What makes something good?

[جوري]

This is you interpretation but such statements in no way really help us to discover what principles there are to decide what is good which is really the theme of this thread. Surely it is acceptable to ask why God said A was good and B was bad, we are rational human beings after all. In any case there are a million and one things that Allah has not pronounced on and in the next 100 years there will be a million more so as a practical guide to everyday living this is helpful but limited. Has God really made us so that we have to look up in some big book what is good and what is bad, with no God given conscience to guide us?

And 'why' usually has an answer-- however, why will also not have an answer sometime..
Many things in this world even in science are arbitrary. Why do you scrub yourself a certain number of times before going into surgery? why is the diagnosis of schizophrenia given at the cut off point of 6 months why not 5 months and twenty nine days why not 4 months, are you any less or any more schizophrenic at 6 than you were at five and a half?
Why do you become of age at 18? how about 17 and a half?
Is there any logic in the previous that you can understand? NO, you put some faith in that a governing body convened and decided this is the cutoff point.
Now, unlike in real life which is rather unforgiving, with God, you are free to go into the path of your choosing. No one is holding a gun to your head to pray or give charity or fast or not eat pigs or drink liquor... you do it only if you love God and if you love God then God loves you. Then when it reaches that stage, then you are truly with God:

Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:​

Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant, he hates death and I hate hurting him.​

[Bukhari]

​

​

​

​

And only a person who has reached that stage of being completely with God can tell you what it means.. I don't anyone in Christianity has ever reached or will ever reach that stage save for the few that Allah swt spoke of in the Quran!
I think that is one of the greatest problems with Christianity, you do away with everything God commanded and rationalize if not downright change his commandments to suit your whims and then come question other people on their rational..Wouldn't you be better suited to answer why God would decide to be born and die before you go into ancillary questions?

all the best

 

[جوري]

It is a morality of obedience and disobedience.

I imagine this concept of obedience vs. disobedience would be even more relevant for atheists? Surely you behave as you do because of the law.. I don't subscribe to the concept of empathy especially as dispensed with folks so concerned with material and mundane affairs. If you were really to commit the perfect crime and get away with it, why wouldn't you.. a large check from OPEC fell in your lap.. a company you deem evil to begin with, and it isn't hurting anyone to cash it then why not? give me one 'logical' reason why you wouldn't cash it and enjoy it especially if your circumstance is dire.. give me something I can sink my teeth into.. 'empathy' is too vague for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen!

I assure you most faithful people do what they do out of love for God and direct communication with him in a way you can't possibly begin to understand!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

I imagine this concept of obedience vs. disobedience would be even more relevant for atheists?

No it wouldn't.

Atheism, the term has nothing to do with obedience to authority, whether it is to do with or concerns morality or not. The term 'anarchist' is equally possible for an atheist just as it is to a non-specific theist.

Surely you behave as you do because of the law..

No I don't. I've told you this myself. You cannot even pretend to assume that I am being dishonest in such a response.

In any case even if it was true that my or any atheists behavioural constraints come from the aura of authority from the law it addresses nothing of any real significance. The first thing is, I accept the term 'law' as a man-made objective of imposing social order within societies. It is both necessary and good. The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it, by definition. The fact that I deem it necessary is relative only to the impact it has for humans.

Regardless, it is not comparable (assuming your premise here) to the obedience rooted in your own moral system on the grounds that I do not consider the law necessary as far as natural law goes. You do. The importance you place towards 'obedience' and 'disobedience' to Allah is so ground-breaking valid at all times, so relevant to all peoples, so unmovable from criticism that no rhyme or reason can ever move it. You have decreed it beyond reason.

I don't subscribe to the concept of empathy especially as dispensed with folks so concerned with material and mundane affairs.

What do you mean by 'material' and 'mundane' affairs? I suspect you would go so far to declare concern with anything tangible as materialistic. I have no idea what you would label as mundane. In any case, this topic is about why specific actions are desirable and not desirable in the context of a community (morality).

But I'm interested on your first point, are you declaring that you don't have empathy? Because I've read many of your posts that suggest you do have empathy.

If you were really to commit the perfect crime and get away with it, why wouldn't you.. a large check from OPEC fell in your lap.. a company you deem evil to begin with, and it isn't hurting anyone to cash it then why not?

Because I happen to place value in the importance of human society. I don't deem it a valuable state of affairs to be an accomplice or play a role in the suffering of others for self-gain. If other people engaged in such actions themselves freely without fear of reprisal, then we would all suffer in some way or another in time.

I recognise that by consequence of your own moral compass, this means absolutely nothing to you. You as I know accept moral edicts based on whether Allah decrees it acceptable or not. But that is the fault of your ethics, not mine. I suspect already that passively, being able to evade responsibility for your actions plays a role in your behavioural constraints - which is why you bring these scenarios up, and it is why you have objectivified morality to nullify the possibility of not being caught.

I assure you most faithful people do what they do out of love for God and direct communication with him in a way you can't possibly begin to understand!

I've had people admit when cornered, that yes, pull apart the rhetoric, pull apart the references to love, god's love, the wonderful things he's done, to the prospect of paradise, the glory of nature etc - it all comes down to obedience. It all comes down to following the orders of God. All suspiciously and typically motivated by self-interest.

Indeed, the only defence you've offered for your own ethics here is to complain about the subjectivity of morality - a problem of the human condition.

 

[جوري]

No it wouldn't.

No you wouldn't what?

Atheism, the term has nothing to do with obedience to authority, whether it is to do with or concerns morality or not. The term 'anarchist' is equally possible for an atheist just as it is to a non-specific theist.

We are not discussing terms.. nowhere in my post did I seek definitions!

No I don't. I've told you this myself. You cannot even pretend to assume that I am being dishonest in such a response.

If all I have to go on is your word, then it isn't very weighty, anymore than when you assert that it is obedience that drives a theist!

In any case even if it was true that my or any atheists behavioural constraints come from the aura of authority from the law it addresses nothing of any real significance. The first thing is, I accept the term 'law' as a man-made objective of imposing social order within societies. It is both necessary and good. The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it, by definition. The fact that I deem it necessary is relative only to the impact it has for humans

That is alot of meaningless carppola and again, I don't see why you fail to apply the same logic to theists?!

Regardless, it is not comparable (assuming your premise here) to the obedience rooted in your own moral system on the grounds that I do not consider the law necessary as far as natural law goes. You do. The importance you place towards 'obedience' and 'disobedience' to Allah is so ground-breaking valid at all times, so relevant to all peoples, so unmovable from criticism that no rhyme or reason can ever move it. You have decreed it beyond reason.

I am glad you don't find the law necessary as that is perhaps the most honest piece you have parted with. If you don't consider it necessary then indeed nothing should preclude you from subscribing to it, especially if you rationalize to yourself that it is 'good' or for the greater good!

What do you mean by 'material' and 'mundane' affairs? I suspect you would go so far to declare concern with anything tangible as materialistic. I have no idea what you would label as mundane. In any case, this topic is about why specific actions are desirable and not desirable in the context of a community (morality).

The topic is about 'good' and judging by your way of life, I don't know where your baseline starts or how you even begin to define it considering what an abstract concept it is for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen or the more esoteric things they deem a weakness of theism!

But I'm interested on your first point, are you declaring that you don't have empathy? Because I've read many of your posts that suggest you do have empathy.

