear a family resemblance that fascinates people, and scientists see increasing evidence of similarities in chimp behavior and skills, making some of them think on the vagaries of evolution.

For some time, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have known that chimp ancestors were the last line of today's apes to diverge from the branch that led to humans, probably six million, maybe four million years ago. More recent examination shows that despite profound differences in the two species, just a 1.23 percent difference in their genes separates Homo sapiens from chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes.

And certain similarities between the two species, scientists say, go beyond expressive faces and opposable thumbs.

Chimps display a remarkable range of behavior and talent. They make and use simple tools, hunt in groups and engage in aggressive, violent acts. They are social creatures that appear to be capable of empathy, altruism, self-awareness, cooperation in problem solving and learning through example and experience. Chimps even outperform humans in some memory tasks.

''Fifty years ago, we knew next to nothing about chimpanzees,'' said Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. ''You could not have predicted the richness and complexity of chimp culture that we know now.''

Jane Goodall, a young English woman working in Africa in the 1960s, began changing perceptions. At first, experts disputed her reports of chimps' using tools and social behavior. The experts especially objected to her references to chimp culture. Just humans, they insisted, had ''culture.''

''Jane suffered early rejection by the establishment,'' Richard Wrangham, a Harvard anthropologist, said. ''Now, the people who say chimpanzees don't have emotions and culture are the ones rejected.''

Link if you are a member - http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AD0894DF404482
Reply

جوري
05-11-2007, 12:37 AM
Again what do emotions, range of behavior and talent have to do with a highly developed moral system?

MadSci Network: Zoology Query:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7418.Zo.r.html

Do some animals have a sense of morality?
Area: Zoology
Posted By: Dave Williams, faculty
Date: Thu Nov 13 17:44:28 1997
Area of science: Zoology
ID: 878633041.Zo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
First of all, there are some characteristically anthropomorphic assumptions in your question. For example, that monogamy is good and that morality is a universal. That right and wrong exist apart from a concept in the human mind and that all things must be judged on the basis of human practice. As a behavioral zoologist, I would assert that intelligence and monogamy are not related.
With that out of the way, the topic of animal intelligence is a complex one. Generally, it depends on what measure of intelligence you use. Obviously, if you use a human I.Q. test animals will not fare well.

ABOUT ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE IN GENERAL: Various tests, mostly related to problem solving, have shown that animals vary in their level of intelligence. The most intelligent animals are elephants, dolphins and perhaps whales, and the great apes (including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Chimpanzees are considered the closest to humans in their level of intelligence but far below the average human adult. The truth is, dolphins may be even more intelligent but it is difficult to test them because they don't have hands. Chimpanzees solve problems by making tools. Porpoises can't compete in this arena.

Little is known about the intelligence of whales (except for the killer whale which is, like dolphins, apparently very intelligent) because the big ones are very hard to study. They do seem to have a complex system of vocal communication, another criterion for intelligence. Chimpanzees don't have a complex mode of vocal communication but can master a large number of symbolic representations, when given the opportunity, and can also combine symbols to form new meanings. A famous experimental chimp, upon first seeing a duck swimming in a pond, was said to immediately use the signs for water and bird in rapid conjunction.

INTELLIGENCE AND MORALITY: Generally, humans are thought to be the only animals with a sense of morality. Apparently, it takes a very complex intellectual component to extrapolate concepts such as truth, justice, honor, loyalty, etc., as well as the idea of spiritual life. However, that does not mean that intelligent animals (like chimps) don't feel the emotions which may engender the development of these concepts. Chimpanzees have long-term close relationships, especially between mothers and daughters. Their actions have, in many cases, all the earmarks of human behaviors and are easily described in human behavioral terms, such as, brave, loyal, kind, etc. There is no assurance that the behavior has any correlation to similar human behaviors but the similarities are profound. Chimpanzees, for example, murder and abuse one another, apparently without remorse. There is also no such thing as monogamy among chimps. The social unit is the group.

A BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE TO A SINGLE MATE? First, lets make it clear that not everything has a biological advantage. Some things, structures, functions, and behaviors, are serendipitous. They just happen. If you subscribe to the concept of evolution by means of natural selection (and I presume you do or you wouldn't question the biological advantage of a single mate) you must remember that the process is completely random. And such a process depends on high numbers of individuals. With low numbers, anything goes. Some things persist in populations of organisms by chance, not because they convey an advantage.

The single mate phenomenon may be correlated to some other condition, such as low population levels, limited resources, limited home ranges, etc. Species that develop a single-mate pattern under these circumstances may retain it without harm when the conditions change.

Humans have been on Earth for at least one million years. For about 100,000 of those years they have been, for practical purposes, physically indistinguishable from humans living now. There is neither good evidence that the level of average intelligence has varied during this time nor that they were monogamous for most of it. It could well be that monogamy is recent in humans and culturally (as opposed to biologically) based. Evidence for this is that as soon as the societal inhibitions to divorce were lifted (earlier this century) divorce became the rule rather than the exception. It could well be argued that modern humans are not biologically monogamous. So much for morality, monogamy, and intelligence.

As for predators that will not eat their own kind -- again, this activity varies with the species, with the age and size of the potential food item, and with the state of hunger of the individual in question. Rest assured, if a male lion refuses to eat the remains of a lion cub (the offspring of a defeated male) which he has just killed, morality has nothing to do with it.

Bear in mind that some snakes refuse to eat rodents which they have not personally captured and killed. The refusal of an animal to eat any specific item is not likely based in any form of reason.

In a social group, one might assume, the cannibal tendency would be anathema. But some chimps, for no discernible outward reason, will violently take babies from mothers in their own group and eat them.



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



Current Queue | Current Queue for Zoology | Zoology archives
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Zoology.



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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MadSci Home | Information | Search | Random Knowledge Generator | MadSci Archives | Mad Library | MAD Labs | MAD FAQs | Ask a ? | Join Us! | Help Support MadSci


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

MadSci Network
&#169; 1997, Washington University Medical School
webadmin@www.madsci.org
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-11-2007, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Again what do emotions, range of behavior and talent have to do with a highly developed moral system?
Everything. Or nothing. Depending on how you define morality.

Morality is such a poorly defined term that you will find zoologists who boldly claim that animals don't have it, and others who claim they do. Your article points ot the former. Here's another who agrees and another who disagrees with that. http://www.wpr.org/book/960407b.htm#segment%202 (I just typed animal morality into google and this along with a bunch of other stuff popped up, with scientists on both sides - and none claiming to actually know).

Until you can operationalize morality, the discussion is pointless. By speaking of behaviours (doing what is right), empathy, socialization, guilt, etc, we attempt to operationalize. If you don't accept that, this will simply not go anywhere.

format_quote Originally Posted by article
humans are thought to be the only animals with a sense of morality.
Bold unsported claim. And one the zoologist is careful (and wise) not to make his own.

Chimpanzees, for example, murder and abuse one another, apparently without remorse.
Not often, but yes it happens. It happens with human beings too. Humans are just better at rationalizing it. War. Religion. What have you.

There is also no such thing as monogamy among chimps. The social unit is the group.
Cultural difference and a great example of "morality" being poorly defined. Who says monogamy is "moral"? Doesn't Islam itself allow polygamy in some cases? The bible has people with multiple wives too. Does that make these religions less moral than strictly monogamy pushing ones? I don't think so.

As for predators that will not eat their own kind -- again, this activity varies with the species, with the age and size of the potential food item, and with the state of hunger of the individual in question.
Makes sense. People will canibalize each other too, if they are desparate enough.

Rest assured, if a male lion refuses to eat the remains of a lion cub (the offspring of a defeated male) which he has just killed, morality has nothing to do with it.
Another bold and unsuported claim of the article.

The refusal of an animal to eat any specific item is not likely based in any form of reason.
And yet another.

In a social group, one might assume, the cannibal tendency would be anathema. But some chimps, for no discernible outward reason, will violently take babies from mothers in their own group and eat them.
Antisocial behaviour that is punished by the group. Very similar to human society and how we deal with similar antisocial behavior.

I maintain that it is a bold and unsuported claim that animals lack any sense of morality, which is the claim that was made. I believe the opposite is more likely, but I need not prove the opposite is true to note simply that your claim is impotent. The only way you could know one way or the other would be to become one of these nonhuman animals.

Perhaps those who believe in reincarnation can enlighten us.
Reply

جوري
05-11-2007, 01:43 AM
I think the articles is very concise and is written by an expert in the field. It isn't a topic for refutation really, unless you want to take it with the author himself and believe he can be reached
Washington University Medical School
webadmin@www.madsci.org____

I'll accept your other referenced source article of "with scientists on both sides" - purportedly claiming to not actually know for sure" Generally as better than a newspaper's shallow account which still doesn't address the topic at hand, or someone else's Reductio Ad Absurdum .
With that said I shall administer to self another ergotamine inhalation and call it a night.
peace!

peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-11-2007, 01:48 AM
Too many ten dollar words. Not enough coherency. Anybody care to decipher what was meant in the post above?
Reply

جوري
05-11-2007, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Too many ten dollar words. Not enough coherency. Anybody care to decipher what was meant in the post above?
Maybe if I changed my way of life to an "Atheist" we can get another "Amen to that" out of you and hopefully call it a night?!
Reply

ranma1/2
05-11-2007, 05:18 AM
I agree with pretty much everythign Pygoscelis said.
We should define what we mean by Morals.

I find that in general the behavior one has as member of a social group is what is in genral called moral if it is the norm for that group.
Reply

barney
05-11-2007, 05:37 AM
There is a tendancy to throw out some buzzwords like Athiesm is more responsible for mass murders, like Purest is doing.

The world has only recently accepted athiesm as the worlds fastest growing non-religion, and whilst Communism could be called athieist, it's whole foundation is on exactly the same grounds as religion. Mantra's ,Dogmas, Worship of "the party", benifits to beleivers , hell on earth for the proloteriat anti-revolutionary, a founding father who's idols are built in 50ft high bronze idols, his speeches quoted and a red book full of the "message" taught in schools. I could go on ad-infinitum, but you get the drift.

Religion is behind the vast majority of wars since bibalic times in either a Direct role (crusades) or indirect role, (Suppression of Native Americans). If Atheism has killed his tens of millions, Religion has killed his Billions.
Reply

Keltoi
05-11-2007, 05:38 AM
Take any basic sociology course and it defines what morals are fairly well, which is simply social norms accepted by the majority, which are positively and negatively reinforced.

This is the reason some human cultures practice cannibalism, even though the majority of the world would find it repulsive. They don't find it repulsive because it is a part of their culture.
Reply

Muezzin
05-11-2007, 08:40 AM
Religions don't kill people. People do.

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
If Atheism has killed his tens of millions, Religion has killed his Billions.
I guess that gives atheism the moral high ground. I mean, obviously, Jack the Ripper was not such a bad guy compared to Idi Amin, just based on sheer numbers.

What silly logic.

And before anyone misunderstands because they're tired and/or dim, I don't make any assertions in my posts about the superiority of any particular system in some petty passive aggressive way, I'm just showing that everybody is mucked up.

Also, morality does not derive from religion, but religion can and does encourage certain moral codes. Generally speaking, morality and ethics depend upon culture.
Reply

barney
05-11-2007, 01:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Religions don't kill people. People do.


I guess that gives atheism the moral high ground. .
Humans kill, and only need their own bigotry for a reason.
Religion provided and provides a "justification" a doctrine and approval as much as Communism or Nationalism ever did.

I have never said that the above gives Athieism the moral high ground. However, human nature being what it is, yeah....killing less people is better than killing more people.
We are all mucked up...so lets try something that dosnt muck us up more.
Reply

rania2820
05-11-2007, 01:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
If so, I have 2 questions:

1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
2.) How come atheists are moral beings?

Thanks
atheist have morals because of the influence of religion in society. if you look back before Allah revealed the books(torah,bible, quran) people were very animalistic. killing was the norm.raping was the norm.everything went. but when religion came about people learned from what's right and wrong.

and killing is done because because are people.even if religion wasn't around people would find another excuse to hide behind.
Reply

Muezzin
05-11-2007, 01:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Humans kill, and only need their own bigotry for a reason.
Religion provided and provides a "justification" a doctrine and approval as much as Communism or Nationalism ever did.
Exactly. The fault lies with humans not with a specific doctrine. Everything is prone to abuse. Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers?

I have never said that the above gives Athieism the moral high ground. However, human nature being what it is, yeah....killing less people is better than killing more people.
We are all mucked up...so lets try something that dosnt muck us up more.
Not if it means somebody shoving their beliefs (or lack thereof) down my throat.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-12-2007, 07:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rania2820
atheist have morals because of the influence of religion in society. if you look back before Allah revealed the books(torah,bible, quran) people were very animalistic. killing was the norm.raping was the norm.everything went. but when religion came about people learned from what's right and wrong.

and killing is done because because are people.even if religion wasn't around people would find another excuse to hide behind.
So what evidence do you have of this? Humans are pretty much the same from then as now. Also as shown in many religious texts murder, rape were jsutififed by those gods. The bible itself constantly justifies murder and war.

Now lets say just for a moment that what you suggested were true it shows that atheists can decide for themselves what is moral.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-12-2007, 07:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Exactly. The fault lies with humans not with a specific doctrine. Everything is prone to abuse. Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers?


Not if it means somebody shoving their beliefs (or lack thereof) down my throat.
Should we ban beer because peope get drunk? The point was that in the past religions have been used as justification for killing the next tribe or land or person you dont like. Now noone is suggesting banning religions but the thread was about where are morals derived from.

Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 08:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
...Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.
This is wrong and no one can possibly agree with such as it is well nown that the minds and intelects of humans differ greatly and you will find that what constitutes morel for some does not constitute moral for someone ellse rather it might be that someones moral is considered as disgusting and humiliation of the intelect by someone else. Therefore how could morals be made by humans while they do not have the same understanding and common sharing intelectual abilitie? So how are humans to agree on the same principles while the wold is more and more divided in such issues. One prime example is the arguments that the vegetarians bring about the "imorality" of killing the animals for consumtion. Therefore the whole idea that we decide what morals are is in and of itself without grounds and fallacious.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite, (as some would suggest), our ancestor’s total lack of moral compass?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before there were religious beliefs. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned fairly successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
First of all, what makes you think that paganism preceded belief in God? How can you claim that while you do not have any proof for that? It si your mere assumtion to state that religion is something that came after the existance of men. This principle that you try to raise needs proof and your mere sugestion on this topic does not constitute proof. So this first part of your post is debatable and as it is not the thread for that I will not stop here.

If you want to open a thread regarding the existance of God then open it and there we discuss that matter. However, how can you fail to see that your arguments are a double sworded edge? Also to claim what you uphold as your position you too must prove first that there is no God?! How can you be so partial and selective in your principles?

The examples that you quote are against you and not in your favor as this proves totally the opposite of what you say. If for the sake of the argument I was to take the examples you take in the way you interpret them then it shows that morals are related to time and place and that there are no real morals as what you might take as a moral today it is shameful the next day. So if this is the case, then there is no criterion to accertain what constitutes morals. Therefore morals become something without a real meaning and without a real existance. However this assumtion is even more absurd than what you are trying to establish.
Reply

czgibson
05-12-2007, 11:20 AM
Greetings,

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality. Morality grew into existence as a way for primitive societies to preserve themselves from self-destruction through dangerous or inconsiderate behaviour. The only issue was how to enforce the moral code. The enforcer could not be just you or me - it had to be something bigger than all of us, otherwise people would not take it seriously. Therefore, god was invented to aid this survival mechanism.

I can prove none of this, but for me it has the definite ring of psychological truth, and I think it is highly likely that this is close to the way that religion developed. It is the theory of &#201;mile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern sociology.

Peace
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 11:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ruggedtouch
Your entire argument seems to center on:

”Also to claim what you uphold as your position you too must prove first that there is no God?! How can you be so partial and selective in your principles?”

Well, sorry. I’m not the one claiming that morals are derived by god(s). If that’s your claim, then present your evidence. Additionally, It's not up to me to spend time disproving the existence of this or that.
Pleas read what you wrote and read my reply in context of what you wrote. My argument in not centered on what you just claimed. What I mentioned was to show the partiallity on your choise of the arguments. You seem to have misundertood completely the point I made.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 11:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality. Morality grew into existence as a way for primitive societies to preserve themselves from self-destruction through dangerous or inconsiderate behaviour. The only issue was how to enforce the moral code. The enforcer could not be just you or me - it had to be something bigger than all of us, otherwise people would not take it seriously. Therefore, god was invented to aid this survival mechanism.

I can prove none of this, but for me it has the definite ring of psychological truth, and I think it is highly likely that this is close to the way that religion developed. It is the theory of Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern sociology.

Peace
Greetings. I apreciate the honesty in declaring that you can not prove any of all you have said. I just have a question for you. What is the psychological truth and what makes it a truth?!

peace.
Reply

zoro
05-12-2007, 12:31 PM
czgibson:

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality.
As you probably know, there have been (and continue to be) a huge number of anthropological and archeological studies on the origin of the idea of god. I review a few such studies in my online book at www.zenofzero.net . Here, let me just give a very brief outline, whose goal is to suggest that the link between morality and gods probably came rather late in the development of “the god idea”.

Anthropological studies of newly “discovered” primitive tribes, especially during the late 19th Century (before the tribes were “polluted” by “modern thought”) found a range of “spiritual” behaviors. The most elementary of such behaviors seems to be derived from the people’s “belief” that they possessed a “second self” (what religious people would call a “soul”). The primitive people found “confirmatory evidence” of such a “second self” in their shadows, their reflections in water, and in their dreams (when their “second self” would wander, leaving their bodies behind).

