Are morals derived from religion/God??

[aamirsaab]

Thanks for responding

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.

 

[Sunnih]

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

 

[Sunnih]

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.

 

[Sunnih]

"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.

 

[wilberhum]

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.

 

[Sunnih]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

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?!

 

[Sunnih]

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?!

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

Kill your son for us. Kill him now.


.

So , u believe u r God Almighty ???

:giggling:

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

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 ???

 

[ranma1/2]

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.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

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 ?

 

[Sunnih]

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.

 

[Sunnih]

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.

 

[aamirsaab]

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.

 

[ranma1/2]

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?

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.

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) "

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.

 

[ranma1/2]

..... 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 .

 

[aamirsaab]

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