I am not talking about me.. I am talking about you as a representative of atheism, you seem to key in to certain terms to exonerate yourselves from the real difficult moral questions..
so it is always 'consent' or empathy' or some other vague term whose definition by your standards is obscure to me!

Because I happen to place value in the importance of human society. I don't deem it a valuable state of affairs to be an accomplice or play a role in the suffering of others for self-gain. If other people engaged in such actions themselves freely without fear of reprisal, then we would all suffer in some way or another in time.

Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?

I recognise that by consequence of your own moral compass, this means absolutely nothing to you. You as I know accept moral edicts based on whether Allah decrees it acceptable or not. But that is the fault of your ethics, not mine. I suspect already that passively, being able to evade responsibility for your actions plays a role in your behavioural constraints - which is why you bring these scenarios up, and it is why you have objectivified morality to nullify the possibility of not being caught.

What is decreed goes with the nature of man it is called fitrah, and there is no fault in that.. there is however fault in deviating from that and rationalizing it to yourself while at the same time failing to give a clear comprehensive answer as to why something that would be considered immoral from a religious stand is also immoral from an atheist stand if the given circumstances are deemed favorable or good by your standards.

I've had people admit when cornered, that yes, pull apart the rhetoric, pull apart the references to love, god's love, the wonderful things he's done, to the prospect of paradise, the glory of nature etc - it all comes down to obedience. It all comes down to following the orders of God. All suspiciously and typically motivated by self-interest.

If all we have to go on is your word and your word isn't very weighty then I think when it comes down to it, you are standing on equal if not lesser ground for if a theist admits that it is mere obedience to God, I think that has better value than obedience to the law of the land provided it doesn't catch up with you!

Indeed, the only defence you've offered for your own ethics here is to complain about the subjectivity of morality - a problem of the human condition.

No, it is universal to those subscribing to religion and the gradation of religiosity, contrast that with your own stance and you'll see you come up short time and again!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

No you wouldn't what?

Uhm, I said "No it wouldn't" in response to your claim that obedience vs. disobedience has more relevance to an atheist.

We are not discussing terms.. nowhere in my post did I seek definitions!

That's nice. I decided to clarify however because you claimed that somehow, obedience and disobedience have more relevance to an atheist. So I thought you needed the actual meaning of atheism repeated.

If all I have to go on is your word, then it isn't very weighty, anymore than when you assert that it is obedience that drives a theist!

You think it is becoming of a discussion to just assume everything I say is some deception of a sort, then why do you bother? For all you know everything I type and have typed has been to deliberately decieve you.

So why do you even pretend to be interested?

That is alot of meaningless carppola and again, I don't see why you fail to apply the same logic to theists?!

I go on to explain this in my original post.

I am glad you don't find the law necessary as that is perhaps the most honest piece you have parted with. If you don't consider it necessary then indeed nothing should preclude you from subscribing to it, especially if you rationalize to yourself that it is 'good' or for the greater good!

Huh?

Did you even understand what I meant when I didn't consider the law necessary? I meant it in terms of natural law. The universe cares not for our affairs, will bridge no gaps and will act with disinterest to our plight. That is what I meant and it is precisely where you and I completely differ on moral issues. You do believe the universe or forces in the universe have direct involvement and interest in our actions.

The topic is about 'good' and judging by your way of life, I don't know where your baseline starts or how you even begin to define it considering what an abstract concept it is for someone who doesn't believe in the unseen or the more esoteric things they deem a weakness of theism!

You don't know my way of life.

And actually, I don't really believe morality is that abstract. It is about what one ought to do or not do in the context of a group of people. At least that is practical morality.

I am not talking about me.. I am talking about you as a representative of atheism, you seem to key in to certain terms to exonerate yourselves from the real difficult moral questions..
so it is always 'consent' or empathy' or some other vague term whose definition by your standards is obscure to me!

Uh, no. You said that you don't buy into the concept of empathy. I know that unless I have misread around half of your posts, that you do feel empathy of some sort.

And consent and empathy aren't my moral standards. Consent removes the ethical dilemma and 'empathy' is specifically about understanding and feeling the plight of others, leading to a greater chance of compassionate behaviour.

Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?

Uhm, then it wouldn't be a moral issue would it?

You're simplifying the 'dilemma' (its not really a moral dilemma, its a choice between being selfish at the expense of others and not being selfish at the expense of others) by removing the consequences? What's the point in the dilemma then?

If all we have to go on is your word and your word isn't very weighty then I think when it comes down to it, you are standing on equal if not lesser ground for if a theist admits that it is mere obedience to God, I think that has better value than obedience to the law of the land provided it doesn't catch up with you!

I think I've already told you that 'obedience to the law' is not the only reason I do not commit wrongdoings.

Oh wait, you think I'm lying all the time.

No, it is universal to those subscribing to religion and the gradation of religiosity, contrast that with your own stance and you'll see you come up short time and again!

You contend it is universal, but offer little argument to suggest that it is so. By complaining about our ability to make concise and valid moral decisions you question the very value of human judgment in the absence of external interference. You are questioning our own intelligence collectively.

 

[جوري]

Uhm, I said "No it wouldn't" in response to your claim that obedience vs. disobedience has more relevance to an atheist.

well that comes down to your word against mine and I don't find yours credible given the way your previous post unraveled!

That's nice. I decided to clarify however because you claimed that somehow, obedience and disobedience have more relevance to an atheist. So I thought you needed the actual meaning of atheism repeated.

I think what you did was deflect from something you didn't have an adequate response to!

You think it is becoming of a discussion to just assume everything I say is some deception of a sort, then why do you bother? For all you know everything I type and have typed has been to deliberately decieve you.

Rather the way you perceive 'good' is distorted from where I stand!

So why do you even pretend to be interested?

I am not interested I clarified for you the theistic point of view which you are not equipped to devalue simply out of whim!

I go on to explain this in my original post.

I failed to glean anything of substance from it!

Huh?

Did you even understand what I meant when I didn't consider the law necessary? I meant it in terms of natural law. The universe cares not for our affairs, will bridge no gaps and will act with disinterest to our plight. That is what I meant and it is precisely where you and I completely differ on moral issues. You do believe the universe or forces in the universe have direct involvement and interest in our actions.

It doesn't matter whether it is involved or not I am talking of specific actions not the bigger picture. I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!

You don't know my way of life.

You wrote atheist, that is all that is needed to assume certain things the way you assume certain things of theists, or are you too good to be true?

And actually, I don't really believe morality is that abstract. It is about what one ought to do or not do in the context of a group of people. At least that is practical morality.

And what is to keep you from doing something deemed 'evil' otherwise?

Uh, no. You said that you don't buy into the concept of empathy. I know that unless I have misread around half of your posts, that you do feel empathy of some sort.

I don't by the concept of 'empathy' as peddled by an atheist because it is immaterial!

And consent and empathy aren't my moral standards. Consent removes the ethical dilemma and 'empathy' is specifically about understanding and feeling the plight of others, leading to a greater chance of compassionate behaviour.

And if there were 'no feelings involved' on anyone part again, what keeps you from committing the perfect crime were it not for obedience to the law of the land?

You're simplifying the 'dilemma' (its not really a moral dilemma, its a choice between being selfish at the expense of others and not being selfish at the expense of others) by removing the consequences? What's the point in the dilemma then?

How are you being selfish? OPEC is deemed evil, they won't miss the check, you are in financial trouble now and you can even use some of that hefty sum to help your needy neighbors.

I think I've already told you that 'obedience to the law' is not the only reason I do not commit wrongdoings.

