Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:39 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where are the Morals?
RE: Where are the Morals?
(November 24, 2014 at 6:52 am)Harris Wrote:
(November 21, 2014 at 8:18 am)Irrational Wrote: Religion tells you to commit genocide and other detestable deeds in the name of God.
Is that the kind of morals you're advocating, OP? Because I'm fine with my own moral standards, thank you.

Do you have any idea who these people are?

Stalin
Mao Zedong
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Pol Pot
Benito Mussolini
Hideki Tojo
Nicolae Ceausescu
Slobodan Milosevic
Kim Sung

Yeah, but what does this list have to do with my moral standards?

Well, at least you did not deny that religion advocates certain atrocities ...
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
(November 24, 2014 at 11:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sorry, you think that the statement "the dead have fewer babies than the living" isn't scientific, observable, or testable? I'm not really sure what your objection is, care to be more specific?

"The dead have fewer babies than the living" is the best analogy to the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution I have ever encountered. Indeed, Theory of Evolution is a conjecture not scientifically proven theory.

(November 24, 2014 at 1:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I disagree with you. I don't think it's right to ever have sex with a 12 or 13 year old.

I respect your ideas as they reflect wisdom in them however, you should recall the age of children who are used in child pornography for which people (including atheists) pay decent amounts of money to enjoy watching them in their bedrooms.

Do not forget another fact that by using human trafficking, people are bringing children in developed countries to use them in prostitution industry. Also some rich people travel to third world countries for having sex with young children.

For me people who use children in pornography and prostitution as well as people who pay money to see child pornography or to have sex with a child are all criminals of the same level.

Is it not good if an adult marry an adolescence, look after her needs in a legal manner, give her protection, and respect than someone who pay money to have illegal sex with a child and after having it throw that child in the garbage as filthy condom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_of_children

(November 24, 2014 at 1:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Unlike Muslims I'm open minded to ideas that maybe the actions of people 1400 years ago may not be the standard we should have now.
But out of curiosity where is the proof?

I reserve my response until Surgenator will show his authentic source on the foundation of which he is molesting the character of Prophet Mohammad.

(November 24, 2014 at 1:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You're still defending Muhammad when I don't really have a problem with Muhammad's actions, for the reason it was 1400 years ago and I'm sure Muhammad possibly was quite civilized for a man of his time.
The problem lies in the fact that people see it as ok to marry a girl of 9 years old as long as she wants to and the parents want to.

I'm talking about now, and the standards of living we have now. Which people complain about but are a lot better than the standards of 1400 years ago.

I pay you my humble gratitude for the respect you are showing for Prophet Mohammad in a place where others are accusing him for paedophilia.

I do not find any harm if a girl lawfully marry in her adolescence with the consent of her parents and other community members and gets respect, dignity, and honour. I totally support lawful marriage with an adolescence against illegal child pornography or child prostitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_of_children

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Please share with us your fabulous information on the mechanism of NATURAL SELECTION if, according to you, it is not blind, random, and unguided process.

First off, I never said it wasn't blind. I said it is not random. Know the difference.

In the meantime read a real book on biology

Who is the most passionate believer in Theory of Evolution?

Dawkins.

Show me one of his example as justification to Theory of Evolution that may qualify the standards of modern scientific research.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Your discriptions of human society is plainly wrong. Humans are social creatures who care about what other humans think of them. Human communities make laws, some are moral and some are not. An individual can make their own. If they disagree with the community's, they are marked as a deviant. That doesn't mean the deviants morals are inferior, they can be superior to the communities. Your claim that the induviduals will always lead to inferior morals is plainly wrong when considered things like slavery and pedophilia.

Correct, people care about what other people think of them because humans are contingent beings. As part of a social group, a person is obliged to respect others in order to earn respect for himself. However, true nature of each individual is egotistical. Man never releases any opportunity out of any event or activity from which he can derive enjoyment whether there is a necessity for it or not. This attribute shines when a man gets the power to implement his preferred criterions over others and does not fear of having any moral accountability. Hitler, Stalin … are great examples of such narcissistic character.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Aisha was not the only woman who has a historical significance and who was married at a young age.
Irrelavent. Other people commiting paedophilia paedophilia doesn't excuse them nor Muhammad.

I guess you do not differentiate between marriage and paedophilia because of the age factor. If so then you are gravely wrong.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: What is the source of your information?
Your quotes and logic.

My arguments are saying that Prophet Mohammad was not a paedophilia.

