Where are the Morals?

[paulpablo]

I can give you more myths on “creation of man from clay” originated in many diversified nations.

Interesting point is, as if NATURAL SELECTION has worked out “naturally” different versions of all these mystical stories on “creation of man from clay” and spread them in all nations of the world by means of blind, random, and unguided process.

I can show you many creation stories involving eggs, either the universe, or a god coming out of an egg.
It doesn't prove or disprove anything about gods existing, coming out of eggs, or anything of the sort.

I can show you many creation stories involving gods with a wife, and children.
This doesn't disprove Islam which says god had no wife or children or show anything. It doesn't mean that there is a god or that he had children or a wife.

Women, children, clay, birds, snakes are things that primitive cultures used often in their stories, myths and legends.

Currently there is no general agreement among biologists on the adaptive function of sex.

Meiosis, a key stage of the sexual cycle, involves close pairing and physical recombination and information exchange between homologous chromosomes ordinarily derived from two different parents. During meiosis, the members of each chromosome pair come together and the pairing partners exchange segments. Old combinations of alleles that were linked and inherited together are broken up, and new combinations are formed. Since CROSSING-OVER can occur at different sites in different germ cells, this process of recombination generates an almost limitless amount of variation in the gametes.

NATURAL SELECTION has no defence to counter this exhaustive yet precise process of meiosis. The adaptive function of sex remains, today, one of the major unsolved problems in biology.

First you will have to explain in laymans terms what you mean by natural selection has no defense and so on, if I'm to understand what you mean.

What you just typed would seem to be completely irrelevant to what I was saying about the ridiculous myths in Islam involving different colored clay explaining the diversity among humans.

I've briefly searched the topic of the adaptive function of sex, and at a glance it would seem that biologists have concluded that there's many different reasons why sexual reproduction began but they just haven't agreed which one of the many possibilities is correct.
It would be illogical to think "Scientists can't agree which hypothesis is correct so all the hypothesis must be wrong"
This would be like looking at the big bang theory and the steady state theory before the discovery of microwave background radiation and just saying "Ok well there's two different theories here, scientists can't agree on so both are definitely wrong."

---

Aisha was not the only woman who has a historical significance and who was married at a young age.

Agreed, and I never said otherwise.

---

Can you say that parents of all those girls, I have mentioned above including Aisha, were "Child Molesters" because they had given their daughters as legal wives in their young ages?

I never accused Muhammad or anyone of being a child molester to begin with, although he would be considered one in this day and age in any English community.
I think even most Muslim communities in England would be against the marriage of an older man to a 9 year old just because they're used to living under secular laws and customs.

---

No sexual abuse victim had ever spoken positively of her attacker.

Not true.

---

In hundreds of her narrations, Aisha had never shown her displeasure about this marriage. On the contrary, she had spoken dearly of the Prophet.

I'm wondering if you read or understood my post at all because you seem to be arguing against points I never made, I never said Aisha didn't like Muhammad, or that she spoke badly of him.
My point is that it's my opinion that marrying a 9 year old is wrong in this day and age in England, this isn't just due to what the 9 year old wants, it's for the sake of a society which isn't perfect but does have some standards of how long children should be in education for and when a person who's growing up can make a decision based on wisdom and maturity.
Also it's my opinion that the actions of a man 1400 years ago should not be seen as something to emulate in modern society.

---

Here I believe that atheist is vulnerable to all immoral acts due to lack of morality in atheism. Uncontrollable personal desires have power to structure, control and derive personal preferences, which in general are very much prone to wickedness.

No because I could be an atheist and kill prostitutes or I could be a theist and worship the god of killing prostitutes. It makes no difference.
And yes personal desires can lead to things which you may call wicked but not in general.
In general most humans desire safety, cooperativeness, efficiency, kindness and so on.

---

Rapist who “rape the girl, kill her, then cut the body up, and send the limbs to the parents” is a retarded person who has no brain for saying:

"No, it's not right to marry a girl that young, she should probably finish her education and mature properly"

No you misunderstand me............

I'm not saying one specific atheist goes out and rapes a girl and cuts up her body, then he also says that girl should probably finish her education........

I'm making a point that yes an atheist can be barbaric and there's no codes or laws within a disbelief in god to tell him to do otherwise.

But there's no god there to tell him he has to rape and cut up a girl either, there's no god there telling him he can't say that marriage to a 9 year old is wrong, he can have his own opinion.
And I have just about enough faith in society to believe that the majority of people are altruistic enough to form functional, and non wicked societies.
And also wise enough to form opinions based on knowledge of the consequences of actions in the real world. Not just made up consequences of what will happen in a fictional place after people die.