Then what is?

Oh wait, you think I'm lying all the time.

I think you are deeply confused and somehow convinced yourself that you are empathetic and that is so much better than adhering to some divine moral guidance!

You contend it is universal, but offer little argument to suggest that it is so. By complaining about our ability to make concise and valid moral decisions you question the very value of human judgment in the absence of external interference. You are questioning our own intelligence collectively.

I don't believe that moral judgment exists in the absence of divine interference.. that which you might deem instinctive or by way of feeling is a gift from God.. therein lies the difference.. you give credit to your conscious mind or whatever else and I believe said morals are instilled and created in us!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

well that comes down to your word against mine and I don't find yours credible given the way your previous post unraveled!

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality, so it could not demand obedience to the law.

I think what you did was deflect from something you didn't have an adequate response to!

Could you tell me specifically what that something I did not have an adequate response to? I've already explained my perspective on the 'law'.

Rather the way you perceive 'good' is distorted from where I stand!

Uh, okay. Do you still think I'm lying all the time?

I am not interested I clarified for you the theistic point of view which you are not equipped to devalue simply out of whim!

You've barely defended the theistic point of view here, rather you have simply attacked my moral world view.

It doesn't matter whether it is involved or not I am talking of specific actions not the bigger picture. I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!

This is sort of self-explanatory - nothing. Why would I? For example, most Muslims appear completely unified in declaring music as haraam. I happen to think music is great.

So why would I stop listening to music because a group of people who do not share my beliefs, who do not share my moral outlook happen to think it is wrong? I wouldn't have thought that you would do the converse, Skye.

You wrote atheist, that is all that is needed to assume certain things the way you assume certain things of theists, or are you too good to be true?

'Atheist' is often used as a catch-all term. As is theist, for that matter. When I talk about 'theistic morality' however, I am specifically refer to the notion that morality is by God, from God that almost every Muslim and to a lesser extent Christian I have conversed with holds to be true.

I am of course, not referring to the more liberal-leaning christians, or non-religious deists as they don't necessarily share such a viewpoint.

And what is to keep you from doing something deemed 'evil' otherwise?

What do you mean by 'otherwise' here?

Are you asking what is to keep me from doing evil in the absence of a community?

I don't by the concept of 'empathy' as peddled by an atheist because it is immaterial!

You believe that atheists and theists think empathy means two different things? Please explain the differences you think exist between the two.

And if there were 'no feelings involved' on anyone part again, what keeps you from committing the perfect crime were it not for obedience to the law of the land?

Your moral dilemmas seem to be based in a fantasy universe where you have to preclude certain parts of reality in order for them to try and fit. There are feelings involved. Any moral dilemma has to have tangible and meaningful consequences and be vested in communual interest in order to have any meaning, Skye.

How are you being selfish? OPEC is deemed evil, they won't miss the check, you are in financial trouble now and you can even use some of that hefty sum to help your needy neighbors.

You just declared, and I quote: "
Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?" that there is no reprisal and no importance to society if I assist 'OPEC'. How exactly is that a moral dilemma if you have eliminated the consequences to society?

Then what is?

I am not repeating myself. Go and read my first post to you, in the first paragraph where I explained specifically my perspective on the law.

I don't believe that moral judgment exists in the absence of divine interference.. that which you might deem instinctive or by way of feeling is a gift from God.. therein lies the difference.. you give credit to your conscious mind or whatever else and I believe said morals are instilled and created in us!

What do you believe, precisely is the purpose of morality?

 

[جوري]

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality, so it could not demand obedience to the law.

So basically a system of nihilism?

Could you tell me specifically what that something I did not have an adequate response to? I've already explained my perspective on the 'law'.

You have no perspective on the 'law' what I gleaned from you is that you have no respect for authority unless caught!

Uh, okay. Do you still think I'm lying all the time?

I have already stated I think your confused and tweak your raison d'être as suits the evolution of the thread!

You've barely defended the theistic point of view here, rather you have simply attacked my moral world view.

I am not under the impression that there is anything to defend.

This is sort of self-explanatory - nothing. Why would I? For example, most Muslims appear completely unified in declaring music as haraam. I happen to think music is great.

we don't function on what feels good rather what is correct!

So why would I stop listening to music because a group of people who do not share my beliefs, who do not share my moral outlook happen to think it is wrong? I wouldn't have thought that you would do the converse, Skye.

There is nothing moral or immoral about Music, the majority concede that it is a prohibition some have variance in opinion, in and of itself holds no moral value as say murder, or thievery or lying!

'Atheist' is often used as a catch-all term. As is theist, for that matter. When I talk about 'theistic morality' however, I am specifically refer to the notion that morality is by God, from God that almost every Muslim and to a lesser extent Christian I have conversed with holds to be true.

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

What do you mean by 'otherwise' here?

Are you asking what is to keep me from doing evil in the absence of a community?

Indeed, if no law of the land hovered over your being as a constant threat, what would keep you from doing something you deem moral that would be deemed immoral otherwise!

You believe that atheists and theists think empathy means two different things? Please explain the differences you think exist between the two.

I can't define for you, your desired renditions. I have already stated and to re-quote me:

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!
​

Your moral dilemmas seem to be based in a fantasy universe where you have to preclude certain parts of reality in order for them to try and fit. There are feelings involved. Any moral dilemma has to have tangible and meaningful consequences and be vested in communual interest in order to have any meaning, Skye.

Again, you don't know anything about my 'moral dilemmas' I fear outside of your pedantic obedience vs. disobedience, which by the way you are yet to elucidate for us why the same standards don't hold true for atheists outside of the law of the land!

You just declared, and I quote: "
Ah, but there if there were no reprisal and no importance to society at least none that you can perceive then what is keeping you from cashing in an OPEC check?" that there is no reprisal and no importance to society if I assist 'OPEC'. How exactly is that a moral dilemma if you have eliminated the consequences to society?

That is a question I ask you.. if there were no moral dilemma nothing would hold you from committing a crime!

I am not repeating myself. Go and read my first post to you, in the first paragraph where I explained specifically my perspective on the law.

you have basically exempt yourself from the very fiber of morality in your

you: '' The fact that I consider it to be good for independent reasons precludes me from being constrained by it''
​

to sum it up if it is good because you deem it so, you'd abide by it as to not get caught, and if you don't agree with it then you are not constrained by it provided there is no consequence to it! Do I understand you correctly?

What do you believe, precisely is the purpose of morality?

The purpose of morality is to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, even in matters where a quick right or wrong motivation isn't clearly visible, how about you, what do you believe is the purpose of morality?

all the best

 

[Justufy]

Not really, it was a general response. Atheism has nothing to say on morality

"Away with the atheists!"

- St Polycarp of Smyrna

 

[Skavau]

So basically a system of nihilism?

Atheism is not a system of any sort. It is not an ideology, a world view, a philosophy or a way of life. Nihilism negates and rejects the very idea of meaning. An atheist does not necessarily have to do such.

You have no perspective on the 'law' what I gleaned from you is that you have no respect for authority unless caught!

Excuse me, when did I say that? When did I even imply that I only 'respect' (whatever that means in this context) authority if I am 'caught'?

What authority are you even referring to here precisely? I have already said that law has to be proposed and implemented for the establishment and progression of any society. I have also said that such a thing is a good thing.

I am not under the impression that there is anything to defend.