More “advanced” tribes concluded that, upon death, a person’s “second self” left the person’s body and continued to wander. This is consistent with archeological data (from ~50,000 years ago) showing that the people buried with their dead various artifacts assumed to be useful for the deceased’s continued wandering. In time, the idea of a “second self” seems to have led not only to ideas that the surroundings were populated by “spirits” of the dead (in the wind, in the trees, and so on) but also to the idea that the “spirits” of especially powerful members of their tribe (e.g., a chief or a “medicine man”) continued to have influence on the tribe. This seems to be the first step toward creating gods, i.e., the spirits of formerly powerful tribal members.

The next step toward “deification” of powerful tribal ancestors seems to have been “developed” in an attempt to induce their spirits to assist the tribe (or tribal members) in overcoming difficulties (from famine to volcanic eruptions). This led to “offerings” (bribes!) to their ancestors, construction of special “houses” in which their spirits could dwell, and so on, especially including the creation of a class of people that we call “priests” or “clerics”, in charge of communications with the tribe’s “god”.

It seems that the priests (or clerics), to whom the people had entrusted such “important” tasks, then took advantage of the power that the people had given them, and consistent with the adage “power corrupts”, started to dictate to the people what was to be their goals (which of course included continuing to feed the parasite priests), the people’s laws, their morals, and so on. Such corruption occurred in essentially all cultures, although in Mesopotamia in about 2200 BCE and in Egypt in about 2000 BCE, the people revolted, stripping power (at least temporarily) from the priests. And of course such corruption continues in many cultures today, but surely soon the clerics of all religions will be precluded from continuing their parasitic practices and forced to get real jobs, like the rest of us.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 12:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by zoro
czgibson:



As you probably know, there have been (and continue to be) a huge number of anthropological and archeological studies on the origin of the idea of god. I review a few such studies in my online book at www.zenofzero.net . Here, let me just give a very brief outline, whose goal is to suggest that the link between morality and gods probably came rather late in the development of “the god idea”.

Anthropological studies of newly “discovered” primitive tribes, especially during the late 19th Century (before the tribes were “polluted” by “modern thought”) found a range of “spiritual” behaviors. The most elementary of such behaviors seems to be derived from the people’s “belief” that they possessed a “second self” (what religious people would call a “soul”). The primitive people found “confirmatory evidence” of such a “second self” in their shadows, their reflections in water, and in their dreams (when their “second self” would wander, leaving their bodies behind).

More “advanced” tribes concluded that, upon death, a person’s “second self” left the person’s body and continued to wander. This is consistent with archeological data (from ~50,000 years ago) showing that the people buried with their dead various artifacts assumed to be useful for the deceased’s continued wandering. In time, the idea of a “second self” seems to have led not only to ideas that the surroundings were populated by “spirits” of the dead (in the wind, in the trees, and so on) but also to the idea that the “spirits” of especially powerful members of their tribe (e.g., a chief or a “medicine man”) continued to have influence on the tribe. This seems to be the first step toward creating gods, i.e., the spirits of formerly powerful tribal members.

The next step toward “deification” of powerful tribal ancestors seems to have been “developed” in an attempt to induce their spirits to assist the tribe (or tribal members) in overcoming difficulties (from famine to volcanic eruptions). This led to “offerings” (bribes!) to their ancestors, construction of special “houses” in which their spirits could dwell, and so on, especially including the creation of a class of people that we call “priests” or “clerics”, in charge of communications with the tribe’s “god”.

It seems that the priests (or clerics), to whom the people had entrusted such “important” tasks, then took advantage of the power that the people had given them, and consistent with the adage “power corrupts”, started to dictate to the people what was to be their goals (which of course included continuing to feed the parasite priests), the people’s laws, their morals, and so on. Such corruption occurred in essentially all cultures, although in Mesopotamia in about 2200 BCE and in Egypt in about 2000 BCE, the people revolted, stripping power (at least temporarily) from the priests. And of course such corruption continues in many cultures today, but surely soon the clerics of all religions will be precluded from continuing their parasitic practices and forced to get real jobs, like the rest of us.
I do not despute that such studies are widespread but the nothing in these studies is rigorously proved it is mere conjectures. It does not even raise a doubt, let alone prove a point. Therefore such quotes bear no fruits. Even scientst themselves do not embrase these studies and their differing is well known. So what is the point of such "evidence"?!
Reply

ranma1/2
05-12-2007, 01:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
This is wrong and no one can possibly agree with such as it is well nown that the minds and intelects of humans differ greatly and you will find that what constitutes morel for some does not constitute moral for someone ellse rather it might be that someones moral is considered as disgusting and humiliation of the intelect by someone else. Therefore how could morals be made by humans while they do not have the same understanding and common sharing intelectual abilitie? So how are humans to agree on the same principles while the wold is more and more divided in such issues. One prime example is the arguments that the vegetarians bring about the "imorality" of killing the animals for consumtion. Therefore the whole idea that we decide what morals are is in and of itself without grounds and fallacious.
Actually the fact that morals vary so much from one society to another is evidence that we humans do make our won morals, not the other way around. If morals were the same from one place to another it would be evidence that we get it from some source other than humans.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 01:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Actually the fact that morals vary so much from one society to another is evidence that we humans do make our won morals, not the other way around. If morals were the same from one place to another it would be evidence that we get it from some source other than humans.
Not really. We are not talking about the prevalent customs but about the morals . The prevalent customs are those that fit your description. As for morals then if we were to accept what you said then the morals do not exist at all as the very fact of what constitutes morals would be questionable. Let me ask you a question: What are morals. How do we define them. Where lies and what constitutes a/the border between moral and imoral?
Reply

ranma1/2
05-12-2007, 01:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Not really. We are not talking about the prevalent customs but about the morals . The prevalent customs are those that fit your description. As for morals then if we were to accept what you said then the morals do not exist at all as the very fact of what constitutes morals would be questionable.
I would disagree. Morals may or may not include customs.
Also the majority of what is moral from one culture to another does not have to deal with customs. Why people think something is good or bad can have many influences.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
What are morals. How do we define them. Where lies and what constitutes a/the border between moral and imoral?
Relevant defs of Morals via dictionary.com
mor·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Now most of these have to do with whatis right and wrong. Well how is this decide? Is killing wrong? Yes, no, maybe.

Of course here is a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals


So what is right and wrong?
Killing in Self defence by most cultures is considered ok, but not all.
Killing animals to eat is considered ok but not by all.
Killing members of opposing religions or countries may or may not be wrong as well.
Killing yourself in some cultures is ok and in others it is not.

Theft,
Theft for surival can be right or wrong as well in different cultures.

etc....
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 01:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I would disagree. Morals may or may not include customs.
Also the majority of what is moral from one culture to another does not have to deal with customs. Why people think something is good or bad can have many influences.



Relevant defs of Morals via dictionary.com
mor·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Now most of these have to do with whatis right and wrong. Well how is this decide? Is killing wrong? Yes, no, maybe.

Of course here is a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals


So what is right and wrong?
Killing in Self defence by most cultures is considered ok, but not all.
Killing animals to eat is considered ok but not by all.
Killing members of opposing religions or countries may or may not be wrong as well.
Killing yourself in some cultures is ok and in others it is not.

Theft,
Theft for surival can be right or wrong as well in different cultures.

etc....
Sorry but I did not say that morals incude customs. I only mentioned customs to say that what you wrote applies to customs not morals. Customs and morals are not the same thing. Same morals are shared also between those peoples with different cultures.

As far as what constitutes morals, even though I do not agree with everything quoted from dictionaries.com still I have to say that based in the deffinition you have provided and the examples you have offered teh answer to what we are discussing does not turn to the choice of individual so how can the humans decide what is moral and what is not?

Let me give an example to make a real reference when we discuss, if you want you can give examples too.

Let's talk about rape for example.

According to those who support this practice raping is not an immoral thing as they might describe it as natural based on the survival of the fittest. Also they might describe it by many more ways but the point is they will say that such constitutes a moral way of conduct.

According to me, you and everyone else (i think and I hope), this is an immoral conduct and it is something that goes against the nature of the human beings and we denounce it and abhor it.

Now who is wright and who is wrong between the two groups? If we say that we are right, why is this so? Why do we not diffrentiate then between the time and location? If we say that, then it was ok and moral but now we say it is not ok and it is imoral what basis do we have for such? I hope you understand what I am hinting at.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-12-2007, 02:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
As far as what constitutes morals, even though I do not agree with everything quoted from dictionaries.com still I have to say that based in the deffinition you have provided and the examples you have offered teh answer to what we are discussing does not turn to the choice of individual so how can the humans decide what is moral and what is not?

Let me give an example to make a real reference when we discuss, if you want you can give examples too.

Let's talk about rape for example.

According to those who support this practice raping is not an immoral thing as they might describe it as natural based on the survival of the fittest. Also they might describe it by many more ways but the point is they will say that such constitutes a moral way of conduct.

According to me, you and everyone else (i think and I hope), this is an immoral conduct and it is something that goes against the nature of the human beings and we denounce it and abhor it.

Now who is wright and who is wrong between the two groups? If we say that we are right, why is this so? Why do we not diffrentiate then between the time and location? If we say that, then it was ok and moral but now we say it is not ok and it is imoral what basis do we have for such? I hope you understand what I am hinting at.
I would disagree, of course if you could give evidence for the Nature of human beings it might help. Also if you could give your def of morals it might help as well.

As for rape, it has been considered morally acceptable by others in the past and has even been backed by some by their religions.

Even the bible under certain translations god tells people to kill all but the virgins and to take them "rape". The bible it self condones murder time and time again.

Morality, to me, is the social values held by a social group.


Of course there is the idea of moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 02:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I would disagree, of course if you could give evidence for the Nature of human beings it might help. Also if you could give your def of morals it might help as well.

As for rape, it has been considered morally acceptable by others in the past and has even been backed by some by their religions.

Even the bible under certain translations god tells people to kill all but the virgins and to take them "rape". The bible it self condones murder time and time again.

Morality, to me, is the social values held by a social group.


Of course there is the idea of moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
Of course it is your right to disagree with what I say just like it is my right to disagree with you say. Now as far as my definition of morals of course you will find it not in line with your beliefs as the difference between us is fundamental in the issues related to God. I am not getting into that trail as it is not my intention to discuss that matter. I am only posting my opinions on the matter just to show that even without refering to the religious scriptures the argument that human beings make their own morals is fallacious. This is what I am tryeing to say.

Even in the refering at the end of your post those who do not necessary believe in God differ within themselves. Therefore this shows that either:

1) Morals are just a theoritical concept and have no real establishment but remain whithin the domain of the relativity of the upbringing, influencing and are offshots of the individual or groups interests at a particular time and place and social understanding and status.

2) Morals do exist and are a reality but humans do not agree in what consitutes morals in every detail of such although there are some of these morals shared between groups and individuals that are not bonded by time, location, interests and status.

Whatever the case, this makes it clear that the morals are derived by humans themselves. So you might take the position that morals are not from God but at the same time you should consider that they are also not defined and originated by men. Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!

(I thank you for the forward discussion we are having without any anger or misunderstanding.)
Reply

zoro
05-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Sunnih:

I do not despute that such studies are widespread but the nothing in these studies is rigorously proved it is mere conjectures. It does not even raise a doubt, let alone prove a point. Therefore such quotes bear no fruits. Even scientst themselves do not embrase these studies and their differing is well known. So what is the point of such "evidence"?!
Have you any idea how stupid your statement is? Even a grade-school child wouldn’t get away with writing such nonsense. It’s not worth responding to – especially since I wasn’t communicating with you but to “czgibson”.

Your statement is right up (or more appropriately, “down there”) there with the statement in this thread by “Philosopher”:

In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures. Atheists are the product of their lifetime. That is why they adopt religious morals into their own worldview.
Both are candidates for the dumbest statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. And since you’re now on a “morality kick”, let me briefly review what I’ve posted elsewhere (at www.zenofzero.net ), written for children. There, too, you’ll find an elementary description of science and what “proof” means, which apparently would be very enlightening for you.

Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives); the prime objective of living beings is for them and their “family” to continue living. For humans, therefore, the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family. Such “measures” can be put on any convenient “scale”, e.g., a numerical ranging from minus 10 (for a highly immoral act) to plus 10 (for a highly moral act). Some examples follow.

• If you, alone, are stranded in the middle of a desert, then (depending on a host of obvious conditions), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: protect your head from the sun, +8; find shade, +6; find water, +5; and so on; down to and including, start screaming for help -5; start running -8; and pour your canteen of water on the sand, -9.9. In such a situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you and you family are living in a community, then (depending on a host of obvious condition), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: conform to the laws and customs of the community, +8; develop reliable interactions with your neighbors, +6; help strangers, +4; inquire about the possibility of modifying the community’s customs, +2; violate a neighbor’s trust, -4; violate the community’s customs, -6; violate the community’s laws, -8; and so on. Again in this situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you have been convinced that the universe has been created by some god who will judge you to determine your fate after you die, then your act of highest moral value (a +10) will again be to use your brain as best you can, which in turn will lead you conclude that your act of next highest moral value (say, a 9.9) will be to obey rules dictated by the clerics who interpret your “holy book” – so that you (and your family) can survive “eternally” in some “paradise”.

• On the other hand, if you are an atheist (convinced that there are no gods or any books that are “holy”), then using your brain as best you can (moral value of +10), you will decide the morality of your other acts based on how those acts promote your and your family’s survival (whatever you recognize to be the extent of your “family”, from your “immediate” family to members of your community, to all humanity, or even to all life forms).

Thereby, I assume you see why I would compliment both you and “Philosopher” by saying that the post of both of you and Philosopher are immoral: it’s a compliment, because I’m thereby suggesting that surely you’re capable of using your brains better than you have demonstrated.
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 03:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by zoro
Sunnih:

Have you any idea how stupid your statement is? Even a grade-school child wouldn’t get away with writing such nonsense. It’s not worth responding to – especially since I wasn’t communicating with you but to “czgibson”.

Your statement is right up (or more appropriately, “down there”) there with the statement in this thread by “Philosopher”:

Both are candidates for the dumbest statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. And since you’re now on a “morality kick”, let me briefly review what I’ve posted elsewhere (at www.zenofzero.net ), written for children. There, too, you’ll find an elementary description of science and what “proof” means, which apparently would be very enlightening for you.

Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives); the prime objective of living beings is for them and their “family” to continue living. For humans, therefore, the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family. Such “measures” can be put on any convenient “scale”, e.g., a numerical ranging from minus 10 (for a highly immoral act) to plus 10 (for a highly moral act). Some examples follow.

• If you, alone, are stranded in the middle of a desert, then (depending on a host of obvious conditions), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: protect your head from the sun, +8; find shade, +6; find water, +5; and so on; down to and including, start screaming for help -5; start running -8; and pour your canteen of water on the sand, -9.9. In such a situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you and you family are living in a community, then (depending on a host of obvious condition), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: conform to the laws and customs of the community, +8; develop reliable interactions with your neighbors, +6; help strangers, +4; inquire about the possibility of modifying the community’s customs, +2; violate a neighbor’s trust, -4; violate the community’s customs, -6; violate the community’s laws, -8; and so on. Again in this situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you have been convinced that the universe has been created by some god who will judge you to determine your fate after you die, then your act of highest moral value (a +10) will again be to use your brain as best you can, which in turn will lead you conclude that your act of next highest moral value (say, a 9.9) will be to obey rules dictated by the clerics who interpret your “holy book” – so that you (and your family) can survive “eternally” in some “paradise”.

• On the other hand, if you are an atheist (convinced that there are no gods or any books that are “holy”), then using your brain as best you can (moral value of +10), you will decide the morality of your other acts based on how those acts promote your and your family’s survival (whatever you recognize to be the extent of your “family”, from your “immediate” family to members of your community, to all humanity, or even to all life forms).

Thereby, I assume you see why I would compliment both you and “Philosopher” by saying that the post of both of you and Philosopher are immoral: it’s a compliment, because I’m thereby suggesting that surely you’re capable of using your brains better than you have demonstrated.
Lol. How ridiculous is the response you gather.

you said: For humans, therefore,the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family.

I say: What a great discovery form the great philosopher. This is indeed something shared by humans and animals alike.

As for: "Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives);

I say: this is indeed a concept build upon empty words as the morals are themselves the objective of obtainment and this is one of the things that distinguish humans from animals. Anybody acts morally to achieve the praised status of correct behaviour. If morals were to be means to ensure the continuity of life as you claim this would be indeed a juctification for all those what any sound intelect calls imoral. Those things that ensure satisfying the needs of the individ conditioned by his need to exist and ensure his well being materially are called urges and lusts and not morals. Indeed moral behaviour is to control these urges and lusts when they contradict what is considered just and sound.

Do you have any idea how low your reasoning is?

However i take no offence at your words as safeguarding your position is considered moral by you, while my position is to look and uphold justice no matter where it comes from.

So if morality was an incarnation of you it would be very agresive, low and pregnant of ignorance and pride. Thank God i do not need such morals.
Reply

Muezzin
05-12-2007, 05:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Should we ban beer because peope get drunk? The point was that in the past religions have been used as justification for killing the next tribe or land or person you dont like. Now noone is suggesting banning religions but the thread was about where are morals derived from.
The way certain members tell it, you'd be forgiven for thinking religion is essentially a terrible affliction that needs to be cured. But anyway.

Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.
I tend to agree. Generally speaking, religions act as a way of enforcing certain moral codes, but like it or not, it's up to human beings whether they follow them.
Reply

Gator
05-12-2007, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!
I'd answer that with the fact that actions most societies forbid (ie. non-condoned killing, indescriminant raping, etc.) are harmful to societies regardless time, place & people.

Its a simple case that it would benefit the society to outlaw these whether it is in europe, africa, australia, etc.

