Are morals derived from religion/God??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philosopher
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 345
  • Views Views 40K
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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!
 
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.
 
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??
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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
 
Last edited:
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!....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top