That's up to you. I made observations on what I view to be the obedience vs. disobedience mentality of morality from God and your only response to things I said has been to attack my own moral perspective.

we don't function on what feels good rather what is correct!

Right... although that's besides the point, isn't it? Why would I abandon a practice or a perspective I find moral because another group of people happen to deem it immoral? It is a nonsensical request.

There is nothing moral or immoral about Music, the majority concede that it is a prohibition some have variance in opinion, in and of itself holds no moral value as say murder, or thievery or lying!

Right, but that's again besides the point.

Let me change the example to something far closer to a unified agreement in Islam: alcohol. Muslims profess that it is wrong to consume alcohol, and yet I myself personally see no inherent flaw. Why would you expect me to forgo my own moral perspective because Islam or Muslims happen to disagree with it?

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

So you say.

Indeed, if no law of the land hovered over your being as a constant threat, what would keep you from doing something you deem moral that would be deemed immoral otherwise!

I'm really confused about how you phrase these questions.

If there is no community whatsoever and any actions that could be deemed immoral harm no-one in any way shape or form then there is no moral dilemma. Morality rests upon actions that effect a community. It has absolutely no meaning externally from that.

So for example, if I happen to be drunk and decide to drive my car on an old abandoned freeway - I am not being immoral. I am being stupid, and possibly endangering myself but as no-one is there to be affected by my actions, it has no moral consequences.

If however, I get in a car drunk and floor it down a busy high street then yes, my actions are endangering others, are foolish and rightfully immoral.

I can't define for you, your desired renditions. I have already stated and to re-quote me:

Morality is from God whether or not you divorce yourself from that notion. Until such a time you can elucidate to us in a scientific fashion what 'empathy' or 'consciousness' is, they shall remain inborn patterns instilled in us by the one who created us!

The part in bold is a silly claim. Are you claiming that if there is a gap in understanding, that we must thereby assume that a supernatural arbiter is responsible for it?

Again, you don't know anything about my 'moral dilemmas' I fear outside of your pedantic obedience vs. disobedience, which by the way you are yet to elucidate for us why the same standards don't hold true for atheists outside of the law of the land!

Yes I do. You keep bringing up your moral dilemmas.

The law exists, in case you were wondering because of and for us. We postulate, establish and impose systems of conduct between groups of people for the purposes of maintaining and improving upon co-existence.

How is that related to obedience at all? I do not inherently believe all law is necessarily valid, or moral. The law is a framework for control within a society. Whether or not it is moral or not depends on the impact it has and the ideals it promotes.

That is a question I ask you.. if there were no moral dilemma nothing would hold you from committing a crime!

Huh?!

This... doesn't even make any sense. How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

to sum it up if it is good because you deem it so, you'd abide by it as to not get caught, and if you don't agree with it then you are not constrained by it provided there is no consequence to it! Do I understand you correctly?

No you don't.

A system of law is necessary for the progression of individuals within a society. If you do value co-existence with other human beings and value living a safe life, which I do - then you have to by consequence concede the necessity of a system of law and order that governs this society to assists its stability and progression. The value of the law is determined by us, and designed for us.

The purpose of morality is to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, even in matters where a quick right or wrong motivation isn't clearly visible, how about you, what do you believe is the purpose of morality?

To assist our social affairs and to work for unity in different groups of people. Morality is by us, for us.

I would ask on your own claims: what exactly does 'right' and 'wrong' mean to you, Skye?

 

[جوري]

Atheism is not a system of any sort. It is not an ideology, a world view, a philosophy or a way of life. Nihilism negates and rejects the very idea of meaning. An atheist does not necessarily have to do such.

actually the more your reduce atheism in terms the more it crystallizes that it is nothing but a system of nihilism..

Excuse me, when did I say that? When did I even imply that I only 'respect' (whatever that means in this context) authority if I am 'caught'?

That is what one deduces from your writing.

What authority are you even referring to here precisely? I have already said that law has to be proposed and implemented for the establishment and progression of any society. I have also said that such a thing is a good thing.

authority as in governing body (govt. the law your neighborhood watch etc.) If you find it good then you are obedient to it, if you find it bad and act on your intent then you are a criminal.. there really is no in between, so I'd get off your high horse and hand in that broad sweeping brush that you enjoy painting everyone with!

That's up to you. I made observations on what I view to be the obedience vs. disobedience mentality of morality from God and your only response to things I said has been to attack my own moral perspective.

I have clarified for you that your observation is incorrect and elucidated for you that the same is easily gleaned watching an atheist at work.

Right... although that's besides the point, isn't it? Why would I abandon a practice or a perspective I find moral because another group of people happen to deem it immoral? It is a nonsensical request.

Who asked you to give up anything? as far as I know you are the guest here not otherwise.. no one knocked at your door and asked you to give up your salacious lifestyle for a structured one. I find it absurd you'd even suggest that anyone had such interest as far as you are concerned!

Let me change the example to something far closer to a unified agreement in Islam: alcohol. Muslims profess that it is wrong to consume alcohol, and yet I myself personally see no inherent flaw. Why would you expect me to forgo my own moral perspective because Islam or Muslims happen to disagree with it?

See above comment. No one has asked you to give up anything, we are merely highlighting that you are a moegoe for suggesting that 'obedience' is the drive in theism when it is clearly the only motivation behind atheism.. why spend all this time projecting is beyond me.. as for how or where or why you choose to live your life as you do is no one's concern, I really doubt anyone cares.
Each soul is held in pledge by its own deeds:

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ {38}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 74:38] Every soul is a pledge for its own deeds;

this should be your take home message, how genuinely un-concerned we are of the choices you make!
[/SIZE]

I'm really confused about how you phrase these questions.

I am more confused by the detours you take to deflect from them!

If there is no community whatsoever and any actions that could be deemed immoral harm no-one in any way shape or form then there is no moral dilemma. Morality rests upon actions that effect a community. It has absolutely no meaning externally from that.

And that is why we say that the atheist moral compass isn't the measuring stick we live by.. you oscillate between fear of consequence for wrong doing or not placing any value on any particular situation that doesn't have a chance of consequence!

So for example, if I happen to be drunk and decide to drive my car on an old abandoned freeway - I am not being immoral. I am being stupid, and possibly endangering myself but as no-one is there to be affected by my actions, it has no moral consequences.

unless you are too duped up to notice that you've killed two young people who are to be wed. Which is exactly what happened to two of my friends on an abandoned highway, both killed by a stupid drunk driver who was too duped up to notice what he'd done. How sad that you should see a distinction between right and wrong only if there is consequence provided you are lucid to perceive it!

If however, I get in a car drunk and floor it down a busy high street then yes, my actions are endangering others, are foolish and rightfully immoral.

I guess one can safely conclude that an atheist isn't concerned with prevention but a cure that is only self-serving!

The part in bold is a silly claim. Are you claiming that if there is a gap in understanding, that we must thereby assume that a supernatural arbiter is responsible for it?

It isn't a silly claim at all, at least not anymore silly than you peddling around the term 'empathy' without accounting for how you found yourself upon those feelings!

The law exists, in case you were wondering because of and for us. We postulate, establish and impose systems of conduct between groups of people for the purposes of maintaining and improving upon co-existence.