Its a given that parents would pass on positive social behaviors for the benefit of their children to suceed in the society.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-12-2007, 06:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
The way certain members tell it, you'd be forgiven for thinking religion is essentially a terrible affliction that needs to be cured. But anyway.
Not all of them. Just the dangerous ones. :D

I tend to agree. Generally speaking, religions act as a way of enforcing certain moral codes, but like it or not, it's up to human beings whether they follow them.
Indeed, but it isn't just morals they enforce, they also enforce seemingly arbitrary commands like what to eat, what to wear, and who to have sex with.
Reply

Muezzin
05-12-2007, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Not all of them. Just the dangerous ones. :D
Humans make 'em dangerous. We're mucked up like that. :D

Why am I smiling?

Indeed, but it isn't just morals they enforce, they also enforce seemingly arbitrary commands like what to eat, what to wear, and who to have sex with.
Indeed, but the topic is about whether morality derives from religion/God rather than criticising religious doctrines ;)
Reply

Sunnih
05-12-2007, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
I'd answer that with the fact that actions most societies forbid (ie. non-condoned killing, indescriminant raping, etc.) are harmful to societies regardless time, place & people.

Its a simple case that it would benefit the society to outlaw these whether it is in europe, africa, australia, etc.

Its a given that parents would pass on positive social behaviors for the benefit of their children to suceed in the society.
No doubt that morality is beneficial to societies. But there are societies that do not see such as morals rather the opposite. There are tribes that as a sign of respect for the guest offer their wife to him and if he refuzes this amounts to great insult. I agree that there are principles and morals that are universal and the human natural inclination will not find these morals and principles difficult to accept, however the sorrounding realities affect them. So it is not the morals that are decided by humans themselves, but the humans have the choise to accept them or not. It is the fact that the morals can be distorted that makes the difference between the absolute state of the morals and the conditioned state of the afair. However this does not constitute birth of new morals. This much I hope we agree.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-13-2007, 12:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
....
Whatever the case, this makes it clear that the morals are derived by humans themselves. So you might take the position that morals are not from God but at the same time you should consider that they are also not defined and originated by men. Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!

(I thank you for the forward discussion we are having without any anger or misunderstanding.)
Im al little confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

As for why do people have similar morals?
Well its pretty basic, those morals typically aid in social groups.
Not killing others or stealing from, or raping or many of the other "common morals" in those groups provide a basic security.
Reply

Gator
05-13-2007, 04:48 AM
Re: Sunnih

No doubt that morality is beneficial to societies.

OK.

But there are societies that do not see such as morals rather the opposite.

You are brining a lot of moral assumptions here. Your foregoing example did not include either of the two actions I indicated (non-condoned killing, indiscriminant rape). So I don’t know what you mean

There are tribes that as a sign of respect for the guest offer their wife to him and if he refuzes this amounts to great insult.

And where exactly are these tribes? (bow chicka bow bow…I apologize in advance for that) Given the fact that this would inhibit the original tribes’ ability to pass on its genes I can see why they are so scarce. Though I’m sure swingers have existed in every age.

I agree that there are principles and morals that are universal and the human natural inclination will not find these morals and principles difficult to accept, however the sorrounding realities affect them.

Its not the moral themselves that I am saying are universal, just some of the circumstances that give rise to them. I’m sure if there existed circumstances for a society to thrive for many generations while accepting wholesale ramdom killings, that society would have been ok with that.

So it is not the morals that are decided by humans themselves, but the humans have the choise to accept them or not.

My point is that there are no initial morals, just those that have been found to benefit survival to a significant degree. This is where we disagree most I think.

It is the fact that the morals can be distorted that makes the difference between the absolute state of the morals and the conditioned state of the afair.

Again, here is where we disagree. I believe there is no state of absolute morals.

However this does not constitute birth of new morals. This much I hope we agree.

I think we disagree a few steps back so I don’t think I can answer this as I believe there are really no base morals. Thanks for the reply and discussion.
Reply

Sunnih
05-13-2007, 12:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
Re: Sunnih

No doubt that morality is beneficial to societies.

OK.

But there are societies that do not see such as morals rather the opposite.

You are brining a lot of moral assumptions here. Your foregoing example did not include either of the two actions I indicated (non-condoned killing, indiscriminant rape). So I don’t know what you mean

There are tribes that as a sign of respect for the guest offer their wife to him and if he refuzes this amounts to great insult.

And where exactly are these tribes? (bow chicka bow bow…I apologize in advance for that) Given the fact that this would inhibit the original tribes’ ability to pass on its genes I can see why they are so scarce. Though I’m sure swingers have existed in every age.

I agree that there are principles and morals that are universal and the human natural inclination will not find these morals and principles difficult to accept, however the sorrounding realities affect them.

Its not the moral themselves that I am saying are universal, just some of the circumstances that give rise to them. I’m sure if there existed circumstances for a society to thrive for many generations while accepting wholesale ramdom killings, that society would have been ok with that.

So it is not the morals that are decided by humans themselves, but the humans have the choise to accept them or not.

My point is that there are no initial morals, just those that have been found to benefit survival to a significant degree. This is where we disagree most I think.

It is the fact that the morals can be distorted that makes the difference between the absolute state of the morals and the conditioned state of the afair.

Again, here is where we disagree. I believe there is no state of absolute morals.

However this does not constitute birth of new morals. This much I hope we agree.

I think we disagree a few steps back so I don’t think I can answer this as I believe there are really no base morals. Thanks for the reply and discussion.
Thank you for your reply.

Now: I am stopping at the points that you have highlited as differences and disagreements between us so as to be straight forward and strait to the point.

You said: Its not the moral themselves that I am saying are universal, just some of the circumstances that give rise to them.

I say: If for the sake of argument I was to accept such argument, then even then this would be only the larger scale panorama in a society as a hole. However this is false with regards to the individuals within this same society. Although the circumstances gave rise to these morals and the circumstances demanded from each and everyone from the individuals of this society, it is not a few who go against these morals that the circumstances dictated.

So for example, in a Socialist society, the values, norms and morals of socialism became the norm and standart of that society. However a large group of people did not embrace these values, norms and morals. This, notwithstanding the danger they put themselves in and most of them where killed, others were expelled and dislocated and so on and so forth. Although this was a precedent for those who came after them, this did not stop the rest of them from rebeling against such values, noerms and morals. So here we have a society with the circumstances giving rise to a code of morals and some embraced them while others did not.

This shows that circumstances affect the morals and give rise to responses of course, however this response to this circumstances was guided by the already embodied morals within these individuals. So even the reaction itself to what the circumstances give rise, is nothing else but originating from the already embodied morals but affected and catalysed by the circumstances and what those imply.

You said: I’m sure if there existed circumstances for a society to thrive for many generations while accepting wholesale ramdom killings, that society would have been ok with that.

I say: There again, the example of the socialist society is testimony in and of itself that this is not the case as the society itself rose against such code of values, norms and morals and even now that the society has changed still there is nostalgia for some of those values, norms and morals. This is further proof for what I said.

You said: My point is that there are no initial morals, just those that have been found to benefit survival to a significant degree. This is where we disagree most I think.

I say: Indeed it is where we disagree most. Again the benefit of the survival to a great degree in the socialist society or any dictatorship for that matter, necessitates compliance and embracement of the values, norms and morals of the society. However historically this has never been the case in absolute. True there are parts of that society that comply with that but this is as I said only shaping and curtailing of the morals themselves embodied within them.

You said: Again, here is where we disagree. I believe there is no state of absolute morals.

I say: As you are an atheist and I am not, we will never stop disagreeing in that. However, if I was to put it differently we might even agree (who knows, right?). If we were to divide morals into theoretical and practical and if we said that the theoretical morals constitute the absolute and perfect morals while the practical morals are those morals that we find in different societies and individuals then here we should agree. However we would dissagree again as to who decides and defines these theoretical morals. So even if we would be able to agree theoretically, still we would disagree practically as the fondamental disagreement between you and me would be the belief in God. So in this respect I do not think that we will ever agree although we agree about most of the morals as needed and necessary for the wellbeing of any society.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Reply

Sunnih
05-13-2007, 12:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Im al little confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

As for why do people have similar morals?
Well its pretty basic, those morals typically aid in social groups.
Not killing others or stealing from, or raping or many of the other "common morals" in those groups provide a basic security.
If you read the reply above it will make clear to you the points in which we agree and disagree.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-13-2007, 01:18 PM
Sunnih,

All you seem to be saying is that people resist change. That they hold onto the moral codes of old a bit when new moral codes try to replace them. That isn't ground shaking really. People have been around for a long long time, so no matter what arbitrary point you pick in history you're going to have some values evolving and changing (unless we go back to cave men, and even they had nonhuman ancestors who likely had moral values).

There are some values that will twist and turn in the wind, and there are other values that have stood fast since the caveman days - like resistence to killing one's children etc. Of course even those base values can be overriden with enough social programming in individuals, but they always seem to come back - empathy and environment demand it.
Reply

Sunnih
05-13-2007, 01:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Sunnih,

All you seem to be saying is that people resist change. That they hold onto the moral codes of old a bit when new moral codes try to replace them. That isn't ground shaking really. People have been around for a long long time, so no matter what arbitrary point you pick in history you're going to have some values evolving and changing (unless we go back to cave men, and even they had nonhuman ancestors who likely had moral values).

There are some values that will twist and turn in the wind, and there are other values that have stood fast since the caveman days - like resistence to killing one's children etc. Of course even those base values can be overriden with enough social programming in individuals, but they always seem to come back - empathy and environment demand it.
Hi.

You have misunderstood my post. If you read my post carefully you will not fail to see the misunderstanding. However as I said at the end of my post we will never agree totally in this matter so I gues it will be a never ending discussion. Thank you for your reply though.
Reply

root
05-13-2007, 06:45 PM
Answer

NO
Reply

czgibson
05-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by zoro
As you probably know, there have been (and continue to be) a huge number of anthropological and archeological studies on the origin of the idea of god. I review a few such studies in my online book at www.zenofzero.net . Here, let me just give a very brief outline, whose goal is to suggest that the link between morality and gods probably came rather late in the development of “the god idea”.
You give a convincing account. I'm sure that the two explanations we've given could work well together - or even that yours is essentially a fuller and more detailed version of the theory that I presented briefly.

If primitive people deified their respected dead elders, it's conceivable that they would do all they could to please them while they ruled from the afterlife, in order that the remaining society could seek protection from crops failing, natural disasters etc. This would surely entail the practice of social customs or morals. So perhaps the original 'gods' were indeed the spirits of dead people known to the tribe. As an efficient enforcer of morality, though, an omnipotent being is hard to beat. Maybe it became necessary for more attributes to be added to the god-concept in order to increase its effectiveness.

Either way, in answer to the poster who asked what I meant by 'psychological truth', I simply mean that it seems blindingly obvious to me that god is a concept invented by humans, that the theory I've outlined gives one possible way that this could have happened, and that belief in god as a supernatural reality is an essentially primitive idea that 21st century humans should discard.

Peace
Reply

Sunnih
05-15-2007, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

I can prove none of this, ....
Peace
I completely agree.
Reply

borboski
05-15-2007, 11:22 PM
Didn't Emperor Akbar do an experiment were he plucked 12 kids, and raised them in isolation, and showed that (of course) none of them had any sort of faith, and yes, they all exercised moral choices.

Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?

And are you saying that people didn't know how to be moral before Muhammed came along? Isn't that just a completely ridiculous idea?
Reply

Sunnih
05-15-2007, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
Didn't Emperor Akbar do an experiment were he plucked 12 kids, and raised them in isolation, and showed that (of course) none of them had any sort of faith, and yes, they all exercised moral choices.

Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?

And are you saying that people didn't know how to be moral before Muhammed came along? Isn't that just a completely ridiculous idea?
First it seems that you either do not read before replying or hatred has blinded you.

The topic at hand is not whether morals were born after the comming of Muhammed but the topic is whether the morals are from God. So I suggest you re-read again then you post your reply.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-16-2007, 12:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
First it seems that you either do not read before replying or hatred has blinded you.

The topic at hand is not whether morals were born after the comming of Muhammed but the topic is whether the morals are from God. So I suggest you re-read again then you post your reply.
I saw nothing in hatred of what he just posted.
I as well as others have shown that morals dont come from any higher being.

If someone can be raised without any religious influence and they can still be what most people would call moral then that should show that we are capable of having morals without god.

Now it may help if you explain what you mean by from god.
Did god implant morals into us? If thats the case then why would god have to tell us what is and isnt moral? It thats the case then did god forget to implant these morals into rapest , murders etc...?

If you ment we cant be moral with a religion that has your god then that has also been shown to be false as there have been millions of other religions that most would say have or had moral teachings. Not to mention the religions out there without gods that still have moral teachings.
Reply

Sunnih
05-16-2007, 12:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I saw nothing in hatred of what he just posted.
I as well as others have shown that morals dont come from any higher being.

If someone can be raised without any religious influence and they can still be what most people would call moral then that should show that we are capable of having morals without god.

Now it may help if you explain what you mean by from god.
Did god implant morals into us? If thats the case then why would god have to tell us what is and isnt moral? It thats the case then did god forget to implant these morals into rapest , murders etc...?

If you ment we cant be moral with a religion that has your god then that has also been shown to be false as there have been millions of other religions that most would say have or had moral teachings. Not to mention the religions out there without gods that still have moral teachings.
Of course you would not see hatred towards islam and muslims as such a thing is in accordance with your views and oh morals as well.

It is really amazing how you go on about morals being originated by humans and the theory of how the circumstances and the need to exist dictates these morals while at the same time you as an atheist believe that man has itself in control and everything is initiated by him and nothing is predestined for him and so on.

If this concept is true then tell me: These actions that generate the need for morals are they actions themselves without any moral? What came first the action as an accident and then it was followed by morals or some individual morals guided the person to act in accordance with his need to survive?


and good night.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-16-2007, 04:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Of course you would not see hatred towards islam and muslims as such a thing is in accordance with your views and oh morals as well.
I see no hatered in this responce, perhaps there was something from earlier?

Didn't Emperor Akbar do an experiment were he plucked 12 kids, and raised them in isolation, and showed that (of course) none of them had any sort of faith, and yes, they all exercised moral choices.

Is it really that hard to wrap your head around? perhaps a little rude but not hatred.
And are you saying that people didn't know how to be moral before Muhammed came along? Isn't that just a completely ridiculous idea?

I do however have the ability to see what i would call hatred. Of course our views may differ.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
It is really amazing how you go on about morals being originated by humans and the theory of how the circumstances and the need to exist dictates these morals while at the same time you as an atheist believe that man has itself in control and everything is initiated by him and nothing is predestined for him and so on.
.
Im glad that I amaze you. I have given evidence why i think what i think and it seems to be backed by reality. People with no religion or god influence still act moral and people with tremendous religious influence can still act immoral.
Look at sweden and Japan, these are both roughly countries that do not believe in a god and they as nation are in great shape as are the people over all. Then look at the USA, it is a very religous nation and it has tremendous amount of crime.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
If this concept is true then tell me: These actions that generate the need for morals are they actions themselves without any moral? What came first the action as an accident and then it was followed by morals or some individual morals guided the person to act in accordance with his need to survive?
and good night.

Im not sure i understand you but ill take a wack at it.

We define morals differently, but in general morals are good as opposed to bad actions. Societies have a better chance of survival if they can get along, this is usually done by good actions. Or actions in the best interest of society, thus killling a member of an opposing society might be deemed ok but murdering someone in your own society might be bad.
Likewise stealing from anothe society might be ok but from your own bad.
LIkewise it may be moral to kill an unbeliever of another religion or other belief or ideal but not one of your own.

Many a nation was built on these morals ideas.

Of course for the most part it depends on how you view your society.
I view my society as the world so i find killing for personal gain to be immoral as well as theft.

I guess one thing that might help this discussion is if we can decide on the purpose of morals.
Reply

borboski
05-16-2007, 08:24 AM
There was certainly "no hatred" in my post. Apologies if it was rude, but to be fair, it does look as though this is too difficult for you to wrap your head around, as you completely misunderstood my point!

Perhaps we should explore "moral action" first. The only tenable position you can hold is that regardless of specific actions (having gay sex, leaving your faith, abusing your kids) there are absolute notions of "good" and "bad". I think that's what your're saying - Rev. Al Sharpton makes this point ad naseum in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens - that basically God creates the "framework" for "good" and "bad" - and without that you would just have whoever was most powerful deciding what was good or bad. Which is such a reductionist argument ("most powerful") as to be shameful for an educated man like Al Sharpton.

Now, to me, this is a ridiculous idea as in real life it takes about 10 seconds to think of an example where any action has amiguities. Ok - so killing people is bad? Howabout you have a gun, are 15 yards away from a man about to slit the throat of an innocent 10 year old? And etc, and etc.

But - this point about absolutes, is a completely different point to whether you get your morality from religion - e.g. the institutions, the Koran, etc, and so on. We can show this with the Bible - when the Bible was written homosexuality are condemned, but now we are far less savage in this respect. Similarly when most of the Abrahamic religions arose women were subjugated, and now we see that they are not, and it is good for society and fair.

Could you explain how one gets one's notions of "good" or "bad" actions without absolutes? Because it seems to be that a) this can't be proven to exist, b) this idea offers us no guidance on which specific actions are good or bad, c) imagining, for the sake of the argument, that these "good" and "bad" absolutes didn't exist - what difference would that make to human behaviour? It wouldn't many any difference, would it!

There's a seperate point about evolution - now knowing how mankind evolved - how does one explain the injection of "morals" as opposed to the evolution of different behaviours. The only explanation - to my mind - is akin the big black obelisk in 2001 - or for that matter the creation of a prophet. But then my point remains - what was going on the two weeks before that event? Were people not moral? Are we seriously expected to believe that everyone went "ahhhh, not killing people - what a good idea, cheers, we'll stop that now?". But you can ignore this seperate point for the time being.