I am still waiting to see the source of information based on what you are making flamboyant allegations on the character of Prophet Mohammad.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: On what authority are you accusing Prophet Mohammad for paedophilia?
Definiton of pedophilia.

What the definition of paedophilia has to do with the source of information, which gives us the knowledge on how Prophet Mohammad lived his life?

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: We know he (Mohammad) was a paedophile. So lets hear it Muslims, "paedophilia is ok."

You have to show me undisputable source on the authority of which you are accusing Prophet Mohammad for Paedophilia in a Heroic manner.

It's called a definition.

Please try to be precise.

From where did you get the knowledge that Prophet Mohammad married with 9 years old Aisha.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Are you a drug addict? If not then why are you reluctant in having some fun by having those SCIENTIFIC DRUGS to MODIFY your PRIMAL SENSES, FEELINGS, and EMOTIONS?

So you decided to go after a character assassination route. Seems like you can't argue against the obvious counter to your BS.

Are you kidding? Drugs are nothing new to humans. Your statement “Science can modify primal senses, feelings, and emotions. It's called drugs,” is a baseless assertion that only shows lack of your knowledge.

http://inpud.wordpress.com/timeline-of-e...-of-drugs/

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: People until recently did not know about Halocline, process of child birth, the way the universe came into being, and many other things which Quran had pointed to about fifteen hundred years ago.

So you found a gap in knowledge and shoved your god in there. I hope he's not claustrophobic, because those gaps keep getting smaller.

You have no knowledge about Quran and all what you are saying is based upon the popular propaganda against Islam.

Let us take an example of Halocline again. This phenomenon is a modern discovery but Allah has revealed this fact about fifteen hundred years ago in an illiterate and ignorant community, which lived in the middle of a desert far from coastal regions and has very little knowledge about oceans.

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.”
Al Furqaan (25)
-Verse 53-

“He has let loosed the two seas (the salt water and the sweet) meeting together.
Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress.”
Ar Rahmaan (55)
Verses 19 – 20

“Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.”
An Naml (27)
-Verse 61-

These three verses only confirm that revelation of Halocline in Quran is by no means a coincidence.

So as you see that Quran has exposed a recently discovered scientific fact about fifteen hundred years ago.

Is to this you call “God of the gaps?”

Modern science is only endorsing the fact what Quran had revealed about 1500 years ago.

Is not it a miracle?

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Simply science has not reached to the point where it can discover everything about the moon. Else, if by now those facts are already available, do you think that people who detest Islam would let that information to escape in the public domain? Never, for them that information has a high strategic value.

So we need to know everything before we can say anything?

We should have sufficient knowledge about human endeavours because they literally influence almost all concepts.

Quran is not the outcome of human endeavours.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: A previously split moon would be easy to identify. You just need to look for a the big-continuous ridge circling the whole moon.

People have pointed it out that the moon was not split. How do you think I knew about it?

Today, the information (true or false) spread around the world in seconds. There are people who take any information flippantly whereas some people contemplate before they give their opinions.

I have a solid ground to believe that Quran is the word of God even if something in it scientifically unproven. Scientists are working hard and they are testifying truthfulness of the facts mentioned in Quran by their scientific discoveries. I am sure that eventually science would testify the split of the moon if that fact yet not discovered. We cannot rule out the possibility that this discovery had already been made but due to strategic importance, this information is concealed from the public by intention.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I'm so sorry for making fun of you. I thought you were full of shit until you quoted your holy book. That makes all the difference.

I ask you to spend some time in reading this conversation from the beginning. In this conversation, I have established sufficient reasoning with the help of Quran, philosophy, and science to show that disbelief in the existence of God is irrational.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I would be obliged if you show some illogical things mentioned in Quran and Hadith.

I would be obliged if you show some logical things proving the Quran and Hadith.

Read this discussion from the beginning. After reading it you will have enough logical reasoning that helps you to understand Quran and Hadith in a better way.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Please provide some government source that confirm these statistics. Otherwise, your statement is nothing but a Blah!

The percentage rose since the last time to 2.4%
The government site is in there

Internet is flooded with such websites. Please find some government source, which gives the figures based on survey conducted in 2013 or 2014.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Do I really need to point out the atrocities done in the name of religion like this, this, this, this, and of course this.

I had already given my responses on similar criticisms. Please read this conversation from the beginning.

It is so intimidating that you (atheists) have replaced God with science but when you talk about homosexuality, you utterly ignore your own Majestic Science.