But you have admitted a couple of paragraphs ago that you don't mind going out drunk on an old 'abandoned' freeway.. because in your mind you deemed certain things to be factual
1- that the freeway will be abandoned
2- that being drunk really doesn't harm anyone but you
3- there is no chance that one of the 6 billion people in existence will cross your path at a juncture on said freeway
then how is that any of this is about 'improving co-existence' when the whole formula is really about one?
also that is if I am to subscribe to your scenario as is, being a stupid drunk costs billions of health care money and impacts everyone in your path, from work missed, to family abused to tax dollars spent, to hospital beds that should better go serve someone who didn't bring their disease upon themselves!

How is that related to obedience at all? I do not inherently believe all law is necessarily valid, or moral. The law is a framework for control within a society. Whether or not it is moral or not depends on the impact it has and the ideals it promotes.

So where you deem the law to be invalid and carrying no morality you are free to do as you please, for instance go out on a freeway you deem empty while drunk?

This... doesn't even make any sense. How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

:lol: that is really sad--
someone killed this woman:

and left her nude, dismembered body out on a field and got away with it.. it had no moral consequence.. Do you still not consider it a crime even though it had no consequence? further if you can commit a perfect crime as such and work it in your mind to not have any 'moral consequence' would you do it? be it theft or murder or anything to run the gamut?

No you don't.

A system of law is necessary for the progression of individuals within a society. If you do value co-existence with other human beings and value living a safe life, which I do - then you have to by consequence concede the necessity of a system of law and order that governs this society to assists its stability and progression. The value of the law is determined by us, and designed for us.

You can progress and be safe murdering and embezzling, society will still be 'stable and progressive'

To assist our social affairs and to work for unity in different groups of people. Morality is by us, for us.

Again, where is your baseline? you already admitted that How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences and that you are ok going out drunk on an empty freeway?

I would ask on your own claims: what exactly does 'right' and 'wrong' mean to you, Skye?

I have already defined that in my second response on this thread.. but I must thank you for clarifying that my suspicions of atheists were right all along!

all the best

 

[SMA89]

^^ that pic scared meeeeee!!!!!

 

[جوري]

^^ that pic scared meeeeee!!!!!

Then you should be grateful you didn't see the rest of her severed body which was left out like a piece of trash!

 

[Skavau]

actually the more your reduce atheism in terms the more it crystallizes that it is nothing but a system of nihilism..

Nihilism forgoes the possibility of Humanism. Atheism does not.

authority as in governing body (govt. the law your neighborhood watch etc.) If you find it good then you are obedient to it, if you find it bad and act on your intent then you are a criminal.. there really is no in between, so I'd get off your high horse and hand in that broad sweeping brush that you enjoy painting everyone with!

Observing authority here is not what I meant by obedience in this context. Deciding of your own free-will that something is worth following, or observing is not born out of obedience. I myself have decided to accept that the law is important both out of self-interest and out of ethical ideals. The law is a means to an end for social progression and not infallible in its own right. I have already told you there are systems of law that people rightfully oppose and act on it. I do not call the civic law of Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe moral. I call them oppressive, totalitarian and fascist in nature.

Now, you've made a false comparison regarding theistic morality and my morality here. Theistic morality can only mean morality from God. If it at any point refers to any independent concept, or invokes any exemption clause from this, or references any ideals outside of this - it becomes secular. The only definition of theistic morality can be morality ordered and decreed by God.

It can only define morality by what God says. It deem what is righteous not through rational enquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in such a belief and therefore what God says goes. It is from this not interested in humanity, but furthering the objectives and agenda of God. It does not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves or their impact on other people - but they are condemned because Allah has declared them so. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

That is what I mean by obedience. You cannot ever consider the possibility that God is wrong. You cannot ever consider the possibility of a moral standard outside of what God decrees. I freely assert that law is valuable to the progression of a human society. I don't declare law to be infallible, untouchable and unquestionable. With Allah, you do.

Who asked you to give up anything? as far as I know you are the guest here not otherwise.. no one knocked at your door and asked you to give up your salacious lifestyle for a structured one. I find it absurd you'd even suggest that anyone had such interest as far as you are concerned!

You did for the purpose of discussion.

You specifically asked me: "I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!"

My answer was to reference to things that Muslims find immoral (music and alcohol) and ask you why I would observe their contempt of them?

See above comment. No one has asked you to give up anything, we are merely highlighting that you are a moegoe for suggesting that 'obedience' is the drive in theism when it is clearly the only motivation behind atheism..

I think self-interest plays as much of a role by the way, in many theists. The repeated and consistent desire to enter paradise and avoid eternal torture The often declared reason for doing good by many Muslims from what I have observed and read is to specifically avoid such a fate.

One of the reasons that God's might and power mean anything to a believer is because of the proposed retribution for dissent. Another reinforcement to obedience.

And that is why we say that the atheist moral compass isn't the measuring stick we live by.. you oscillate between fear of consequence for wrong doing or not placing any value on any particular situation that doesn't have a chance of consequence!

Huh?

So you believe that there are such things as victimless crimes?

unless you are too duped up to notice that you've killed two young people who are to be wed. Which is exactly what happened to two of my friends on an abandoned highway, both killed by a stupid drunk driver who was too duped up to notice what he'd done. How sad that you should see a distinction between right and wrong only if there is consequence provided you are lucid to perceive it!

No. Do not rewrite my analogy and manipulate it in order to have it to suggest something I did not say. If a drunk driver, with full capacity, is on an abandoned stretch of road and knowingly decides to floor it then he is being foolish, but not immoral.

If your friends were there, then obviously the highway wasn't exactly as empty as he thought. My analogy is talking about a situation where the driver knows that it is empty. It was a crude example of a victimless crime.

I guess one can safely conclude that an atheist isn't concerned with prevention but a cure that is only self-serving!

How exactly do you conclude this from what I say?

But you have admitted a couple of paragraphs ago that you don't mind going out drunk on an old 'abandoned' freeway.. because in your mind you deemed certain things to be factual

No I didn't. I illustrated it for the purposes of discussion. I don't and would not ever drink and drive.

1- that the freeway will be abandoned
2- that being drunk really doesn't harm anyone but you
3- there is no chance that one of the 6 billion people in existence will cross your path at a juncture on said freeway

Again, the example was to represent a victimless crime.

then how is that any of this is about 'improving co-existence' when the whole formula is really about one?

It isn't. I never went and called the actions of the drunk driver moral.

also that is if I am to subscribe to your scenario as is, being a stupid drunk costs billions of health care money and impacts everyone in your path, from work missed, to family abused to tax dollars spent, to hospital beds that should better go serve someone who didn't bring their disease upon themselves!

Ah indeed, now that is a seperate discussion about how much assistance the state should give you if you cause yourself damage (and how much obligation you have to not harm yourself in specific ways). Again, my point was to merely invoke a crude example of a victimless crime.

So where you deem the law to be invalid and carrying no morality you are free to do as you please, for instance go out on a freeway you deem empty while drunk?

The law is oppressive and has outdeclared its purpose if it begins enacting and includes laws designed at the expense of the people. Designed to use the population to a means to an end.

and left her nude, dismembered body out on a field and got away with it.. it had no moral consequence.. Do you still not consider it a crime even though it had no consequence? further if you can commit a perfect crime as such and work it in your mind to not have any 'moral consequence' would you do it? be it theft or murder or anything to run the gamut?

Pictures like that do not shock me by the way, and your disingenuous response is noted.

There was a moral consequence to that action. That murderer killed someone. He took away someone's life for his own selfish desires. He decided her life was worth nothing compared to his specific desire to end it.