Just to clarify once more - you don't need absolutes of "good" and "bad" to be moral, all you need is to believe that other people actually exist, and have feelings, and feel suffering in the same way that you do. Does that make sense?
Reply

borboski
05-16-2007, 08:27 AM
Sorry, the first bold sentence of mine there is meant to read "how do you get your notions of good and bad actions from absolutes?".

E.g. what actual concrete use is this belief - other than a debating trick to prop up your faith?
Reply

aamirsaab
05-16-2007, 09:00 AM
:sl:
Morals are innate; we are naturally uncomfortable in certain situations (murder, a beating etc)

What religion does is reminds us we have these morals and that we have them for a reason.

That's my opinion though.
Reply

Sunnih
05-16-2007, 09:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I see no hatered in this responce, perhaps there was something from earlier?

Didn't Emperor Akbar do an experiment were he plucked 12 kids, and raised them in isolation, and showed that (of course) none of them had any sort of faith, and yes, they all exercised moral choices.

Is it really that hard to wrap your head around? perhaps a little rude but not hatred.
And are you saying that people didn't know how to be moral before Muhammed came along? Isn't that just a completely ridiculous idea?

I do however have the ability to see what i would call hatred. Of course our views may differ.



Im glad that I amaze you. I have given evidence why i think what i think and it seems to be backed by reality. People with no religion or god influence still act moral and people with tremendous religious influence can still act immoral.
Look at sweden and Japan, these are both roughly countries that do not believe in a god and they as nation are in great shape as are the people over all. Then look at the USA, it is a very religous nation and it has tremendous amount of crime.




Im not sure i understand you but ill take a wack at it.

We define morals differently, but in general morals are good as opposed to bad actions. Societies have a better chance of survival if they can get along, this is usually done by good actions. Or actions in the best interest of society, thus killling a member of an opposing society might be deemed ok but murdering someone in your own society might be bad.
Likewise stealing from anothe society might be ok but from your own bad.
LIkewise it may be moral to kill an unbeliever of another religion or other belief or ideal but not one of your own.

Many a nation was built on these morals ideas.

Of course for the most part it depends on how you view your society.
I view my society as the world so i find killing for personal gain to be immoral as well as theft.

I guess one thing that might help this discussion is if we can decide on the purpose of morals.
Like I have said before this situation comes back at whether God exists or not and we will not agree in that. This much we agree upon. Also we do agree that men are in need of morals. To take this matter further we will definitely dissagree. I think we agree on this as well. So I gues each to his own opinion and when we reach the inevitable (death) we will come to find out who was wrong. Shall we leave it at that?
Reply

borboski
05-16-2007, 09:07 PM
Well, I'd like it if you can explain how we get from "absolute morals" to working out, practically, if killing is wrong, or having sex with animals, or growing beards, or eating meat.
Reply

Sunnih
05-16-2007, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
There was certainly "no hatred" in my post. Apologies if it was rude, but to be fair, it does look as though this is too difficult for you to wrap your head around, as you completely misunderstood my point!

Perhaps we should explore "moral action" first. The only tenable position you can hold is that regardless of specific actions (having gay sex, leaving your faith, abusing your kids) there are absolute notions of "good" and "bad". I think that's what your're saying - Rev. Al Sharpton makes this point ad naseum in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens - that basically God creates the "framework" for "good" and "bad" - and without that you would just have whoever was most powerful deciding what was good or bad. Which is such a reductionist argument ("most powerful") as to be shameful for an educated man like Al Sharpton.

Now, to me, this is a ridiculous idea as in real life it takes about 10 seconds to think of an example where any action has amiguities. Ok - so killing people is bad? Howabout you have a gun, are 15 yards away from a man about to slit the throat of an innocent 10 year old? And etc, and etc.

But - this point about absolutes, is a completely different point to whether you get your morality from religion - e.g. the institutions, the Koran, etc, and so on. We can show this with the Bible - when the Bible was written homosexuality are condemned, but now we are far less savage in this respect. Similarly when most of the Abrahamic religions arose women were subjugated, and now we see that they are not, and it is good for society and fair.

Could you explain how one gets one's notions of "good" or "bad" actions without absolutes? Because it seems to be that a) this can't be proven to exist, b) this idea offers us no guidance on which specific actions are good or bad, c) imagining, for the sake of the argument, that these "good" and "bad" absolutes didn't exist - what difference would that make to human behaviour? It wouldn't many any difference, would it!

There's a seperate point about evolution - now knowing how mankind evolved - how does one explain the injection of "morals" as opposed to the evolution of different behaviours. The only explanation - to my mind - is akin the big black obelisk in 2001 - or for that matter the creation of a prophet. But then my point remains - what was going on the two weeks before that event? Were people not moral? Are we seriously expected to believe that everyone went "ahhhh, not killing people - what a good idea, cheers, we'll stop that now?". But you can ignore this seperate point for the time being.

Just to clarify once more - you don't need absolutes of "good" and "bad" to be moral, all you need is to believe that other people actually exist, and have feelings, and feel suffering in the same way that you do. Does that make sense?
First let me say that you are the one that has missunderstood the post. I did not say this is hatred but I said .......that hatred has blinded you. There is a difference between the two phrases. Why I came to that point?

This was the second point and after I mentioned that it seems that you reply without reading the thread the only other conclussion was that hatred has blinded you because the thread does not ask whether morals are formulated by Muhammed or that He was the first to introduce them to the society. You seem to reply just for the sake of replying and any chance to link everything with islam even if the question has nothing to do in specific with it. This is why I said what I said. With the atheists members I had disscused this matter before you wrote your post and none of them said what you said and do you know why? This was not the intention of the thread.

Now: It is indeed to difficult to wrap my head around when you talk about things we are not discussing at all. Had you stopped before mentioning the paragraph about Muhammed, then it would have been normal and I would have replied differently to your post. The way you put it was that the whole "argument" that you brought was in function of your clossing statement. Therefore the whole post goes in that direction. Next time you want the others not to missunderstand your posts, keep in mind what you really intend to express and concentrate on that. I am sure you know that I am not the only one to "missunderstand" your posts in this forum.

You say: Perhaps we should explore "moral action" first.

I say, you have already have jumped the gun as there is a difference between morals (what we are talking about) and moral action. So if you want to start start by morals then jump into moral actions. There is a difference between the two.

You say: The only tenable position you can hold is that regardless of specific actions (having gay sex, leaving your faith, abusing your kids) there are absolute notions of "good" and "bad".

I say: Wrong again. From morals is to speak the truth, not to lie, not to cheat, to enjoy the good and to forbid the evil and so on and so forth. So you must check your deffinitions again.

You say: I think that's what your're saying - Rev. Al Sharpton makes this point ad naseum in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens - that basically God creates the "framework" for "good" and "bad" - and without that you would just have whoever was most powerful deciding what was good or bad. Which is such a reductionist argument ("most powerful") as to be shameful for an educated man like Al Sharpton.

I say: Wrong again as you are already taking your position as a reference point and are "investigating" what you have denounced before you even see the evidence. This is far from realistic and constructive approach to talk about any matter. Just like you say that it is shameful for an educated man, I say that these words are a double edge sword and the same Al Sharpton would say for you.

You say: Now, to me, this is a ridiculous idea as in real life it takes about 10 seconds to think of an example where any action has amiguities. Ok - so killing people is bad? Howabout you have a gun, are 15 yards away from a man about to slit the throat of an innocent 10 year old? And etc, and etc.

I say: Wrong again. As you are taking the conditional circumstances to judge upon the general ones. This is wrong.

You say: But - this point about absolutes, is a completely different point to whether you get your morality from religion - e.g. the institutions, the Koran, etc, and so on. We can show this with the Bible - when the Bible was written homosexuality are condemned, but now we are far less savage in this respect. Similarly when most of the Abrahamic religions arose women were subjugated, and now we see that they are not, and it is good for society and fair.

I say: Wrong again. You are basing your hypothesis on relative factors and on very slipery grounds. All this is objectionable from those who do not believe to take their code of life from religion too. So where is the balance?

You ask: Could you explain how one gets one's notions of "good" or "bad" actions without absolutes?

I say: Is an action considered good or bad before or after is commited?

You continue: Because it seems to be that a) this can't be proven to exist, b) this idea offers us no guidance on which specific actions are good or bad, c) imagining, for the sake of the argument, that these "good" and "bad" absolutes didn't exist - what difference would that make to human behaviour? It wouldn't many any difference, would it! [/B]

I say: Your words as you analize this matter are a proof that what you say is wrong. You are already deciding upon a matter before you even speak about it. Therefore this proves that you have some understanding and a code of judging (thinking, valuating.....etc) which shows that you already are measuring what is being spoken about with your measure stick of wright and wrong. So your words are a fact that there is a discriminating factor ijn this matter as you would immediately comment on the opposite side's position. So your supposition is wrong and baseless. All this can be proven by your own words whether you like it or not.

Now let me ask you a question if you do not mind. Do you believe that man was created by God or do you believe that man is the result of the evolution of a monkey ancestor?
Reply

Sunnih
05-16-2007, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
Sorry, the first bold sentence of mine there is meant to read "how do you get your notions of good and bad actions from absolutes?".

E.g. what actual concrete use is this belief - other than a debating trick to prop up your faith?
No problem. Do you know that something is good before you do it or do you find out that it was good after you did it?
Reply

aamirsaab
05-16-2007, 10:39 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
Well, I'd like it if you can explain how we get from "absolute morals" to working out, practically, if killing is wrong,
Morally and psychologically we know it is wrong to kill. Never once felt that tiny little punch in the gut when you're at a funeral? That's your conscience saying: ''oh crap''

or having sex with animals,
I honestly cannot believe anyone would *want* sexual relations with animals. Though given today's standards, what the hell am I saying. :p


or growing beards, or eating meat.
Cus growing beards makes you look bada$$. Living proof: Sir Alan sugar, George Lucas, Santa?!

Oh and eating meat carries protein.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-16-2007, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Like I have said before this situation comes back at whether God exists or not and we will not agree in that. This much we agree upon. Also we do agree that men are in need of morals. To take this matter further we will definitely dissagree. I think we agree on this as well. So I gues each to his own opinion and when we reach the inevitable (death) we will come to find out who was wrong. Shall we leave it at that?
Lets say a god does exists. I have shown that even if a god does exists we dont need it for us to be moral. If a god gave us morals internally we dont need a religion to tell us what moral is. Of course I personally think the word morality is pretty useless and blurs the issue. I think if we just say right and wrong its easier to explain.

Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action.

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?
What is the purpose of morality?

Thanks
Reply

aamirsaab
05-16-2007, 11:10 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?
We know instinctively what is morally wrong.

What is the purpose of morality?
It reminds us that there are limits/barriers to our actions and that by transgressing those barriers, we/others get hurt.
Reply

Sunnih
05-16-2007, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Lets say a god does exists. I have shown that even if a god does exists we dont need it for us to be moral. If a god gave us morals internally we dont need a religion to tell us what moral is. Of course I personally think the word morality is pretty useless and blurs the issue. I think if we just say right and wrong its easier to explain.

Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action.

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?
What is the purpose of morality?

Thanks
Since you want to continue talking about this thread, then ok lets continue. I will give you my deffinition of morals but since you are the one who is asking to continue talking about this matter, you must be fair to me and allow me to start asking the questions first.

Now, since you believe that man came from monkeys (in rough words), can you please tell me: Did they take with them in their change any morals or did they take nothing. If they took some morals, what kind of morals did they take. If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?

Thanks
Reply

Trumble
05-17-2007, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?
They came into being as the result of mankind starting to live in societies. It was beneficial to do so as co-operation enhanced the chance of survival, offered security and (later) the preservation of property; principally the land necessary to grow crops and herd livestock, and the result of such labours. For a society to function smoothly - or indeed at all - morals, rules, are necessary. Some personal 'freedom' (that to do whatever you like, including the 'immoral') is given up so that society be maintained, and with it the protection and assurance that it offers. The more complex the society, the more complex the 'rules' and the more complex the moral code. No God required.

Rather than 'morals', I think a far more interesting question is where our capacity for compassion came from. The good side of mankind without the rule-book. If you are looking for God, He is there, not writing out lists of rules - they come from people, however they may be dressed up with religious trappings.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-17-2007, 05:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Since you want to continue talking about this thread, then ok lets continue. I will give you my deffinition of morals but since you are the one who is asking to continue talking about this matter, you must be fair to me and allow me to start asking the questions first.

Now, since you believe that man came from monkeys (in rough words), can you please tell me: Did they take with them in their change any morals or did they take nothing. If they took some morals, what kind of morals did they take. If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?

Thanks
Fair? This thread is about morals and where they came from.
PLease answer my question.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-17-2007, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

We know instinctively what is morally wrong.


It reminds us that there are limits/barriers to our actions and that by transgressing those barriers, we/others get hurt.
So it should be easy to tell us what morals are. It should be easy to show the purpose fo morals "i know you gave a bit on it but couldyou expand more."

Personally i think its pretty much a useless word used by people to give justifcation for their points of view. Now good actions and bad actions thats a little more clearer.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 06:57 AM
1. Good morning - I haven't had time to read your replies, but they look like good ones. Just a quick one to say that I'm not under the impression that you believe that Mohammed "invented" morals - my impression is that you believe in absolutes - things like "telling the truth" as being fundamentally good. Like Plato's belief in "essentials" - to some degree you believe that "good" and "evil" actually exist, like a spanner exists. Where as I believe that good and evil exist as concepts in the same way maths and language exists.

2. Just to make absolutely clear, I'm not arguing we should have sex with the animals! Even if they like it!

3. My main point is 'if absolute morals do exist - what use are they? How do we know what they are, and how do we apply them to specific actions?

Now let me ask you a question if you do not mind. Do you believe that man was created by God or do you believe that man is the result of the evolution of a monkey ancestor?
Well you can probably guess my response. It is clear that life evolves (and to say specifically from a monkey kind of reduces the incredible journey). However, it's possible to believe that life evolves, AND that man was created and designed by God, given a "helping hand" as it were. But - to believe solely that man created God, and didn't evolve, requires a form of petulant solipsism, you have to close your eyes and go "lalalalala", "I simply do not care what evidence points towards, I will never change my mind, I am fundamentally close-minded and irrational."

Ok, that's a quick response, I'll admit I haven't read the whole of Sunnih's post, but will tonight, although I must say on scanning it, it seems very critical, claiming that I didn't make myself at all clear. If you read my quoted passages every paragraph can be summarised in one succinct statement, which is as clear writing should be. But I admit I didn't read pages 3 through 9 of this debate.

Cheers!
Reply

aamirsaab
05-17-2007, 09:31 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
So it should be easy to tell us what morals are. It should be easy to show the purpose fo morals "i know you gave a bit on it but couldyou expand more."
It's difficult for me to explain it to the extent I myself know it, but I'll give it a shot.

Personally i think its pretty much a useless word used by people to give justifcation for their points of view. Now good actions and bad actions thats a little more clearer.
Good and bad is relative to the individual e.g it is good for the police to capture thieves, but it is bad for thieves to be caught.

Not only that but these actions are redefined through time, which actually means that there is no good and there is no bad, there is only perception.

Innate Morality i.e what you actually feel when a particular event happens is always stationary; you will always feel uncomfortable at the sight of someone starving or dying or getting killed etc. Though I will admit that one can reduce the intensity of this innate morality due to repression and supression techniques. On the whole however, morality is not perceptive.

Now, here comes the major problem. Certain laws or actions that are called morals are not actually morally based e.g; the selling of cannabis or spitting in public. If anything those laws are based more on ethics rather than morals. (though I do readily accept that spitting in public is not neccessarily seen as a moral issue) Unfortunately, by the time anyone has distinguished this difference it is far too late since people as a society have already accepted it. This links back to the perception of good/bad as mentioned above.

Relating more to the topic: Religions do put emphasis on morals - actual innate morals such as death etc. So morals do not actually come from religions. However, religions do work well with morals and are probably the foundationary levels of certain religions.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-17-2007, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

It's difficult for me to explain it to the extent I myself know it, but I'll give it a shot.


Good and bad is relative to the individual e.g it is good for the police to capture thieves, but it is bad for thieves to be caught.

Not only that but these actions are redefined through time, which actually means that there is no good and there is no bad, there is only perception.

Innate Morality i.e what you actually feel when a particular event happens is always stationary; you will always feel uncomfortable at the sight of someone starving or dying or getting killed etc. Though I will admit that one can reduce the intensity of this innate morality due to repression and supression techniques. On the whole however, morality is not perceptive.

Now, here comes the major problem. Certain laws or actions that are called morals are not actually morally based e.g; the selling of cannabis or spitting in public. If anything those laws are based more on ethics rather than morals. (though I do readily accept that spitting in public is not neccessarily seen as a moral issue) Unfortunately, by the time anyone has distinguished this difference it is far too late since people as a society have already accepted it. This links back to the perception of good/bad as mentioned above.

Relating more to the topic: Religions do put emphasis on morals - actual innate morals such as death etc. So morals do not actually come from religions. However, religions do work well with morals and are probably the foundationary levels of certain religions.
Poking my head back into this thread. Felt compelled to, because this is a rare opportunity indeed, to completely agree with something one of our muslim members has written :) On morality no less.

I would only add that religions, while putting emphasis on some morals, also override or work against others. You've got your basic moral sense, and then you've got religion's modification of it (usually good, sometimes bad).
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-17-2007, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
I don't want to get involved in the meat of the thread, but the underlined statement caught my eye.