You mean that homosexuality happens naturally? If god didn't want it, you shouldn't make animals gay. [/quote]

What are you trying to prove here? Are you saying there is no difference between humans and animals including low life forms?

If you are saying that because there are rare homosexual cases in animals and God made them so to justify homosexual behaviour in human then I can bring savage behaviour of animals to justify acts of Hitler and Stalin and say God made them so.

What kind of argument is that?

God is the creator of everything. He knows best what the purpose of His created beings is. We can never comprehend the purpose of everything in our short lives hence best thing for us is to obey the instructions of our creator and that will keep us away from any unseen harm.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: If you have solid argument then bring in that instead of throwing FALLACY expression. These FALLACY lingos normally work well to confusion general audiences.

Why should I argue against a fallacy?

First, you have to prove my argument is a fallacy only than you would be in position to decide whether to give counter argument or not.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 19 and 20 centuries had shown otherwise. In the contemporary world, this authoritarianism continues in the countries where atheists are in power.

Instead of saying no, they don't and heres the proof, you argue that man's do to.

Religious people indeed had done some brutal acts and I am not planned to hide those proven atrocities. I had only given the comparison between the evil done by theists in the name of religion and the evil done by atheists in the name of atheism. Atheism has proven itself to be the cause of biggest evil in the entire human history.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I do not care whether there is a spokesperson in atheism or not. I do care about rational and logical arguments no matter whether presented by some spokesperson or by you.

This means you will stop quoting Dawkins or Harris about atheism as if their opinions dictate other atheist opinions. I look forward to it.

Whenever, I give some quote the sole purpose of that is to expose how disbelief in God turn people into Hitler Stalin, Mao, or supporters of those monsters.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Yes, we know about atheist dictators and their wonderful morals.

Yes, we know about those theist dictators and their wonderful morals. Before you start listing your list, you should look up nationalism. It will explain a lot if you're willing to think about it.

I am a student of philosophy and comparative religions. To study “–ism” is part of my studies. If atheism would be the tenant of any code of belief then that ideology would be at a very high risk to end up in barbarism.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Lets start with the man from clay. Please provide evidence that man was made from clay.

Think logically and scientifically.

The food, which people consume, is the product of soil and water. Human body transforms food into proteins, which then render into different parts of human body in the mother’s womb by using information stored in genomes. In a way, people are made of soil and water, who decompose and transmute back into dust when they die.

Logically, this fact conforms the miraculous creation of first man (Adam) from clay.

“O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much), and (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).”
Al Hajj (22)
-Verse 5-

“He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery,”
Ar Rahmaan (55)
-Verse 14-

“Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);”
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 12-

“And indeed, We created man from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud.”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 26-

“Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 28-

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not following the precepts of their religion well is not the same thing as not caring whether God exists. There are plenty of lackadaisacal Muslims and Christians who are fervent in defending the idea that God is real. Someone not being good at being a Muslim doesn't make them an atheist, and doesn't mean they don't care if God is real. But I agree that people who don't care if God is real are atheists, they're just not the people you originally described.

A religious person, who does not care about God’s existence, never fights to defend such a God. He brings God only to exploit his selfish desires and for the purpose to fuel people to fight for his cause.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Theism isn't a synonym for religion. If you'd like to say 'religion' instead of 'theism' going forward, that is fine with me.

Although theism and atheism are antonyms, yet theism is not empty and barren compare to atheism. Theism is not the negation of God it is the affirmation. The acknowledgement of God is in itself a religion because recognition of God gives sense of humility and obedience. Anyway, further I will not use the word theism because of its face value.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not all religions define God as good, and mere theism is silent on the matter.

My focus is on monotheism. The belief in the existence of God encompasses the belief that He is the creator of everything. In fact, this belief integrates all the properties of God within it whereas religion interpret those properties for our better understanding. Therefore, theism is not a mere belief in the existence of God but it is the heart of religious laws.

Atheism leads to nothingness, nothingness can only produce non-existence, and so it cannot be the foundation of any ideology.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I wouldn't presume to lecture someone whose native language is different from mine on its subtleties. Not believing one thing is not necessarily the same as believing the opposite or negation is true. Especially if you're thinking in terms of probability. If you claimed that atheists believe there is probably no God, I would agree, but for some reason, you want us to claim an absolute.

I am getting a strong impression of absolute negation from most of you guys.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't say God does not exist. That's what you say I say, but you are clearly a liar. The rest of your post is mere mouthings.