In fact, how could you reference a murder and decide there were no consequences? Do you even know what I meant by no consequences? I meant an action committed by someone where no-one was negatively impacted at all.

You can progress and be safe murdering and embezzling, society will still be 'stable and progressive'

No it won't.

One of the most important things for a group of people that decide to function as a community is that generally, killing each other for no reason will bring an end to their companionship. Any society that legalises murder is bound for social collapse at some point.

Again, where is your baseline? you already admitted that How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences and that you are ok going out drunk on an empty freeway?

What do you think I meant when I said 'no consequences'? I really don't think you got what I meant.

I have already defined that in my second response on this thread.. but I must thank you for clarifying that my suspicions of atheists were right all along!

I just read your second post to me and I did not see any references to right and wrong.

 

[جوري]

Nihilism forgoes the possibility of Humanism. Atheism does not.

what is humanistic about atheism. In fact it is the most un-feeling way of life in existence!

Observing authority here is not what I meant by obedience in this context. Deciding of your own free-will that something is worth following, or observing is not born out of obedience. I myself have decided to accept that the law is important both out of self-interest and out of ethical ideals. The law is a means to an end for social progression and not infallible in its own right. I have already told you there are systems of law that people rightfully oppose and act on it. I do not call the civic law of Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe moral. I call them oppressive, totalitarian and fascist in nature.

Pls spare your self-interest mambo jumbo you have already elucidated clearly in your previous posts that you have no regard for authority if you are not going to get caught, and I am certain the only impetus for atheists not to commit a crime is loss of that freedom rather than something far more visceral. To do for what you don't see knowing the possibility that it will completely go unaccounted for is not only altruistic but a meta state of existence, something no atheist can ever claim a drive for their being!

Now, you've made a false comparison regarding theistic morality and my morality here. Theistic morality can only mean morality from God. If it at any point refers to any independent concept, or invokes any exemption clause from this, or references any ideals outside of this - it becomes secular. The only definition of theistic morality can be morality ordered and decreed by God.

There is only one form of morality and that is a divine gift, it doesn't exist without God, and it doesn't exist under a different label-- whether you acknowledge that or not is inconsequential. The same way whether or not you recognize things in existence as having been created or simply appeared is inconsequential. You are free to think as you please!

It can only define morality by what God says. It deem what is righteous not through rational enquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in such a belief and therefore what God says goes. It is from this not interested in humanity, but furthering the objectives and agenda of God. It does not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves or their impact on other people - but they are condemned because Allah has declared them so. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

You don't know the first thing about who was condemned or why... I suggest you get your knowledge form another place than the dawkin net. Not only do you appear an under-educated fool gauging topics completely beyond your sphere of expertise but you mouth off the same psycho babble they indoctrinate you with as if it were your mantra. That is a declaration of folly and stupidity and not a philosophical debate!

That is what I mean by obedience. You cannot ever consider the possibility that God is wrong. You cannot ever consider the possibility of a moral standard outside of what God decrees. I freely assert that law is valuable to the progression of a human society. I don't declare law to be infallible, untouchable and unquestionable. With Allah, you do.

You disgust me truly!

You did for the purpose of discussion.

You specifically asked me: "I asked you what it is to keep you from committing something that is deemed immoral to theists if you yourself find it good and moral!"

My answer was to reference to things that Muslims find immoral (music and alcohol) and ask you why I would observe their contempt of them?

And I told you that music doesn't hold a moral value rather it is a prohibition. Do you read at all?

I think self-interest plays as much of a role by the way, in many theists. The repeated and consistent desire to enter paradise and avoid eternal torture The often declared reason for doing good by many Muslims from what I have observed and read is to specifically avoid such a fate.

There is no guarantee that avoidance will spare your hell-fire, again I wonder why you gauge topics of theology when you have no idea of the basic tenets? Do you follow any threads here at all to learn the basics of the religion of your hosts? Your deeds don't earn you heaven or hell.. in fact all you do in this life is so you can have a decent life. If you don't drink you don't end up a drunk, if you pray you don't have to go on anti-depressants, if you give to charity you can live in a decent society where you don't have to fear snipers coming at you for a loaf of bread.. your deeds mean absolutely zilch -- if you took every second of every day to show gratitude it still wouldn't compass what God has given you so that you can go on the side and think '''he'' is a bad guy'

Huh?

So you believe that there are such things as victimless crimes?

It wasn't you who wrote this?
How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

answering a question with a question is not an answer!

No. Do not rewrite my analogy and manipulate it in order to have it to suggest something I did not say. If a drunk driver, with full capacity, is on an abandoned stretch of road and knowingly decides to floor it then he is being foolish, but not immoral.

How does a drunkard reason? and how can you assume the road is abandoned? how can you account for every life in existence to deem it abandoned? maybe another moron drunk thought the same thoughts and went off on the same road!
and of course it has no moral consequences as per you, we have already established that yours isn't the measuring stick by which morality is established!

If your friends were there, then obviously the highway wasn't exactly as empty as he thought. My analogy is talking about a situation where the driver knows that it is empty. It was a crude example of a victimless crime.

Your analogy falls short on every level!

How exactly do you conclude this from what I say?

It was easy!

No I didn't. I illustrated it for the purposes of discussion. I don't and would not ever drink and drive.

Yeah, ok!

Again, the example was to represent a victimless crime.

you can justify it so that there are no victims. plus how is one victimized when life ceases and they have no family, where is the justice if nothing else?

It isn't. I never went and called the actions of the drunk driver moral.

Just inconsequential except to the drunk of course!

Ah indeed, now that is a seperate discussion about how much assistance the state should give you if you cause yourself damage (and how much obligation you have to not harm yourself in specific ways). Again, my point was to merely invoke a crude example of a victimless crime.

There is no such a thing and it is a shame the telescopic view of atheists!

The law is oppressive and has outdeclared its purpose if it begins enacting and includes laws designed at the expense of the people. Designed to use the population to a means to an end.

Every man made law is oppressive indeed!

Pictures like that do not shock me by the way, and your disingenuous response is noted.

How is it meant to shock you? it was meant to make a point. a murderer got away with his crime, there was no consequence as per you. What keeps you from committing a perfect crime like this if there were no consequences and you can actually stand to gain quite a bit from it? ''empathy''? how do you empathize with the dead?

There was a moral consequence to that action. That murderer killed someone. He took away someone's life for his own selfish desires. He decided her life was worth nothing compared to his specific desire to end it.

So? again, what makes a life worth anything if all we are slightly evolved animals that come and go, what difference does it make if she dies at 15 or 45 really in the scheme of things?

In fact, how could you reference a murder and decide there were no consequences? Do you even know what I meant by no consequences? I meant an action committed by someone where no-one was negatively impacted at all.

Who is negatively impacted here? the deceased has no feelings anymore and there was no family to claim her, and the murderer undoubtedly enjoyed it given the grotesque manner in which he posed her body!

No it won't.

One of the most important things for a group of people that decide to function as a community is that generally, killing each other for no reason will bring an end to their companionship. Any society that legalises murder is bound for social collapse at some point.

every society legalizes murder, especially atheistic societies where human life is worth even less so 15 million one shot, 20 million one shot, they might even think it good for the environment, over-crowding and God knows what else. Why do we have armies and navies and air forces, and death chambers and lethal injections if murder wasn't legal under the pretense of great duress?

What do you think I meant when I said 'no consequences'? I really don't think you got what I meant.

No, I think I got it!