I will thus ask, why should Muslims do the same?
Um... because its killing an innocent person. Even if you disagree with their innocence, I'd think it was obvious why others who do see them as innocent find the view repugnant. You've used religion to justify homocide. :skeleton:

The reason I ask is that, if Islam is the right religion then they should go by it, if it teaches the death of apostates then it's logical that they should go by that on the same hand if another religion is right then the followers should go by what they are commanded. That is how I understand it, so the above statement would indicate to me that you think Muslims should do what the Christians done because if Islam teaches death to apostates it's wrong?
This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody. I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power. It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships. All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-17-2007, 04:37 PM




Salaam/peace
format_quote Originally Posted by August

I find it incredibly disturbing that people who leave Islam must fear for their lives.
.
it has been discussed in the forum many times......no death penalty if the ex Muslim does not do any harm to other Muslim or speak nasty things against God.

BTW , Bible tells u to kill the person who mocks God.......( in Lev chapter , most probably ) i heard it from Dr. Zakir Naik & also read about
in Duet that if all citizens worship idols , the whole city should be destryed totally & people must be killed.....

do u find this ''incredibly disturbing'' ?

Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 04:37 PM
Hey Pygoscelis.


And similarly, with a system that can change their rules at anytime anyway - then they're even more of a threat, since no-one knows when the next law will change and they can easily be killed for that.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-17-2007, 04:44 PM




Salaam/peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
.. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).
how come u did not notice a wonderful matter in the story ?? The father did not lie to the son & the son agreed happily & assured dad that , God Willing , u will find me among those who have patience .

What a wonderful teaching....Subhan Allah. The young boy is not afraid of death , he is willing to obey God. How come , u find that sickening ?



This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.

LOL , u interpret everything so negatively. God says in Quran , if u save one innocent life , it is as if u saved the whole mankind. So , a true believer will never kill any innocent person.


Reply

Umar001
05-17-2007, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Um... because its killing an innocent person. Even if you disagree with their innocence, I'd think it was obvious why others who do see them as innocent find the view repugnant. You've used religion to justify homocide. :skeleton:
Well I was asking specifically August, since she spoke on the matter, I normally would have expected your answer and I don't mind your answer, but as I try not to assume, I was asking August for clarification, plus since August if I understand correctly believes in a religion then I thought she would logically take her moral code from there, where as you do not have a religion with a stone cut moral code, I'd expect you to give me the above answer, thank you for your input though :)


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody. I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).
Well to be honest, just as you find it sickening, which is understandable since you don't believe in Islam, I am sure some others in the world would find some of your moral standards sickening.

I would like to ask something though, since you have brought this up, do you think, logically speaking, if there was a God, The Creator and He chose to communicate with us and gave us laws, do you think it would be logical to take our moral standards from there?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power.
Religion can teach that there is a higher being, logic neccesitates that if He is the Creator and All knower who is Good that then we follow Him and turn to Him for our Morals.

And on the same note, someone who might not be in a 'traditional' religion, or who claims not to follow a religion, can be taught obedience to his desires, tot he extent that he can indoctrinate himself to believe that this life is our only life so I should live it up at the cost of others, or he could himself come with a belief that mankind survives only if it fights thus he needs to be the fittest. And what we do find is that morals change from society to society, from people who dont mind sharing their spouses to cannibals in african jungles.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships. All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.
Or you could teach them also that this life is the only life, and that we have to fight to survive in order not to be wiped out by the other race.

Either way bloodshed is on both 'religious' and 'non religious' hands, both of our history is not clean. But its ok you keep basing your morals around your sources and I'll base mine around mine, and since I believe there's a Just and Merciful Being who Knows All, who has Spoken to us in the Past, logic binds me to take my Morals from Him.

Regards,
Eesa
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-17-2007, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
how come u did not notice a wonderful matter in the story ?? The father did not lie to the son & the son agreed happily & assured dad that , God Willing , u will find me among those who have patience .

What a wonderful teaching....Subhan Allah. The young boy is not afraid of death , he is willing to obey God. How come , u find that sickening ?
Suicide bombers are not afraid of death and think they are obeying God too. Suicide bombers are essentially the Abraham and Isaac of this story wrapped into one. And yes, I find them sickening too.

LOL , u interpret everything so negatively. God says in Quran , if u save one innocent life , it is as if u saved the whole mankind. So , a true believer will never kill any innocent person.
Unless they are the head of an Islamic state? Or for other reasons their dogma tells them to kill people for. The bible tells you to not suffer witches to live, and stone pretty much everybody. A true believer in that would be truly frightening.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-17-2007, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
I would like to ask something though, since you have brought this up, do you think, logically speaking, if there was a God, The Creator and He chose to communicate with us and gave us laws, do you think it would be logical to take our moral standards from there?
No. That isn't morality. That is obedience. Taking your moral values from external commandment is bare obedience, and nothing else. Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense.

Religion can teach that there is a higher being, logic neccesitates that if He is the Creator and All knower who is Good that then we follow Him and turn to Him for our Morals.
Logic doesn't neccesitate that at all. All there being a creator or all powerful being establishes is that there is a creator or all powerful being. It says nothing about the moral sense of that being. The being could even conceptually be imoral, or more likely, amoral.

to the extent that he can indoctrinate himself to believe that this life is our only life so I should live it up at the cost of others, or he could himself come with a belief that mankind survives only if it fights thus he needs to be the fittest. And what we do find is that morals change from society to society, from people who dont mind sharing their spouses to cannibals in african jungles.
This is true. There are other means of overcoming ones sense of morality for selfish gain. Sometimes it is done for misunderstandings or fear (your example of killing them because they are coming to get us). Other times it is done for pure selfishness, but in that case only a pure psychopath wouldn't need some sort of justification and rationalization - a painful process, made less so by religion.

You've got other indoctrinations, like racism, nationalism, etc, but religion is the best. It comes with a system to maintain adherence (fear of hell, even murder in some cases as here noted) that are lesser or absent in others. That isn't to downplay the dangers of racism and nationalism though.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 06:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Suicide bombers are not afraid of death and think they are obeying God too. Suicide bombers are essentially the Abraham and Isaac of this story wrapped into one. And yes, I find them sickening too.

Guess what the ending of the narrative was? He never got killed, and this was an order by God and simply a test on Abraham's sincerety - God wouldn't benefit at all if his son was sacrificed. Therefore the argument you put forward is weak.


Unless they are the head of an Islamic state? Or for other reasons their dogma tells them to kill people for. The bible tells you to not suffer witches to live, and stone pretty much everybody. A true believer in that would be truly frightening.

Again - if you had a system which was much better and perfect, your point would be worth some value, yet it's not. Therefore the same can be said about the system which you're trying to use as a criterion.



Regards.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-17-2007, 06:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Guess what the ending of the narrative was? He never got killed. Therefore the argument you put forward is weak.
That he was spared in the end only shows that God wanted to test Abraham and Isaac to see if they'd go through with it rather than actually make them go through with it. The moral matter is not effected by that. It would be like a suicide bomber agreeing and preparing to do his thing, and then being told at the last minute not to.

Again - if you had a system which was much better and perfect, your point would be worth some value, yet it's not. Therefore the same can be said about the system which you're trying to use as a criterion.
Here is a system that is much better - the exact same system minus the killing people part.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 06:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That he was spared in the end only shows that God wanted to test Abraham and Isaac to see if they'd go through with it rather than actually make them go through with it. The moral matter is not effected by that. It would be like a suicide bomber agreeing and preparing to do his thing, and then being told at the last minute not to.
Therefore he never killed himself (the suicide bomber or Abraham's son), which is the main thing we're discussing.


Here is a system that is much better - the exact same system minus the killing people part.

There's the problem, who decides when the death penalty should be applied within the US? And who's to say that it wont change at any time when the person isn't aware of it? Will they have the excuse to say that "i didn't know?"

I'll quote sister PurestAmbrosia:


format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
in contrast to the thread... I thought I'd post what happens when you are caught spying as imposed by the laws of the civilized U.S ... Apparently "attempting to transmit govt secrets, is as bad as betraying your allegiance to G-D--- Gasp!


"The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman under section 2 of the Espionage Act, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense."

The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into anti-American activities by U.S. citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, the Rosenbergs denied the espionage charges even as they faced the electric chair.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...enb/ROSENB.HTM


Therefore it's not perfect at all, infact it's even more dangerous than religion. Since the person isn't given a second chance, whereas in Islaam the person has the right to mend their ways, repent and even ask for information to clear up their misunderstandings.

Whereas in the US, if you say i'm sorry, well that isn't enough. And even if you deny the fact that you did the act - you don't have a chance to turn back. Whereas in Islaam - the punishment is only applied if the person makes their apostasy public.


So in reality - Islaam is much more relaxed, safer and perfect. :)




Regards.
Reply

Umar001
05-17-2007, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No. That isn't morality. That is obedience. Taking your moral values from external commandment is bare obedience, and nothing else. Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense.
Well from my understanding, which might be wrong thus hendering our whole conversation, morals are something which we only have due to, mainly, our outside influences, thus a baby who is brought up in cannibalism is able to find that morally ok, where as a person brought up in a conservative house would find it haunting to let's say partake in public nudity.

So it was from that understanding that I said what I said, that my morals are a product of my upbringing, my parents and family and society influencing them most. If that is the case then I see no problem in adapting morals.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Logic doesn't neccesitate that at all. All there being a creator or all powerful being establishes is that there is a creator or all powerful being. It says nothing about the moral sense of that being. The being could even conceptually be imoral, or more likely, amoral.
But if we take the example that this God is a Just God, All knowing, and Merciful, then Morality is to be expected, would you in that case then use His Teachings as a scale?


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is true. There are other means of overcoming ones sense of morality for selfish gain. Sometimes it is done for misunderstandings or fear (your example of killing them because they are coming to get us). Other times it is done for pure selfishness, but in that case only a pure psychopath wouldn't need some sort of justification and rationalization - a painful process, made less so by religion.
Well then Morals would be shifting constantly, thus, what you might percieve as someone trying to overcome his morals for selfish gain, might actually be someone who has been given those morals by those around him, thus a cannibal, is not being selfish but only acting on the level of morals he knows, to presume your morals are better than his or anyones is guesswork, unless you believe your morals come from a greater source.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You've got other indoctrinations, like racism, nationalism, etc, but religion is the best. It comes with a system to maintain adherence (fear of hell, even murder in some cases as here noted) that are lesser or absent in others. That isn't to downplay the dangers of racism and nationalism though.
I doubt religion is the best, because, well then again it differs from religion to religion, but ideologies can be just as bad, for example the belief that we are animals combined with this life being the only life combined that theres no true accountability combined with a survivalist mentality, would equal 'breeding restrictions' on the less inteligent, no compassion for killing 'lesser/weaker species' and would breed the opitomy of selfishness specially since theres no coming to account.

I think both can be as bad as each other. Religion can be a good one but also at the same time non conventional religion can be an amazing one too. Both have their supposed negative and positives.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 10:07 PM
Hmm... I must say, I joined this forum in a spirit of open learning, but I'm already becoming disappointed. Most of my posts have been misinterpreted, I'm accused of not making my points clearly, and people refuse to debate points. People seem to draw conclusions that don't follow any sort of rational logic - take the conclusion in one of the posts below:
So in reality - Islaam is much more relaxed, safer and perfect.
No - read your response - you haven't demonstrated this point.

But this takes the biscuit...
how come u did not notice a wonderful matter in the story ?? The father did not lie to the son & the son agreed happily & assured dad that , God Willing , u will find me among those who have patience . What a wonderful teaching....Subhan Allah. The young boy is not afraid of death , he is willing to obey God. How come , u find that sickening ?
I'm absolutely staggered that a sensible person would say this. In fact, I'm terrified. Please. Just read the story for yourself (some parts cut for brevity):

SARAH gave birth to a son, named Isaac. Abraham loved this son very much, and the Lord wished to see whether he loved his son more than God. When the boy had grown up, the Lord said to Abraham: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."

Abraham instantly arose, and by night saddled his ass, taking with him two young men and Isaac his son. On the third day he came in sight of [the place] where he was to sacrifice his son; and he said to his servants: "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you."

Then he took the wood for the holocaust and laid it upon the shoulders of Isaac. He himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. As they went along Isaac said: "Father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went on together.

When they reached the top of the mountain, Abraham erected an altar, placed the wood upon it, bound his son and laid him on the altar. Then he put forth his hand and took the sword to sacrifice his son. But behold! an angel from heaven cried out to him, saying: "Abraham, Abraham." And he answered: "Here I am." And the angel said: "Lay not your hand upon the boy, neither do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, and have not spared your only-begotten son for My sake."
In what sort of sick, perverted world is this story supposed to be inspiring? Let's imagine this tawdry little parable is real, and imagine that poor child. Seriously, just for a second close you eyes and consider what it must have been like. This poor boy's **** of a father LIES to him, telling him that they are going for a fun camping weeking together. Then he says the pair of them are going off to worship together. Look how the Bible tells us that Isaac cries "Father!" - is he worried, or excited, or pleased that he and his dad are having this private moment together? No matter, his pathetic father tells us "God himself will provide the lamb", knowing full well what he plans to do.

Then he BOUND his son. Imagine how petrifying it would be if you own father tied you up. And why would you tie someone up? In case they struggled? Have you ever been tied up against your will? I haven't. I don't think I'd like it.

But then your father places you an altar, and then he takes out a SWORD, and he raises the sword! You can see in his eyes that he is prepared to kill you. Just imagine seeing your father's eyes, his arm, knowing that he'd lied to you, this man you trust, and love, and here he is tying you up and standing above you about to cut and main you.

I don't think the Bible bears any relation to whether or not there is a God - but if someone showed me that the God of the Old Testament existed - it wouldn't matter. If there is any proof that morality doesn't come from religion - it is that I would still choose not to follow such a God - because such a God is a despicable, cruel creature, and my own moral views put His to shame.

And you, Muslim Women, should be ashamed for taking pleasure in what can only be described as the cohertion and physical and psychological torture of an innocent young child. For shame. As Joseph Welch said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 10:09 PM
erm.. borborski, who said we believe in the bible version, and who said we believe the bible is authentic? :?



This is from the Qur'an:

“So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy.

And, when he (his son) was old enough to walk with him [i.e. a teen], he said: ‘O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you (offering you in sacrifice to Allaah). So look what you think!’ He said: ‘O my father! Do that which you are commanded, In sha’ Allaah (if Allaah wills), you shall find me of As-Saabiroon (the patient).’

Then, when they had both submitted themselves (to the Will of Allaah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (or on the side of his forehead for slaughtering);

We called out to him: ‘O Ibraaheem!

You have fulfilled the dream!’ Verily, thus do We reward the Muhsinoon (good-doers).

Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial.

And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice (i.e. a ram)”

[Qur'aan al-Saffaat 37:101-107]

And remember that it's part of forum rules to not insult/attack any of the Prophets of God;
No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. This includes, but is not limited to attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and companions, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present. While some may complain that there is "freedom of speech" please remember this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam. What is allowed in speech is determined by the Admin and not the member. 20% warning


Thankyou.

Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 10:25 PM
No one said that anyone believed the bible version of it. My post doesn't imply that anyone did. However, as my post sets out, Muslim Woman said that the story is "wonderful", "wonderful teaching" and asked "what is sickening". Why do you think that my post implies that?

I've noticed that in my post I say Muslim Women not Woman, obviously I'm referring to the poster, and not all muslim women.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 10:29 PM
She doesn't need to feel ashamed since the story isn't evil, and he wasn't killed anyway since it was all a trial. :) It showed his dedication to Allaah however. So there's nothing to be ashamed/embarrassed about at all.


Regards.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 10:33 PM
A-ha, I didn't realise that Abraham was a prophet of God - I see you've edited the post. Apologies if I cause anyone offence. One of the things I find very strange is that Muslim people think that words matter, but fair enough, different cultures and all.

Nor did I realise that there is a different account in the Koran. But I would point out that it is absolutely clear that Muslim Woman is referring to the account in the Bible version. Maybe she didn't mean to say this, but it is absolutely what she says. She even quotes the relevant text - sorry to be pedantic.

From my point of view the version in the Koran is possibly even more disturbing, as this child (how old is he supposed to be?) has effectively been brainwashed to give up his valuable life. I don't know what you think about assisted suicide, but I'm guessing that most reasonable muslims don't think that very young children should be commited to execute themselves, even if they say that God has told them to.

I mean when I was a lad if my dad told me that he had seen in a dream that he was going to take a knife and plunge it through my skin into my body, once, twice, thrice until I were dead, I would have told him to get knotted, then told my mum, who would have informed the police.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 10:35 PM
So you to think that in the Bible version - it doesn't matter what degree of suffering was caused by the child - you think this doesn't actually count because he was executed?

If you had a child would you bind him and then demonstrate that you were going to kill him? I sincerly hope that you would be embarassed about that, or I suggest that you don't have children.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 10:36 PM
Wasn't executed I mean.

Can I edit posts here? I can't work it out.

Nighty night.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Aha! i edited my post. So kool init?


It's mentioned that he was a teen, and we know that the dreams of the Prophets are true and a form of revelation from Allaah.

Sis Muslim Woman believes in the Qur'an since this version is authentic, unlike the biblical version. And since she's muslim - she knows that this is the truth. :)


And your continuous attacking won't get you nowhere, since the main concepts explained well - that he never sacrificed him. Therefore the argument you put forward about God being evil is fruitless, since it's God Himself who stopped it from occuring. :)



Regards.
Reply

borboski
05-17-2007, 11:03 PM
How do you do this magical act of editing!!!?

Again - I wasn't making an argument about the existence of God, you can see that the poster in question is commenting on someone's feelings about the account in the Bible. You can tell this because she quotes them. I wonder that maybe this person just isn't aware of the Biblical account, she would have to confirm this. But I hope that she does read this, because in most mainstream social situations to say that one thinks the Biblical story of Abraham is "wonderful" marks you out as an utter savage.