Agnostic is waiting for the proof and until he has no proof, he has no concern with God. Atheist does not believe in the existence of God therefore he has no concern with God.

Although by definitions, there are differences between agnosticism and atheism but I personally do not differentiate between the two because both atheist and agnostic have no concern with God.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've already sacrificed my materialistic desires. You don't know me at all, although you could if humility wasn't foreign to your nature.

I am developing my ideas through what and how you are writing. I agree I may completely be wrong in making my assessments because I do not have any mean to learn what is hidden in your heart and why you write what you write.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm not a relativist. Q.E.D.

You might be an exceptional case.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet most Muslim-majority countries do not carry the death penalty for apostacy or adultery and still claim to be following Islam. Muslims are little better at following their 'universal laws' as the times change than Christians are. Thank goodness.

Breaking some law and changing some law are two different things. Islamic laws are steady and consistent. Quite the reverse, almost all secular laws are endlessly getting amendments and revisions.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Mere assertion--and preaching, dismissed as such. And the Q'uran does not contain a legal prescription specifically against homosexuality. Modern Muslims seem much more focused on it than Mohammed was.

Sometimes I am amazed by the overwhelming confidence you guys show in making false conclusions on the foundation of mere speculations. First, you should study Quran and then state what Quran say.

Allah detest homosexual behaviour and Quran exposed that annoyance in several places. Allah has destroyed whole nation of Prophet Lout specifically because of their homosexual behaviour.

160. The people of Lout rejected the apostles.
161. Behold, their brother Lout said to them: "Will ye not fear ((Allah))?
162. "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust.
163. "So fear Allah and obey me.
164. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds.
165. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
166. "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
167. They said: "If thou desist not, O Lout! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"
168. He said: "I do detest your doings."
169. "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do."
170. So We saved him and his family, all,
171. Except an old woman who lingered behind.
172. But the rest We destroyed utterly.
173. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!
174. Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe.
175. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might Most Merciful.

Asy Syu'araa (26)
Verse 160 – 190

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: “Because Allah will never change the grace which He hath bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls: and verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).”
Al Anfaal (8)
-Verse 53-

Allah might not, but Muslims sure do. Especially the more decent ones.

Indeed, there are all kinds of people in every community. Main point to understand here is if any Muslim do something that goes against the teachings of Islam then that individual is responsible for the wrongdoing not Islam.

Difference between philosophy of moral and Islam is that philosophy of morals does not give code of conduct. Every individual has to develop his own code and that requires tedious efforts whereas Islam gives readymade solution to every moral aspect in human life.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: “The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.”
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 115-

Yet there is no 'original' Q'uran to prove that it hasn't changed.

If you want to use the assertions made by Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz then you should first remember that if these characters need to put their noses into their own shit they would not hesitate for doing so if through this they can insult Quran, Prophet Mohammad, Islam, and Muslims. Multiple times, they had been proven crooks and everything they say is in fact a distortion of some reality.

If you think that existing Quran is not the original version then prove it instead of throwing worthless phrases.

Give your own arguments or use the arguments from anyone (including Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz). By the Will of Allah Almighty, I will give you logical and satisfactory answers.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that if you bring criticisms made by religious people to prove or disprove something in Islam while not believing in the existence of God then that behaviour would cause a trouble for me in structuring my responses because of misbalance nature of the discussion.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: “If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change. For Allah hears and knows (All things).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 181-

Apparently ancient Middle Easterners were so known for altering texts that Mohammed was really worried about it.

Please be specific so I would be able to respond correctly.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You're the one who thinks you can tell 'what atheists think' by what some say on the internet.

I am not saying that I know who is thinking what. I am only giving a generalised opinion that if atheists in power are rude and arrogant then what makes them arrogant.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: So? Richard Dawkins isn't the pope of atheism. We don't have one.

Nevertheless, Dawkins has supporters in millions just like pope has. I can say Dawkins is an informal pope in atheism.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. That we have instincts, brain chemistry, and mental wirings doesn't mean that they justify anything. Evidence and reason is needed in addition.

Look! I am only trying to show how most atheists attempt to eradicate the concept of soul and spirit (mind) by transmuting them into evolutionary instincts, mental wiring, or brain chemistry. All these efforts are part of negation from the existence of God. That is it.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And apparently you couldn't find a single quote to support your lie that it does.