I just read your second post to me and I did not see any references to right and wrong.

it wasn't my second post to you, rather the second on this thread!

 

[Skavau]

what is humanistic about atheism. In fact it is the most un-feeling way of life in existence!

Is this proposed as a real point? Humanism is a moral philosophy that considers all ethical claims to be considered in the context of human interests. Atheism does not oppose such an idea.

Pls spare your self-interest mambo jumbo you have already elucidated clearly in your previous posts that you have no regard for authority if you are not going to get caught

I never said that. I have never once even ever implied anything like that whatsoever.

and I am certain the only impetus for atheists not to commit a crime is loss of that freedom rather than something far more visceral

There we go then: you're again accusing me of lying. You don't believe that I have any moral ideology. What is the point of conversation if you just outright refuse to accept anything I say as sincere?

In any case, click here.

To do for what you don't see knowing the possibility that it will completely go unaccounted for is not only altruistic but a meta state of existence, something no atheist can ever claim a drive for their being!

So I take it you believe that Amnesty International is an organisation rooted in self-interest. I take you believe that all of these non-profit groups are somehow deceptive in their objectives?

There is only one form of morality and that is a divine gift, it doesn't exist without God, and it doesn't exist under a different label-- whether you acknowledge that or not is inconsequential.

I suspect that what you mean here is that our ability to consider what ought and ought not is a gift from God. This is just a claim and indeed, doesn't have much to do with my perspective on theistic morality.

I am talking about specifically those who make the claim that moral actions are justified by God's blessing and condemned by God's disapproval. I am talking about the idea that morality is decreed by God.

You don't know the first thing about who was condemned or why... I suggest you get your knowledge form another place than the dawkin net. Not only do you appear an under-educated fool gauging topics completely beyond your sphere of expertise but you mouth off the same psycho babble they indoctrinate you with as if it were your mantra. That is a declaration of folly and stupidity and not a philosophical debate!

Is something good because God declares it to be so, or does God declares it to be so because it is good?

Keep in mind, that it cannot be both.

You disgust me truly!

I'm touched. I didn't mean to offend, but I had to specifically explain what I meant.

And I told you that music doesn't hold a moral value rather it is a prohibition. Do you read at all?

I know you did. You complained about me answering your question. You asked me a frankly an incoherent question about whether or not I could guarantee that I would forgo any actions deemed immoral by theists that I see as permissable. My answer was, well, no I couldn't (and wouldn't) because obviously I don't see them as immoral.

There is no guarantee that avoidance will spare your hell-fire, again I wonder why you gauge topics of theology when you have no idea of the basic tenets?

We're not talking about theology. I made an observation about the behaviour of those who have a genuine belief that their beliefs and actions affect their position in the afterlife. I am well aware that Islamic doctrine declares no guarantee for paradise for a Muslim.

Do you follow any threads here at all to learn the basics of the religion of your hosts? Your deeds don't earn you heaven or hell.. in fact all you do in this life is so you can have a decent life. If you don't drink you don't end up a drunk, if you pray you don't have to go on anti-depressants, if you give to charity you can live in a decent society where you don't have to fear snipers coming at you for a loaf of bread.. your deeds mean absolutely zilch -- if you took every second of every day to show gratitude it still wouldn't compass what God has given you so that you can go on the side and think '''he'' is a bad guy'

Okay. All I did was make a simple observation about the role self-interest plays in religious ideologies that invoke a punishment vs. reward dichtonomy.

It wasn't you who wrote this?
How can something even be considered a crime if there are no consequences?!

Correct. I don't accept the concept of a 'victimless crime'. Which is why, as you know, I don't consider consensual incest as something that ought to be criminalised. It is why I don't accept censorship in the media in any form.

I think you misread or misunderstood what I meant by "no consequences". By "no consequences" I do not mean evading capture for say, murder (an action which has direct effects on others). I mean actions that involve in and of themselves no harm or negative impact to anyone. Actions that only concern you.

Is it clearer now? I am not saying that with knowledge and/or ability to get away with a crime, it is acceptable to commit it.

How does a drunkard reason? and how can you assume the road is abandoned? how can you account for every life in existence to deem it abandoned? maybe another moron drunk thought the same thoughts and went off on the same road!

In the context of the analogy, we are assuming it is an abandoned road.

Yeah, ok!

So do you think I am lying again?

you can justify it so that there are no victims. plus how is one victimized when life ceases and they have no family, where is the justice if nothing else?

I don't even know what this means.

There is no such a thing and it is a shame the telescopic view of atheists!

Do you even know what 'victimless crime' means? The word, I mean?

It is when a state criminalises things that cause people no harm. An example you are familiar with is apostasy in Islam under an Islamic state.

Every man made law is oppressive indeed!

Do you think the UN Declaration of Human Rights is oppressive?

How is it meant to shock you? it was meant to make a point. a murderer got away with his crime, there was no consequence as per you. What keeps you from committing a perfect crime like this if there were no consequences and you can actually stand to gain quite a bit from it? ''empathy''? how do you empathize with the dead?

When I am talking about consequences, I am not talking about consequences just to me - I am talking about consequences to everyone.

I already explained the distinction earlier.

So? again, what makes a life worth anything if all we are slightly evolved animals that come and go, what difference does it make if she dies at 15 or 45 really in the scheme of things?

We assert value on life. That's all that is necessary. If a million likeminded people come together with the notion that life is rather important both for our own individual survival and our survival as a community, then murder is easily considered at the very best an unacceptable anti-social practice.

Who is negatively impacted here? the deceased has no feelings anymore and there was no family to claim her, and the murderer undoubtedly enjoyed it given the grotesque manner in which he posed her body!

She did have feelings. A society can come to the thoroughly rational conclusion that for all involved, the illegalisation of murder safeguards everyone far better than the legalisation of it.

every society legalizes murder, especially atheistic societies where human life is worth even less so 15 million one shot, 20 million one shot, they might even think it good for the environment, over-crowding and God knows what else. Why do we have armies and navies and air forces, and death chambers and lethal injections if murder wasn't legal under the pretense of great duress?

You may not have noticed, but I don't know anyone who contends anything in the above is moral.

it wasn't my second post to you, rather the second on this thread!

Ah, thank you.

"Now to answer your original Q. 'Good' is what Allah swt declares to be good and bad is all that Allah swt. prohibited. If you are not sure then it is best to avoid it rather than render your own interpretation!"

So there we go - good and evil: obedience and disobedience. You just admitted it. So everything I said in my last post concerning theistic morality that you found disgusting happens to be true.

 

[جوري]

Is this proposed as a real point? Humanism is a moral philosophy that considers all ethical claims to be considered in the context of human interests. Atheism does not oppose such an idea.

Human interests at times denotes wiping out 15 million at a time and you are correct, I do find that to be in concert with atheism!

There we go then: you're again accusing me of lying. You don't believe that I have any moral ideology. What is the point of conversation if you just outright refuse to accept anything I say as sincere?

In any case, click here.

This site has a poor reputation. according to WOT
why do atheists like to hang in obscene crevices and expect that others should frequent their cesspools as well is beyond me!

So I take it you believe that Amnesty International is an organisation rooted in self-interest. I take you believe that all of these non-profit groups are somehow deceptive in their objectives?

What the hell are you talking about? Pls. try to focus I bore easily especially when you peddle psycho-babble!

I suspect that what you mean here is that our ability to consider what ought and ought not is a gift from God. This is just a claim and indeed, doesn't have much to do with my perspective on theistic morality.