Obviously, most Christians don't think the Old Testament is the literal word of God, they accept that it's mostly mythology written by people thousands of years ago, who were trying to explain things like creation which they didn't have the techonological ability to understand.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-17-2007, 11:05 PM
Okay, thanks for the clarification. :)


By the way, you'll be able to edit your posts once you reach 50 posts, you'll get there soon insha Allaah (God willing.)



Peace.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Therefore he never killed himself (the suicide bomber or Abraham's son), which is the main thing we're discussing.
No, the main thing we are talking about here isn't the ends but the intentions and motivations - the morality. The suicide bomber that gets called off but WAS going to commit the act is demonstrating his brainwashed lack of empathy for his victims. Same with the Abraham and Isaac story.

There's the problem, who decides when the death penalty should be applied within the US? And who's to say that it wont change at any time when the person isn't aware of it? Will they have the excuse to say that "i didn't know?"
I don't support the death penalty in any case, but even amongst those who do, it is never as arbitrary as you seem to be implying. You get the death penalty for killing others or putting them in grave danger. You don't get the death penalty for jaywalking - and if you did it would be immoral and most folks would realize that (though they may fear the regime too much to challenge it). Even when applying the death penalty for murder one still may hesitate due to an inate sense of empathy.

The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into anti-American activities by U.S. citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, the Rosenbergs denied the espionage charges even as they faced the electric chair.
McCarthyism was nationalism combined with fear of an enemy (Russia) who was demonized. If you look at the rhetoric of the time you will find frequent, indeed fanatic use of religion to rationalize it all. This was the period when "In God we Trust" was put on the money and "under god" was put in the pledge of allegiance.

I'd like to address the recurring theme in here that killing apostates is the equivalent of treason charges and executions in the US. This is a bad analogy. People are charged with treason in the US for giving state military secrets to enemies, thus endangering the safety of the people. People are not charged with treason for simply renouncing their citizenship, or even for encouraging others to do likewise. If somebody from Maine decides he prefers Canada and applies for Canadian citizinship and gives up US citizenship, the US military isn't going to hunt him down and kill him. They won't even if he encourages others to do the same.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 01:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Well from my understanding, which might be wrong thus hendering our whole conversation, morals are something which we only have due to, mainly, our outside influences, thus a baby who is brought up in cannibalism is able to find that morally ok, where as a person brought up in a conservative house would find it haunting to let's say partake in public nudity.
Morality is more than indoctrination, which is what I think you are refering to. It is true that the conservative family is indoctrined into the nudity taboo and there isn't much else going on morally speaking, but the canibal child has to fight against his sense of empathy and compassion to go and kill people and eat them with his parents. True, indoctrination CAN overcome empathy, but it takes some doing (more indoctrination than the shame of body family), and usually that doing involves religion.

So it was from that understanding that I said what I said, that my morals are a product of my upbringing, my parents and family and society influencing them most. If that is the case then I see no problem in adapting morals.
Your morals are more than just the product of your upbringing, else why would there be core moral values that are universal to all societies? Empathy (seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain - this has even been tracked to specific mirror neurons in the brain) also plays a role. Self interest and preservation also dictates that certain things will more often be found imoral than others in any given society.

Morality is more than bare obedience. It scares me to think that some people have no moral compass other than to obey and think and feel whatever an authority figure tells them (whether or not that figure is a perceived god).
I believe that people who claim to lack moral compass absent God (the ones who claim atheists can't be moral for example - and no I'm not saying this applies to anybody in this thread specifically) actually DO have such a moral compass but have just burried it so deep below religious indoctrination that they don't recognize its there.

But if we take the example that this God is a Just God, All knowing, and Merciful, then Morality is to be expected, would you in that case then use His Teachings as a scale?
I may, but not when he starts demanding things that fly directly against my moral sense. For example, a God or leader who tells me to Kill you because you have brown eyes instead of blue eyes, isn't one I would continue to consider moral (especially if I myself have brown eyes). Morality would trump obedience. Only with heavy indoctrination and propaganda (and I'd expect religion to be used as a big part of it (as it was in nazi germany)) coupled with threats to my personal safety may I be brought back in line and do the deed.

Well then Morals would be shifting constantly, thus, what you might percieve as someone trying to overcome his morals for selfish gain, might actually be someone who has been given those morals by those around him, thus a cannibal, is not being selfish but only acting on the level of morals he knows, to presume your morals are better than his or anyones is guesswork, unless you believe your morals come from a greater source.
You don't need to believe that morals come from a creator being to realize that there are core moral values that are universal. Self preservation and empathy plainly dictate that they will exist.

I doubt religion is the best, because, well then again it differs from religion to religion, but ideologies can be just as bad
Ideologies can be bad. Nationalism is one of the worst. But even it does not approach the power of religion. Religion is the only one that has people self monitoring themselves to such a degree that they literally believe they are being watched at all times by an all powerful being who will punish them severely if they stray from their directives.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 01:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
How do you do this magical act of editing!!!?
:D

I remember asking the exact same question, and being frustrated that I couldn't edit my posts. A cruel initiation ritual I suppose it could be called. You, my dear borboski, are being hazed.

Now... where is that can of shaving cream?
Reply

Joe98
05-18-2007, 03:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

BTW , Bible tells u to kill the person who mocks God.......

do u find this incredibly disturbing

I don’t find it disturbing. Christians don’t find it disturbing.

I challenge you to find a newspaper article in the 20th or 21st century, where Christians declare that a person should be killed for mocking God. There are none.

Now I challenge you to find a newspaper article in the 21st century where Muslims call for death for apostasy. There are plenty.

Westerners and Christians find most punishments prescribed in the Bible as barbaric.

Barbaric punishment is against the philosophy of Christianity.

-
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 05:12 AM
Joe, you gotta respect the muslims for being straightforward and honest though. The Christians jettisoned the majority of the bible a long while ago, yet still kling to the book and claim to believe it. Muslims actually believe what they claim to. As disturbing as some of their views are, the honesty is refreshing.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-18-2007, 08:42 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No, the main thing we are talking about here isn't the ends but the intentions and motivations - the morality. The suicide bomber that gets called off but WAS going to commit the act is demonstrating his brainwashed lack of empathy for his victims. Same with the Abraham and Isaac story.
The concept of the Abraham and Isaac story was that God will test us all.


Even when applying the death penalty for murder one still may hesitate due to an inate sense of empathy.
Indeed. However, as humans we have to have justice or we'll all go around killing everyone, unchecked and unchallenged since we have the 'empathy' card to play.


I'd like to address the recurring theme in here that killing apostates is the equivalent of treason charges and executions in the US. This is a bad analogy. People are charged with treason in the US for giving state military secrets to enemies, thus endangering the safety of the people. People are not charged with treason for simply renouncing their citizenship, or even for encouraging others to do likewise. If somebody from Maine decides he prefers Canada and applies for Canadian citizinship and gives up US citizenship, the US military isn't going to hunt him down and kill him. They won't even if he encourages others to do the same.
The apostacy ruling is not that simple. It only applies in certain cases e.g. there were many apostacies at the time of the Prophet [saw] where the death penalty was only issued to those who were true traitors (such as those who would give military secrets to enemies etc). Not every apostate was given the death penalty. Unfortunately in certain ''muslim'' countries nowadays, this ruling has been completely missunderstood resulting in oppression and tyranny.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Morality is more than indoctrination, which is what I think you are refering to. It is true that the conservative family is indoctrined into the nudity taboo and there isn't much else going on morally speaking, but the canibal child has to fight against his sense of empathy and compassion to go and kill people and eat them with his parents.
The canibal child does what he has to do to survive. It is possible to go against our morality because we have free will. Morality doesn't restrcit you, it is merely a barrier that sometimes we have to cross.

It's all about maintaing a balance though and that is what religion is for.

You don't need to believe that morals come from a creator being to realize that there are core moral values that are universal. Self preservation and empathy plainly dictate that they will exist.
This is true and backs up what was in my previous post (which you did agree to :D)

Ideologies can be bad. Nationalism is one of the worst. But even it does not approach the power of religion.
A knife is a powerful tool, depending on it's user. The same with religion.

Religion is the only one that has people self monitoring themselves to such a degree that they literally believe they are being watched at all times by an all powerful being who will punish them severely if they stray from their directives.
That maybe true for certain followers. But it is not for me; I do what I feel is correct and just (namely being the token level-headed, sarcastic muslim of all groups...:D), Punishment doesn't come into it as far as I am concerned.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
....Muslims actually believe what they claim to.
Yes indeed we do and we'll stick by it until the end :).

As disturbing as some of their views are, the honesty is refreshing.
As is our breath :p

In anycase, thank you for reading. I look forward to your/any response.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-18-2007, 09:15 AM




Salaam/peace
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
I don’t find it disturbing. Christians don’t find it disturbing.-
---Are u sure Christians don't find it disturbing ?


I challenge you to find a newspaper article ...
--i m not talking about newspaper but the holy book . Pl. confirm me , are u sure , Christians belive all citizens of a city must be killed for idol worshipping ?



Westerners and Christians find most punishments prescribed in the Bible as barbaric.
--what are trying to say ....typo error ?????? If killing of all citizens is not disturbing to u & Christians , then how & why other punishment in Bible are babaric ????

Barbaric punishment is against the philosophy of Christianity.

---oh , why no one is telling this to Bush ? Is he not a Chrisitian ?


Pygoscelis : As disturbing as some of their views are, the honesty is refreshing
---can u describe the disturbing views ?




Reply

Muslim Woman
05-18-2007, 09:38 AM




Salaam/peace


format_quote Originally Posted by borboski


And you, Muslim Women, should be ashamed for taking pleasure in what can only be described as the cohertion and physical and psychological torture of an innocent young child.
LOL , should i jump in to the sea ??? :giggling:


Prophet Ismail ( Isaac was not born at that time --pbut ) was a believer & he knew that the command came from God Almighty. So , he bravely said he will obey God.


My dad is not a Prophet (p) & he knows it very well ; so he won't do such thing Insha Allah . Even if he asks me to do so , i will run , run & run away from him because my faith is not that strong . U see the difference / moral now ? They submitted fully to God....the son even thrown stones to Satan ( devil ) when he tried to misguided him.


Also remember , the father did not sacrifise for any earthy benefit....God did not tell him , u will be rich or young forever if u kill ur son etc. Pl. read Quran & u will find the beauty / moral of the story ( God Willing ).

Now , pl. try to learn lessons from the lives of Prophets (pbut ). God tested them & they passed successfully. Even when a Prophet (p) was a young boy , he showed full submission to God .......Alhamdulillah ( praise be to God only ).


Suicide bombers r not Prophets , they are not supposed to get any revelation from God. They are killing innocent lives & thus disobeying God's commands .....how can u compare them with 2 blessed Prophets (pbut) ?


Muslims all over the world remember the great sacrifise of the Prophets . They go to Saudi Arabia , visit the places where the incident took place
( sacrifise of ram instead of son , throw stone to devil etc ) , do offer Qurbani :) ---------soooooooooooooooooooo many things are there in that story to learn , won't u try to understand ? :p

Would u like to do a virtual tour there ? here is a link :)

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/H/hajj

Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 05:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The concept of the Abraham and Isaac story was that God will test us all.
Test us like a mobster tests a new recruit maybe. Prove your allegiance Abe. Kill your son for us. Kill him now. psst don't tell him the gun isn't loaded.

Indeed. However, as humans we have to have justice or we'll all go around killing everyone, unchecked and unchallenged since we have the 'empathy' card to play.
Empathy encourages people NOT to kill everyone. You've got it backwards.

The apostacy ruling is not that simple. It only applies in certain cases e.g. there were many apostacies at the time of the Prophet [saw] where the death penalty was only issued to those who were true traitors (such as those who would give military secrets to enemies etc). Not every apostate was given the death penalty. Unfortunately in certain ''muslim'' countries nowadays, this ruling has been completely missunderstood resulting in oppression and tyranny.
It should say to kill people who give military secrets to enemies if it only applies to people who give military secrets to enemies, apostacy would be irrelevant.

The canibal child does what he has to do to survive. It is possible to go against our morality because we have free will. Morality doesn't restrcit you, it is merely a barrier that sometimes we have to cross.
True

It's all about maintaing a balance though and that is what religion is for.
Religion may keep a few otherwise dangerous individuals in check, but more often such individuals will twist their understanding of religion to rationalize their evil acts.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Even if he asks me to do so , i will run , run & run away from him because my faith is not that strong
Glad to hear that your "faith" won't lead you to ritual suicide. Too bad some people's does.

Also remember , the father did not sacrifise for any earthy benefit....God did not tell him , u will be rich or young forever if u kill ur son etc. Pl. read Quran & u will find the beauty / moral of the story ( God Willing ).
Why does it matter if he was bribed with favours in the afterlife? The bare facts are that he was told to kill his son and he was ready to comply. There weren't even any balancing factors - nobody was threatened to die or be hurt if he refused to kill his son. This wasn't a complicated moral decision at all, and he made the wrong choice - one demonstrating blind obedience and a complete lack of morality.

Suicide bombers r not Prophets , they are not supposed to get any revelation from God.
I think some of them may disagree with you on that.

They are killing innocent lives & thus disobeying God's commands
The only difference is that you believe God to have commanded the murder in one case and prohibited it in the other. In both cases an innocent is murdered. This again underscores that this is a matter of mere obedience, flying in the face of morality.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-18-2007, 06:56 PM
:sl:
Thanks for responding

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Test us like a mobster tests a new recruit maybe. Prove your allegiance Abe. Kill your son for us. Kill him now. psst don't tell him the gun isn't loaded.
God was testing Abraham's will (or mens reus) - the test was not about killing his own son but for him to accept that this was a command from God and that Abraham had the mental ability to decide this for himself. Only until he had fully accepted that it was the command of God, and that he himself was ready to act upon it did the test end.


Empathy encourages people NOT to kill everyone. You've got it backwards.
I didn't clarify this well enough, my apologies. What I meant was that if society adopts too much of an empathy towards others we will have the problem I stated before and even worse because the people comitting those actions have nothing to worry about (there is no punishment for doing it so it is fine to do so). God knows this and so has allowed a death penalty in His law in addition to various other laws. It's all to keep mankind in check so that we don't mess everything all up. Unfortunately these laws are not practiced in the way God has told us (e.g. the apostacy ruling) and in fact we have messed it all up so we have massive injustice across the globe, especially in muslim countries.

It should say to kill people who give military secrets to enemies if it only applies to people who give military secrets to enemies, apostacy would be irrelevant.
The ruling is as it is because at that time there were apostates and others who would pretend to be muslims just so that they could hear all the military secrets and then go back to their own camp with that info. Basically, it's for spies and at that time certain apostates commited those actions. Thus, that particular ayat which talks/gives the ruling about the apostate killing is in direct reference to that particular situation. In other words: if an apostate spy (who had learnt of the military secrets) were found, there would be no sin in killing him. Now to my knowledge the ruling was never to kill apostates as a whole, rather certain apostates who were spying on the muslims (to gain military secrets). Unfortunately this ayat has not been fully understood by certain muslim governments, which down right sucks.


Religion may keep a few otherwise dangerous individuals in check, but more often such individuals will twist their understanding of religion to rationalize their evil acts.
Indeed but this is not the fault of religion but of the follower.

May Allah forgive me if I have said anything incorrect.
Reply

Sunnih
05-18-2007, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
They came into being as the result of mankind starting to live in societies. It was beneficial to do so as co-operation enhanced the chance of survival, offered security and (later) the preservation of property; principally the land necessary to grow crops and herd livestock, and the result of such labours. For a society to function smoothly - or indeed at all - morals, rules, are necessary. Some personal 'freedom' (that to do whatever you like, including the 'immoral') is given up so that society be maintained, and with it the protection and assurance that it offers. The more complex the society, the more complex the 'rules' and the more complex the moral code. No God required.

Rather than 'morals', I think a far more interesting question is where our capacity for compassion came from. The good side of mankind without the rule-book. If you are looking for God, He is there, not writing out lists of rules - they come from people, however they may be dressed up with religious trappings.
This is wrong and seeing that you take the position that men were monkeys before, (if you follow this line of reasoning then) you should also understand that they were living in groups and comunities (or call it as you like) where there are also certain rules and morals (if you want to call it like this) such as noit invading others territory and not having intercourse with their own mothers and so on and so forth. Any way these examples that you mention do not show anything that men (if they were monkeys bfore as claimed) brought something not already existing before. Therefore you might want to consider the question again.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-18-2007, 09:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
God was testing Abraham's will (or mens reus) - the test was not about killing his own son but for him to accept that this was a command from God and that Abraham had the mental ability to decide this for himself. Only until he had fully accepted that it was the command of God, and that he himself was ready to act upon it did the test end.
Exactly. God made Abraham weigh the life of his son against his obedience to God. Abraham proved himself to be an obedient hitman.

I didn't clarify this well enough, my apologies. What I meant was that if society adopts too much of an empathy towards others we will have the problem I stated before and even worse because the people comitting those actions have nothing to worry about (there is no punishment for doing it so it is fine to do so).
Well those people doing it would have to lack empathy themselves, and hence be psychopaths. Granted, such people do exist. Note though that we need not kill them to keep them in check, other measures do exist - exile, incarceration, attempts at reprogramming, etc. I'd personally prefer these options unless the person truly has no hope of reform and exile isn't feasible. Even then, I'd hope for a humane execution.

The ruling is as it is because at that time there were apostates and others who would pretend to be muslims just so that they could hear all the military secrets and then go back to their own camp with that info. Basically, it's for spies and at that time certain apostates commited those actions. Thus, that particular ayat which talks/gives the ruling about the apostate killing is in direct reference to that particular situation. In other words: if an apostate spy (who had learnt of the military secrets) were found, there would be no sin in killing him. Now to my knowledge the ruling was never to kill apostates as a whole, rather certain apostates who were spying on the muslims (to gain military secrets). Unfortunately this ayat has not been fully understood by certain muslim governments, which down right sucks.
If this is truly the case (and I question if it is because it hasn't been raised in the apostacy thread even after numerous pages) then I have no problem with it. It is unfortunate that the people you speak of have twisted it to wreak so much evil though.

Indeed but this is not the fault of religion but of the follower.
From my perspective the two are one and the same. Without the follower there is no religion. It exists in his mind and changes as he changes it.
Reply

Sunnih
05-18-2007, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Fair? This thread is about morals and where they came from.
PLease answer my question.
Even you have skiped many questions that I have asked you and have not answered, then to be fair to you I will give you the deffinition of what I hold to comprise morals even though you do not believe in God.

Moral is everything that God has asked to be complied with, has allowed or has incouraged.

Now that I have answered your question, it is time that we return where we were so it is your term to answer my question.
Reply

Sunnih
05-18-2007, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
"I simply do not care what evidence points towards, I will never change my mind, I am fundamentally close-minded and irrational."

Cheers!
Ok fair enough. So what are you trying to establish then?! If you say that we in "this day and age" should not follow the "oppinions" of one man (any prophet you might want to indicate), why in the least should we follow your oppinion that you try to present to us then?! If you do are as you say above and if you do not want us to take your oppinions, then what is your purpose of being here?!

Anyway you deserve to be thanked for your sincerity.
Reply

wilberhum
05-18-2007, 09:25 PM
Male monkeys don’t have sex with there mothers. So monkeys have morals too.

Trumble has it right.

Monkeys will kill monkeys from another group.

Surly we evolved from the same ancestor.
Reply

Sunnih
05-18-2007, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis


This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody. I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power. It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships. All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.
I will only stop at at these points as they attracted my eye and I do not mean to start a debate by it.

You say: This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody.

I say: Killing a person is one of the most major sins in any religion however when the existance of such an individual is a cancer to the society this is acceptable and this is moral too. Not only the religions apply killings of humans. Those who do not believe in God at all do it too whether in individual cases or in societies. It is very strange though that when mass murders happen in the name of democracy, freedom of speach, liberties and so on, this is only a secondary ruling and an exeptional case treated differently. There are found 1001 justifications for these occurances however, it never crosses someones mind to see the reason why God's law applies such.

You say: I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

I say: Are you then 100% against any killing in apsolute? If not what makes the difference in you accepting that ruling in such allowance?!

you say: This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power. It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships.

I say: Is it not just that the killer be killed? Is this not moral? This power that you refere to is not a one sided one but it is balanced and unbiased. So if it is as you say (that it teaches obedience to power), what is the option you offer, dissobedience to power? Where is the difference then?! As for dictatorships, there are two types of dictatorships: one is where the dictator sized power whithout the masses agreeing to it, the other is by voting him/her in office. What you uphold as democracy, in reality is no more than a choise in the election of the dictator/s as after this you have no say whatsoever in any decission taken in your name. Ah, I forgot, when the mandate comes to an end you do have the right to elect another dictator/s. This should make people feel really well.

You say: All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.

I say: No, don't bother. Alla you have to do is convince the people that whoever dissagrees with your agenda is a religious fundamentalist, a terrorist, a radical....and the list goes on and on. In this case you would not need to fly planes into buildings but you can initiate a nuclear attack against those who may be are of the same color of skin as those who fly planes. You do not have to kill apostates, you can kill terrorists and if they where not terrorists, what the hell, they might become terrorists one day right. May be the grannies and todlers can not fly planes but they can crash their weelchairs and buggies into top secret buildings and can provoke revolutions. This would be moral although not necessary very religious right?!
Reply

Sunnih
05-18-2007, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No. That isn't morality. That is obedience. Taking your moral values from external commandment is bare obedience, and nothing else. Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense.

Logic doesn't neccesitate that at all. All there being a creator or all powerful being establishes is that there is a creator or all powerful being. It says nothing about the moral sense of that being. The being could even conceptually be imoral, or more likely, amoral.
Wilful obedience only comes as a result of what it is deemed moral otherwise it is not obedience it is coerssion. Anyway, do you not think that when someones child has a leg infected with gangrene and in acordance with the doctors advice the pearents agree to imputate their child's leg, do you not think that this was donne out of compassion, mercy and care?! If you see an animal dying a slow death while you have a gun in your hand (and of course you know that you will not be arrested) will you not put that animal out of that suffering? Is this not mercy, tenderness, compassion and moral?!
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-19-2007, 01:27 AM




Salaam/peace


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Kill your son for us. Kill him now.


.
So , u believe u r God Almighty ???

:giggling:


Reply

Pygoscelis
05-19-2007, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Not only the religions apply killings of humans. Those who do not believe in God at all do it too whether in individual cases or in societies.
Of course, there are murders not motivated or directed by Gods, but that doesn't make God telling you to kill people any more acceptable. The bare fact is that religion is telling people to kill other people that they would otherwise have no motivation or justification to kill. You can dress that up however you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Are you then 100% against any killing in apsolute? If not what makes the difference in you accepting that ruling in such allowance?!
I find killing allowable in very limited circumstances, such as self defence. Killing people because somebody tells you to and with no explanation, just bare demand, is a whole other matter, even if they are a God.

Is it not just that the killer be killed? Is this not moral?
I'm confused. What are you refering to here? We were talking about God ordering muslims to kill apostates (they haven't killed anybody) and of the story of Abraham and Isaac (God telling Abraham to kill Isaac). Are you now talking about capital punishment?

This power that you refere to is not a one sided one but it is balanced and unbiased. So if it is as you say (that it teaches obedience to power), what is the option you offer, dissobedience to power?
Absolutely! Disobedience to power when power is corrupt and telling you to do imoral things. We are not robots, we are human beings. We should rise up against opressors and unethical dictators, not bow down to them.

What you uphold as democracy, in reality is no more than a choise in the election of the dictator/s as after this you have no say whatsoever in any decission taken in your name. Ah, I forgot, when the mandate comes to an end you do have the right to elect another dictator/s. This should make people feel really well.
Depends on the system you're talking about. In a parliamentary system (UK, Canada, etc), a vote of nonconfidence can knock a prime minister out of power. In the US the president is less accountable, but even in that case there is a constitution that the president has to abide by. I agree that the current US president has been stepping over that boundry and should be held accountable. And as you rightly pointed out regimes can usually only last a set period of time before a free vote. In many countries regimes are also limited in numbers of terms, such as the 2 term limit in the US.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-19-2007, 01:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Wilful obedience only comes as a result of what it is deemed moral otherwise it is not obedience it is coerssion. Anyway, do you not think that when someones child has a leg infected with gangrene and in acordance with the doctors advice the pearents agree to imputate their child's leg, do you not think that this was donne out of compassion, mercy and care?! If you see an animal dying a slow death while you have a gun in your hand (and of course you know that you will not be arrested) will you not put that animal out of that suffering? Is this not mercy, tenderness, compassion and moral?!
What do either your gangrene or hurt animal examples have to do with blind obedience to authority figures? And I mean blind obedience to the point of murdering on demand.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-19-2007, 01:36 AM




Salaam/peace


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Glad to hear that your "faith" won't lead you to ritual suicide. Too bad some people's does.
why u r thinking that my dad is a Prophet & me too ? WE have not got any revealation from our Creator . Why it's so hard to understand ???? :rollseyes


..nobody was threatened to die or be hurt if he refused to kill his son.

--that's the moral of the story .....they did it only for sake of God Almighty .


.....he made the wrong choice - one demonstrating blind obedience and a complete lack of morality.
:enough!:


I think some of them may disagree with you on that.

All Muslims must believe that Muhammed (p) is the seal of the Prophets (pbut)----no new Prophet will come after him. So , if anyone denies it , tell them to bring proof.

Fair enough ???



Reply

ranma1/2
05-19-2007, 01:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Even you have skiped many questions that I have asked you and have not answered, then to be fair to you I will give you the deffinition of what I hold to comprise morals even though you do not believe in God.

Moral is everything that God has asked to be complied with, has allowed or has incouraged.

Now that I have answered your question, it is time that we return where we were so it is your term to answer my question.
Sorry if you felt i have intentionally skipped your questions.
Could you please posts your many questions in one post?
Ill answer them then.

As for you definition, it kinda of scares me.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-19-2007, 01:44 AM




Salaam/peace


format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Surly we evolved from the same ancestor.


Surely we did not :)

Human being are trying to conquer the Universe & the monkeys are climbing on the trees as they did centuries ago....why ???

At least they can try to build a new better home for them ? :p

Reply

Sunnih
05-19-2007, 09:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What do either your gangrene or hurt animal examples have to do with blind obedience to authority figures? And I mean blind obedience to the point of murdering on demand.
This has to do with the principle that you formulated:"Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense"

So the point is that morals comprise compassion as you mention but also comprise other than it therefore you do not take compassion as a judge and by it you measure what is moral and what is not. The examples I mentioned take you aout of the boundaries that you raised. Therefore the principle that if something is not compassionate is not moral. That's all.
Reply

Sunnih
05-19-2007, 09:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Sorry if you felt i have intentionally skipped your questions.
Could you please posts your many questions in one post?
Ill answer them then.

As for you definition, it kinda of scares me.
As for the questions, it does not matter as they have already served their purpose anyway. As for the deffinition of morality that scares you then this is something that belongs to you and you deal with it in your own way. Each of us takes his/her morals from where they are convinced whether this is a divine religion or atheist religion. All of us are religious whether we accept it or not and whether we call it religion or not. Anyway this brings us again back to square one. That is why I said in one of my posts before that this will be a pointless discussion. So to you your religion and to me mine.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-19-2007, 10:23 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Exactly. God made Abraham weigh the life of his son against his obedience to God. Abraham proved himself to be an obedient hitman.
I personally disagree but I am willing to accept that on this occasion the two of us will always interpret this test differently. A stalemate of opinions if you will.


Well those people doing it would have to lack empathy themselves, and hence be psychopaths. Granted, such people do exist. Note though that we need not kill them to keep them in check, other measures do exist - exile, incarceration, attempts at reprogramming, etc. I'd personally prefer these options unless the person truly has no hope of reform and exile isn't feasible. Even then, I'd hope for a humane execution.
I agree. I cannot comment further on the death penaly since I do not have expert knowledge.


From my perspective the two are one and the same. Without the follower there is no religion. It exists in his mind and changes as he changes it.
I accept that one's mindset does change with religion and that it can change people - sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is not. However, can you truly say that without religion we would have no crimes? (I ask this because the information you yourself have provided within this thread has lead me logically to it)

I will leave this for you to decide on yourself as I do not expect an answer. But please do think on it.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-19-2007, 02:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
As for the questions, it does not matter as they have already served their purpose anyway..

So you complain I havent replyed to your questions and now you say it doesnt matter? So why did you complain?


format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Each of us takes his/her morals from where they are convinced whether this is a divine religion or atheist religion..
Im not sure i understand what your saying here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
All of us are religious whether we accept it or not and whether we call it religion or not. Anyway this brings us again back to square one..
Actually no we are not. However we are all atheists to one point or another. I assum you dont believe in Zeus do you? Im not sure how you can think everyone is religous. You have to have a religion to be religous dont you?
"assuming we are using religious in the context of religions and not (im religous about chocolate) "


format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
That is why I said in one of my posts before that this will be a pointless discussion. So to you your religion and to me mine.
I agree that for some poeple this discussion is pointless, however thankfully several people dont think its pointless.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-19-2007, 02:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

..... However, can you truly say that without religion we would have no crimes? (I ask this because the information you yourself have provided within this thread has lead me logically to it)
...
I hardly think there would be no crime, however the biggest problem i see is in power. Evil, greed, selfishness etc... tends to be attracted to it. In religions that create powerbases you tend to see corruption , oppression and other horrible acts often done in the name of god or the religion. Same with politics. If we could only take every corrupt politian, religous lunatic, and lawyer and send them on a spaceship to repopulate another planet we might live ina better planet ;).
Reply

aamirsaab
05-19-2007, 06:52 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I hardly think there would be no crime, however the biggest problem i see is in power. Evil, greed, selfishness etc... tends to be attracted to it.
Valid point, and I do agree to it.

In religions that create powerbases you tend to see corruption , oppression and other horrible acts often done in the name of god or the religion.
I agree. In some cases, the corruption is due to the missuse of religion though.

Same with politics. If we could only take every corrupt politian, religous lunatic, and lawyer and send them on a spaceship to repopulate another planet we might live ina better planet ;).
Not that I disagree with your idea about sending the corrupt into space, the fact remains that humans are fundementally flawed and so will commit crimes; politics and religion are used as blankets to shield themselves (the criminals) from blame.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Nice to have an intelligent conversation - makes a change from refuting ignorant claims made by anit-islamists :D
Reply

borboski
05-19-2007, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Ok fair enough. So what are you trying to establish then?! If you say that we in "this day and age" should not follow the "oppinions" of one man (any prophet you might want to indicate), why in the least should we follow your oppinion that you try to present to us then?! If you do are as you say above and if you do not want us to take your oppinions, then what is your purpose of being here?!

Anyway you deserve to be thanked for your sincerity.
You aren't quoting me there thinking that the statement in the quote marks is my own view, are you?
Reply

Sunnih
05-19-2007, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
So you complain I havent replyed to your questions and now you say it doesnt matter? So why did you complain?



Im not sure i understand what your saying here.


Actually no we are not. However we are all atheists to one point or another. I assum you dont believe in Zeus do you? Im not sure how you can think everyone is religous. You have to have a religion to be religous dont you?
"assuming we are using religious in the context of religions and not (im religous about chocolate) "




I agree that for some poeple this discussion is pointless, however thankfully several people dont think its pointless.
Atheism is a religion whether you call it that or not. Anything to do with the existance or non existance of God is a religion. A religion is not only what people declare as such. In this sense I said your religion.
Reply

Sunnih
05-19-2007, 09:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by borboski
You aren't quoting me there thinking that the statement in the quote marks is my own view, are you?
If you are thinking that I am quoting you verbatim then no I am not. However if you think that I am quoting from your position then yes I am. Enough proof for it are your posts. (By the way I did not mean to offend you, so do not take it that way).
Reply

wilberhum
05-19-2007, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
Atheism is a religion whether you call it that or not. Anything to do with the existance or non existance of God is a religion. A religion is not only what people declare as such. In this sense I said your religion.
It always amazes me when people use there own definition for things.
[PIE]Religion: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.[/PIE]
Not the absents there of.
Do you have any other words that you make up your own definitions for?
Reply

Joe98
05-19-2007, 11:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman;

Christians belive all citizens of a city must be killed for idol worshipping ?

How & why other punishment in Bible are babaric ????


Any barbaric punishment is the Bible is against Christianity and is rejected by Christians.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-19-2007, 11:34 PM





Salaam/peace ,


format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Any barbaric punishment is the Bible is against Christianity and is rejected by Christians.
I would love to hear comments from my Christians bro's & sisters......do they reject their holy book ????

Reply

Trumble
05-19-2007, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Religion: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.

'Making it up' is exactly what all English dictionaries do in the case of 'religion', and they have yet to get it right. Religion is a terribly difficult thing to define. The definition you quote shows the usual Western theist bias; there is no requirement for "worship of a deity or deities" or belief in divine involvement in anything.

The only attempt that comes close is Ninian Smart's seven part definition;

Experience - "Religious experience," very non-ordinary

Social - More than one person claiming Experience

Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants

Dogma - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system

Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs

Ritual - Repeated access to Experience

Material - Material manifestation for participants


I know this is probably contradicting myself but while I agree with you that atheism is not a religion, I suspect I might well agree with some definitions of 'religion' that would include it as one.


EDIT: Actually, after having re-read your definition rather more carefully than I did before, wouldn't it actually include atheism? Isn't atheism a 'belief and opinion' "concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life"? It says nothing about beliefs in those things, just concerning them. That would include "they don't exist".
Reply

ranma1/2
05-20-2007, 12:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
It always amazes me when people use there own definition for things.
[PIE]Religion: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.[/PIE]
Not the absents there of.
Do you have any other words that you make up your own definitions for?
Even that one does not include religions without gods like shinto, buddhism and scientology.
Reply

barney
05-20-2007, 12:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Any barbaric punishment is the Bible is against Christianity and is rejected by Christians.
Barabarism by what standards?

I think that if you went up to any non-sociopathic sane person and asked if willfully and deliberatly "destroying" a city, and wiping out newborns and little girls and boys because the occupants were deemed "sinners" is a act of barbarism, the answer would be Yes.

What about if God does it? Soddam & Gommorrah, New Orleans? Is it barbarism then? The act is the same, so would that make the creator "Barbaric".
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-20-2007, 01:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
This has to do with the principle that you formulated:"Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense"

So the point is that morals comprise compassion as you mention but also comprise other than it therefore you do not take compassion as a judge and by it you measure what is moral and what is not. The examples I mentioned take you aout of the boundaries that you raised. Therefore the principle that if something is not compassionate is not moral. That's all.
Your english is overall excellent but you've lost me here. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You seem to be agreeing with me. Bare obedience is not morality. You need an aspect of compassion and empathy as well. Bare obedience is for robots not humans.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-20-2007, 01:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I personally disagree but I am willing to accept that on this occasion the two of us will always interpret this test differently. A stalemate of opinions if you will.
I don't think we disagree on the dynamics, only on whether they are acceptable. Do we not agree that Abraham killed Isaac solely from obedience to his God? We disagree on if that God exists or is the product of his troubled mind, and we disagree on if obedience to God is good simply because it is obedience to God, but do we not agree on the previous sentence?