As stated your feelings on the matter are inconsequential!

I am talking about specifically those who make the claim that moral actions are justified by God's blessing and condemned by God's disapproval. I am talking about the idea that morality is decreed by God.

Morality is an innate trait and it is indeed a god bestowed gift!

Is something good because God declares it to be so, or does God declares it to be so because it is good?

?

Keep in mind, that it cannot be both.

?

I'm touched. I didn't mean to offend, but I had to specifically explain what I meant.

and we concede that you spew drivel.. it would be a shame for me to acknowledge it beyond what I have written!

I know you did. You complained about me answering your question. You asked me a frankly an incoherent question about whether or not I could guarantee that I would forgo any actions deemed immoral by theists that I see as permissable. My answer was, well, no I couldn't (and wouldn't) because obviously I don't see them as immoral.

If you found it incoherent why must you strain so hard to exonerate yourself? I have already acknowledged that your baseline for morality isn't the measuring stick by which most live their lives and in general that is true for most atheists and those who live outside of God's guidance in varying degrees of kufr!

We're not talking about theology. I made an observation about the behaviour of those who have a genuine belief that their beliefs and actions affect their position in the afterlife. I am well aware that Islamic doctrine declares no guarantee for paradise for a Muslim.

If you are well aware then why make continuous non-points from which one can only deduce that you are an under-educated fool?

Okay. All I did was make a simple observation about the role self-interest plays in religious ideologies that invoke a punishment vs. reward dichtonomy.

And I have stated several posts ago, that with no visible guarantee one performs said duties out of love, devotion and a deep meta-interest that no atheist could possible fathom for their lives simply revolve around self-interest and acknowledgment in the here and now!

Correct. I don't accept the concept of a 'victimless crime'. Which is why, as you know, I don't consider consensual incest as something that ought to be criminalised. It is why I don't accept censorship in the media in any form.

Well here we have it.. thank you for that refreshing honesty!

I think you misread or misunderstood what I meant by "no consequences". By "no consequences" I do not mean evading capture for say, murder (an action which has direct effects on others). I mean actions that involve in and of themselves no harm or negative impact to anyone. Actions that only concern you.

Every negative action can be misconstrued to involve no harm if one convinces themselves of that and you have beautifully demonstrated!

Is it clearer now? I am not saying that with knowledge and/or ability to get away with a crime, it is acceptable to commit it.

It has been clear from the start!

It is when a state criminalises things that cause people no harm. An example you are familiar with is apostasy in Islam under an Islamic state.

Again gauging in a topic well beyond your one line quips and I think I am to fault here for thinking you capable of a conversation to a level!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

Human interests at times denotes wiping out 15 million at a time and you are correct, I do find that to be in concert with atheism!

How do human interests involve killing other humans? Do you even know what I meant by 'human interests'?

This site has a poor reputation. according to WOT
why do atheists like to hang in obscene crevices and expect that others should frequent their cesspools as well is beyond me!

WOT... I just googled that. Are you talking about a firefox extension which deals in safe browsing?

Anyway, it's completely safe if so.

What the hell are you talking about? Pls. try to focus I bore easily especially when you peddle psycho-babble!

You questioned the capacity of atheists to engage in altruistic acts. What about secular charities, which are no doubt assisted and funded by millions of atheists?

Morality is an innate trait and it is indeed a god bestowed gift!

That is what you believe and it is different to what I mean when I talk about 'theistic morality'. Indeed, even you have asserted a distinction by declaring that good and evil are directly related by God's approval and disapproval.

?

I'm sorry, the Euthyphro Dilemma confuses you?

Is an action morally good because God says so or does God say so because it is good? I can't put it in any simpler terms than that.

and we concede that you spew drivel.. it would be a shame for me to acknowledge it beyond what I have written!

No, you claim I spew drivel. It just happens that it is your primary argument against me.

If you found it incoherent why must you strain so hard to exonerate yourself? I have already acknowledged that your baseline for morality isn't the measuring stick by which most live their lives and in general that is true for most atheists and those who live outside of God's guidance in varying degrees of kufr!

Judging by what you think I believe, and what I actually believe I suspect your conclusions on what my "measuring stick" involves are inaccurate.

And I have stated several posts ago, that with no visible guarantee one performs said duties out of love, devotion and a deep meta-interest that no atheist could possible fathom for their lives simply revolve around self-interest and acknowledgment in the here and now!

How exactly would you pretend to know what motivates me in my life?

Well here we have it.. thank you for that refreshing honesty!

Now you know what I meant then. Can we move on with you claiming I think crime is perfectly acceptable if you can get away with it? It is untrue.

Every negative action can be misconstrued to involve no harm if one convinces themselves of that and you have beautifully demonstrated!

I'm not talking about a criminal that manipulates the authorities in order to make it appear he has done no wrong - I am talking about genuine victimless crimes. Things that states criminalise despite it affecting no-one.

Again gauging in a topic well beyond your one line quips and I think I am to fault here for thinking you capable of a conversation to a level!

Good day.

 

[Hugo]

And 'why' usually has an answer-- however, why will also not have an answer sometime.. Many things in this world even in science are arbitrary. Why do you scrub yourself a certain number of times before going into surgery? why is the diagnosis of schizophrenia given at the cut off point of 6 months why not 5 months and twenty nine days why not 4 months, are you any less or any more schizophrenic at 6 than you were at five and a half? Why do you become of age at 18? how about 17 and a half?
Is there any logic in the previous that you can understand? NO, you put some faith in that a governing body convened and decided this is the cutoff point.
Now, unlike in real life which is rather unforgiving, with God, you are free to go into the path of your choosing. No one is holding a gun to your head to pray or give charity or fast or not eat pigs or drink liquor... you do it only if you love God and if you love God then God loves you. Then when it reaches that stage, then you are truly with God:

Of course I agree that things in life are vague and if you look at my earlier post I discussed that at length. So its not just in science it also applies to almost if not all life's decisions and any written text because always one must interpret in some way.

I however cannot agree that one does good deeds, agrees to social norms or even prays because you love God though this might of course be true and we would hope it is true. If we take the case of good deeds then many who do not profess any faith engage in that activity.

And only a person who has reached that stage of being completely with God can tell you what it means.. I don't anyone in Christianity has ever reached or will ever reach that stage save for the few that Allah swt spoke of in the Quran!

I am not sure what you mean here since none of us is free from sin so one supposes none of us is completely with God?

I think that is one of the greatest problems with Christianity, you do away with everything God commanded and rationalize if not downright change his commandments to suit your whims and then come question other people on their rational..Wouldn't you be better suited to answer why God would decide to be born and die before you go into ancillary questions?

The trouble, if I may say so with you and many Muslims is that you decide what Christians believe and always in a derogatory manner. Almost always you have never read and studied the whole Bible and what you do have comes from questionable websites. I don't know any Christian who for example would change the 10 commandments to suit themselves. What I question here is you rational for perpetrating such falsities - that is not a good things is it?

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am suprised that this thread has gotten this far with nobody bringing up Steven Winebergs quote: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion"

I'd change "religion" to "dogma", be it a religion or secular ideology. The people we have to be concerned about are those who blindly follow a charismatic leader, be it a pop star, a religious figure or author (including the authors of "holy books"), or a politician. The danger is in group think and in subjection or surrender of one's own mind to the dictates of another.

Freedom of thought is the only freedom that can't be taken by force, and yet so many are so eager to throw it away.