However, can you truly say that without religion we would have no crimes? (I ask this because the information you yourself have provided within this thread has lead me logically to it)
Of course there would be crimes. There will be crimes with or without religion. Religion is not the only means to rationalize behaviour you'd otherwise be uncomfortable with (there are many others). And its not the only source of us/them dynamics or social programming - but it is the strongest of all of those things.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-20-2007, 01:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I hardly think there would be no crime, however the biggest problem i see is in power. Evil, greed, selfishness etc... tends to be attracted to it. In religions that create powerbases you tend to see corruption , oppression and other horrible acts often done in the name of god or the religion. Same with politics. If we could only take every corrupt politian, religous lunatic, and lawyer and send them on a spaceship to repopulate another planet we might live ina better planet ;).
lol! Why must everybody hate lawyers so. Btw, guess what I do for a living?

:D
Reply

Sunnih
05-20-2007, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
It always amazes me when people use there own definition for things.
[PIE]Religion: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.[/PIE]
Not the absents there of.
Do you have any other words that you make up your own definitions for?
It is indeed amazing to see someone like you come up with their own deffinition and acuse the others of doing no more than what you yourself present.
Reply

Sunnih
05-20-2007, 09:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
lol! Why must everybody hate lawyers so. Btw, guess what I do for a living?

:D
Lol. In that case you might be getting a free ticket to space right?
Reply

aamirsaab
05-20-2007, 09:10 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I don't think we disagree on the dynamics, only on whether they are acceptable. Do we not agree that Abraham killed Isaac solely from obedience to his God? We disagree on if that God exists or is the product of his troubled mind, and we disagree on if obedience to God is good simply because it is obedience to God, but do we not agree on the previous sentence?
I disagreed with your comment about Abraham being a hitman due to the fact that we interpret the test differently. I also disagree that Abraham killed Isaac but this is a whole different topic and right now it's 10 am, I just woke up and I've ran out of coco pops. I may discuss this in a different thread however (one solely related to the Abraham and Isaac event)

Of course there would be crimes. There will be crimes with or without religion. Religion is not the only means to rationalize behaviour you'd otherwise be uncomfortable with (there are many others). And its not the only source of us/them dynamics or social programming - but it is the strongest of all of those things.
I will admit that religion CAN be the strongest - I say can because it is a matter of how strong that person's faith is. Note however this doesn't mean the extremely faithful will commit crimes - only the misguided will do that, with any of their systems of control. Also note that I gave an explanation towards me asking this question in a post before (See ranma 1/2's post before my last one)

I will end with this though: If religion truly asked us to against morals, why are there so many exceptions from the commandments? (e.g. it is not obligatory in Islam for the elderly and/or sick to fast) Surely, if religion taught us to go AGAINST morals, these particular groups of individuals would have no exemption?

p,s; your argument with Abraham and Isaac I take as fair with regards to morality and religion, however it is a topic in and of itself that would be wise to discuss first (to get the foundations sorted out).
Reply

ranma1/2
05-20-2007, 10:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
lol! Why must everybody hate lawyers so. Btw, guess what I do for a living?

:D
Oh no lawuer hate, just corrupt lawyers.. If your not corrupt then ive no beef with you and you dont have to get on the ship with hairdressers and politicians..
Reply

Muezzin
05-20-2007, 01:25 PM
Is all this lawyer-bashing really necessary?*

*says the law student

:p :D

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
lol! Why must everybody hate lawyers so. Btw, guess what I do for a living?
I'm liking you more by the second. Let us go forth and sue people.
Reply

Joe98
05-21-2007, 03:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
......do they reject their holy book ????

Muslims hold the Koran as holy. Christians hold the Bible as only partially holy.

There is no comparison between the way the 2 feel about their books.

Christains accepot that Jesus rose from the dead and the central theme of Christs teachinh was "Love". All this is acceptec by Christians.

But those parts that talk about stoning and horrible things are barbaric and rejected by Christians.

Next time a Muslim discredits the bible by quoting horrible things remember that Christians have rejected those things.

-
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-21-2007, 03:28 AM





Salaam/peace ,



format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98

But those parts that talk about stoning and horrible things are barbaric and rejected by Christians.
Next time a Muslim discredits the bible by quoting horrible things remember that Christians have rejected those things.

-
is there any official declaration from Churches ? Pl. write more about ur claim that Christians reject those parts of Bible .


Reply

Joe98
05-21-2007, 05:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Pl. write more about ur claim that Christians reject those parts of Bible .

Study the punishment for various crimes in western countries.

Study the punishment for not complying with church law.

Why does nobody comply with biblical punishments?????

Because those punishments are barbaric and every civilised person rejects them.

-
Reply

cool_jannah
05-21-2007, 06:19 AM
:sl:

Having good morals and good character is definitely good. But if you are doing it for anything accept for the sake of God, it won't be benifiting you in anyway. This is because your main purpose of existence is to acknowledge the Oneness of God and do every good deed for His love and for His pleasure. Having good morals and good character is a part of human nature and people can superficially claim to have a lot of morals learnt from their surroundings, their experience and so on..it is not rocket science.
As far as proper morals are concerned, the only source of it is Islam.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-21-2007, 07:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cool_jannah
:sl:

Having good morals and good character is definitely good. But if you are doing it for anything accept for the sake of God, it won't be benifiting you in anyway. This is because your main purpose of existence is to acknowledge the Oneness of God and do every good deed for His love and for His pleasure. Having good morals and good character is a part of human nature and people can superficially claim to have a lot of morals learnt from their surroundings, their experience and so on..it is not rocket science.
As far as proper morals are concerned, the only source of it is Islam.
But what is good morals? Are there bad morals? Like i said earlier i find the word moral to be a pretty useless word. If we want to describe a action as beign good or bad it seems much easier and less vague. And what are proper morals?

I personally can easily see myself performing more good actionsl than many islams, christians, atheists, agnostics etc.. as i can see many other islams, christians, atheists etc.. being better at it than me.

And personally speaking i see more "goodness" in an action thatis done selflessly than an action done selfishly. So if you are doing good deeds to go to heaven and another person is doing good deeds selflessly i trust that person much more to do right.
Reply

Trumble
05-21-2007, 07:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cool_jannah
:sl:

Having good morals and good character is definitely good. But if you are doing it for anything accept for the sake of God, it won't be benifiting you in anyway. This is because your main purpose of existence is to acknowledge the Oneness of God and do every good deed for His love and for His pleasure.
Moral conduct has a very definite purpose outside any religious framework because it benefits the whole community, and makes everybody's life better. Those lives are still made better whether the conduct concerned is "for His love and for His pleasure" or not. If you make the lives of others better, cause and effect dictates that your own existence will also be enrichened.

I find the idea that good conduct somehow counts for nothing unless it is performed "for the sake of God" (whatever that means) utterly bizarre.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-21-2007, 07:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
is there any official declaration from Churches ? Pl. write more about ur claim that Christians reject those parts of Bible .
No. There really isn't. I wish that there was. In fact I wish more Christians would actually read their bibles and realize just how horrible much of the book is, and get rid of those parts - keeping only the parts they actually follow and agree with today.

Such a revision may avert future reliance on the nasty bits in the book that HAVE been relied on in the past (stoning people, burning witches, the inquisition, etc) and MAY be again in the future if the book remains as it is and the Christians still hold it as their holy book. Such revision may save a lot of lives.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-21-2007, 07:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I find the idea that good conduct somehow counts for nothing unless it is performed "for the sake of God" (whatever that means) utterly bizarre.
I find it the antithesis of morality. Doing something because somebody (including God) demands it of you is obedience, not morality. Morality is doing something because it is the right thing to do.
Reply

Muslim Woman
05-21-2007, 09:32 AM





Salaam/peace ,


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Morality is doing something because it is the right thing to do.

how to decide which is the right thing to do ? Is it ok for a step son to have an affair with step mother ? In another forum , an atheist says something like that if they really love each other , then it's ok.

Any believer will say , NO. I guess , answers from Athiests will differ as they don't have any fixed criteria.

Reply

aamirsaab
05-21-2007, 10:26 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I find it the antithesis of morality. Doing something because somebody (including God) demands it of you is obedience, not morality.
It is possible to be both moral and obedient. I mean, just look at me! :p

Morality is doing something because it is the right thing to do.
As long as the action is morally correct (as opposed to 'good' and/or 'bad'*), then yes I agree completely with your statement.


* these two terms I had already discussed in previous posts. Concluded that it was a matter of perception which is not the same as morality.
Reply

cool_jannah
05-21-2007, 02:46 PM
:sl:

Most of the misunderstanding here is caused due to the untrustworthiness and disbelief in a truthful,peaceful,merciful and just Creator. The point was raised by one of the athiest is that good morals hsould be practiced not because it is a command from God, but it is "good" in general to the people. I find this idea utterly dim-witted and senseless. Because the true morality and ethics can only be learnt from the Creator of human beings and since it is coming from One source, it will be uniform uniting people as one one brotherhood.
It all boils down to whether human interpretation of life and its various aspects is more reliable or the One True God's who created these human beings. It is evident not just in theory but in practice when we look it the life of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his noble companions. These lives were the examples of true morality and justice with no parallel to them ever in the history or in the future.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-21-2007, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
[center] [url]

...

Any believer will say , NO. I guess , answers from Athiests will differ as they don't have any fixed criteria.
I would disagree , most atheists definitly have a fixed criteria, its just not based off of theistic religions.
Reply

zoro
05-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Infants to toddlers learn right vs. wrong (viz., morality) and consequences of their choices from their parents (or other care givers); children learn more about morality and consequences from their culture, including their clerics; teenagers learn still more from their peers and their idols; adults learn still more from considering concepts and evaluating experiences, thereby assigning a value to any act (e.g., from minus ten to plus ten) as a measure of its morality.

Any value, however, has meaning only with respect to some objective. Those of us who identify our prime goals to be own survival and the survival of our families (which for humanists includes all humanity – or even all life) measure moral values relative to those goals. Meanwhile, those (religionists) whose prime goal is gaining “eternal life”, measure moral values with respect to that goal.

For humanists, therefore, the highest moral value (a plus ten on a scale from minus ten to plus ten) is to EVALUATE; for religionists, on the other hand, the highest moral value is to OBEY (i.e., to serve their god as specified in their “holy book”), which in practical terms means obeying their clerics. In my view, that some grownups (not yet adults) still rely on clerics to define right and wrong and alleged consequences (e.g., heaven vs. hell) is sad – as could be demonstrated with many examples.
Reply

Sunnih
05-21-2007, 08:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by zoro
Infants to toddlers learn right vs. wrong (viz., morality) and consequences of their choices from their parents (or other care givers); children learn more about morality and consequences from their culture, including their clerics; teenagers learn still more from their peers and their idols; adults learn still more from considering concepts and evaluating experiences, thereby assigning a value to any act (e.g., from minus ten to plus ten) as a measure of its morality.

Any value, however, has meaning only with respect to some objective. Those of us who identify our prime goals to be own survival and the survival of our families (which for humanists includes all humanity – or even all life) measure moral values relative to those goals. Meanwhile, those (religionists) whose prime goal is gaining “eternal life”, measure moral values with respect to that goal.

For humanists, therefore, the highest moral value (a plus ten on a scale from minus ten to plus ten) is to EVALUATE; for religionists, on the other hand, the highest moral value is to OBEY (i.e., to serve their god as specified in their “holy book”), which in practical terms means obeying their clerics. In my view, that some grownups (not yet adults) still rely on clerics to define right and wrong and alleged consequences (e.g., heaven vs. hell) is sad – as could be demonstrated with many examples.
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?
Reply

Keltoi
05-21-2007, 08:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
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?
I'm not an athiest, but I am a secularist, and I think the contribution of secular society and government are fairly profound. No form of society is perfect, but the advances in medicine, science, technology, etc are greatly connected with the rise of secularism in the West. Secularism meaning the rise of capitalism and free market economies, that are obviously not related to religious teaching. There have been many benefits of secularism to the average person, but there has also been a decline in traditional values in general. Like I said, nothing is perfect, but secularism has been far more beneficial than the chain of religious conflict that goes with theocracy and religious fundamentalism.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-21-2007, 08:51 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by zoro
Infants to toddlers learn right vs. wrong (viz., morality) and consequences of their choices from their parents (or other care givers); children learn more about morality and consequences from their culture, including their clerics; teenagers learn still more from their peers and their idols; adults learn still more from considering concepts and evaluating experiences, thereby assigning a value to any act (e.g., from minus ten to plus ten) as a measure of its morality.

Any value, however, has meaning only with respect to some objective. Those of us who identify our prime goals to be own survival and the survival of our families (which for humanists includes all humanity – or even all life) measure moral values relative to those goals. Meanwhile, those (religionists) whose prime goal is gaining “eternal life”, measure moral values with respect to that goal.

For humanists, therefore, the highest moral value (a plus ten on a scale from minus ten to plus ten) is to EVALUATE; for religionists, on the other hand, the highest moral value is to OBEY (i.e., to serve their god as specified in their “holy book”), which in practical terms means obeying their clerics. In my view, that some grownups (not yet adults) still rely on clerics to define right and wrong and alleged consequences (e.g., heaven vs. hell) is sad – as could be demonstrated with many examples.
That's pretty much all I had left to say on the topic :D.
Reply

Sunnih
05-21-2007, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I'm not an athiest, but I am a secularist, and I think the contribution of secular society and government are fairly profound. No form of society is perfect, but the advances in medicine, science, technology, etc are greatly connected with the rise of secularism in the West. Secularism meaning the rise of capitalism and free market economies, that are obviously not related to religious teaching. There have been many benefits of secularism to the average person, but there has also been a decline in traditional values in general. Like I said, nothing is perfect, but secularism has been far more beneficial than the chain of religious conflict that goes with theocracy and religious fundamentalism.
What a load of nonsense. What contributions:these societies are crumbling. As for the science, medicine, technology they had to happen and don't forget the foundations had been laid down from before during the religious rule. Ah, sorry I forgot. For the Christians indeed it is new as they did hang the scientists in thousands. As for market economies, well they are thriving and blooming in the blood of the cheap labour of the third world countries. The mortgages ensure the new type of slavery. Do you know the meaning of the word mortgage and where it derives from? Ah, yes and indeed the secular systems are indeed thinking about Africa and it's deseases. Great achivements indeed.
Reply

Keltoi
05-21-2007, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
What a load of nonsense. What contributions:these societies are crumbling. As for the science, medicine, technology they had to happen and don't forget the foundations had been laid down from before during the religious rule. Ah, sorry I forgot. For the Christians indeed it is new as they did hang the scientists in thousands. As for market economies, well they are thriving and blooming in the blood of the cheap labour of the third world countries. The mortgages ensure the new type of slavery. Do you know the meaning of the word mortgage and where it derives from? Ah, yes and indeed the secular systems are indeed thinking about Africa and it's deseases. Great achivements indeed.
Secular societies are crumbling? That is news to me. I suppose that is why so many people all around the world want to live there?
Reply

Sunnih
05-21-2007, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Secular societies are crumbling? That is news to me. I suppose that is why so many people all around the world want to live there?
You will realise it when it falls on your head. Living there? Beter to live in a toilet than in a land mine. The bombs and mines of democracy are aboundant. Even the west is tasting it in the form of friendly fire. :thumbs_up
Reply

Keltoi
05-21-2007, 09:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
You will realise it when it falls on your head. Living there? Beter to live in a toilet than in a land mine. The bombs and mines of democracy are aboundant. Even the west is tasting it in the form of friendly fire. :thumbs_up
Sorry, but that made about as much sense as winged elephant.
Reply

Sunnih
05-21-2007, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Sorry, but that made about as much sense as winged elephant.
By the time you will realise it, the pigs would fly. Bye now.
Reply

wilberhum
05-21-2007, 09:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Secular societies are crumbling? That is news to me. I suppose that is why so many people all around the world want to live there?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Keltoi, we better find a place to hide. :D
Reply

Sunnih
05-21-2007, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Keltoi, we better find a place to hide. :D
You can run but you can't hide. Good luck and good night:thumbs_up
Reply

wilberhum
05-21-2007, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
You can run but you can't hide. Good luck and good night:thumbs_up
I will take my chances. :skeleton:
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-22-2007, 12:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sunnih
You will realise it when it falls on your head. Living there? Beter to live in a toilet than in a land mine. The bombs and mines of democracy are aboundant. Even the west is tasting it in the form of friendly fire. :thumbs_up
Are you seriously arguing in favour of a totalitarian dictatorship theocracy?
And you think that'll be GOOD for progress and human rights?
Reply

wilberhum
05-22-2007, 12:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Are you seriously arguing in favour of a totalitarian dictatorship theocracy?
And you think that'll be GOOD for progress and human rights?
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:
Reply

ranma1/2
05-22-2007, 01:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Secular societies are crumbling? That is news to me. I suppose that is why so many people all around the world want to live there?
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.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-22-2007, 04:26 AM
That is because the Devil already owns Sweden and Japan. The Devil is still fighting for Iran and the USA so he's there more often and more bad things happen there.

Or something like that.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-22-2007, 04:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That is because the Devil already owns Sweden and Japan. The Devil is still fighting for Iran and the USA so he's there more often and more bad things happen there.

Or something like that.
lol, so the devil = less crime then?
Reply

barney
05-22-2007, 04:38 AM
The devil created Godzilla? OH NOES!
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-22-2007, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
lol, so the devil = less crime then?
Yes. Because evil follows the Devil. And the devil need not spend time in the lands he already owns. He'd rather spend time fighting for new lands. So those unconquered lands are where evil happens most often, and that includes crime.

Y'know, I'm actually starting to make sense with this and it is scaring me.
Reply

Philosopher
05-22-2007, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
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 rate in North Korea are also extremely low. Your point?
Reply

ranma1/2
05-22-2007, 02:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
Crime rate in North Korea are also extremely low. Your point?
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?
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2014, 09:10 PM
  2. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-01-2009, 07:02 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 08:42 PM
  4. Replies: 82
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 03:11 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2006, 09:04 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!