The quotes from Dennett and Dawkins are good examples of evolutionary instincts, brain chemistry, and mental wirings. In any atheist forums including this one some members devotedly promoting the ideas of evolutionary instincts, brain chemistry and mental wirings. Check out how Genkaus is fighting to prove that mind and consciousness is the function of physical brain. Go through the pages 5, 6, and 7 and see yourself.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18713-page-5.html

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Plus, not all atheists are materialists,

I have not met any atheist who was not materialist. It is difficult for me to visualise how an atheist looks who is not materialist.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Dawkins and Harris and Dennett have no power to change that fact. No one is the boss of atheism. No one has any authority to dictate atheism.

Lack of leadership in atheism is the evidence of its illogical and irrational nature.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That comparing atheism and Islam is fallacious is precisely my point. If you want to compare humanism and Islam, go right ahead, but comparing a specific and complex religion to a a single opinion on a single topic is ludicrous.

That is not my fault. You guys exhibit yourselves as atheist not as communist, humanist, socialists, nationalist, etc. Check out your religious views and you will not find any humanist, communist, nationalist, socialist, etc.

Further, no one is giving any argument in favour or against humanism or communism; everyone is talking about atheism only. Of course, if you talk about atheism then I will not talk on humanism in empty space.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That the universe is indifferent to us doesn't undermine ethics. We are not indifferent to each other, and that is the basis of ethics. I didn't say the universe cares about us. I said that the universe not caring about us doesn't undermine our morality. If you think it does, show it, don't just quote mine authors who happen to be atheists who agree the universe is indifferent. The universe IS indifferent, and human survival depends on us cooperating with each other in the face of an otherwise pitiless existence. If the universe was on our side, we wouldn't have to be good to each other.

Although I had capitalised the core idea of the quote but somehow you missed that.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. AND WE DANCE TO ITS MUSIC.

According to this phrase, there are no morals, no good, and no evil in the universe.

My original criticism is that atheism annihilates morals by removing God (Who is the Creator of everything and The Lawgiver) from human thoughts. Lack of consideration becomes dominant and people live for their personal interests in inconsiderate manner.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: More to the point, they were communists. All the power mad and paranoid dictators that preceded them seem to have been theists of various stripes.

Do not forget that atheism is a tenet of communism.

In communism, you are taught to regard the state as the greatest good, as the source of all help and wisdom. You regard the community as the highest moral good.

If you believe in God, that is outside the state-controlled community, outside the system, and that makes you harder to control!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_communism

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I have as much in common with a Stalinist or a Maoist because I'm an atheist as you have with Shaitan-worshipper because you are a theist.

Do you know any superior Shaitan than Stalin, Mao, and other atheist dictators of 19 and 20 centuries?

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If atheism made people immoral and irrational beasts, we would make a higher percentage of prison inmates, wouldn't we?

If overall atheist population is small then proportionally, atheist prison population is small too.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Though it isn't atheism that keeps us out of jail, most modern Western atheists are humanists, a moral philosophy that emphasized compassion. It's almost as if it's what one DOES believe that influences their actions rather than what one doesn't believe.

In religion, God (The Creator of everything) is the lawgiver and in humanism, people (created beings) are the lawgiver.

If you eliminate God (Creator and Grand Designer) then the universe, which is the created being, has no Creator behind its origin. In that case whether universe created its own being, which is an absurd or universe came out of nothing, which is again an absurd. All scientific theories and physical laws end up in nothingness without the concept of God, which is an absurd.

Now think about this universe that has no creator (that came out of nothingness or created its own self) is creating intelligent human beings and these intelligent beings are creating laws for themselves.

Nothingness create nothing and someone correctly said that humanism is a secular version of Religion.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: When Muslims were 1% of the world's population, were they then irrational, illogical, and against the nature of man? In other words, argument ad populum is a logical fallacy and you shouldn't use it if you don't want to be wrong. When everyone in the world thought the sun when around the earth, it wasn't true. 'What everybody thinks' is not a measure of truth.

Islam started with the preaching of ONE MAN (Prophet Mohammad). Of course, when someone introduces a new ideology, people need time for contemplation. If the ideology is rational and logical then with time majority of people support it and only minority resist mainly to achieve their selfish objectives. If the ideology is not logical then most people reject it and only a minority stick to it to achieve political and social benefits by the exploitation of conflict.

In communist Russia, many people detested living without God but tyranny of government forced people to stick with the false ideology threat of loss of social benefits and in extreme cases threat of loss of their lives.

Many atheists attribute their history to the Greek and Roman philosophers Epicurus, Democritus, and Lucretius. These philosophers are considered the first atheist writers, even though they did not state that gods did not exist, but simply said that gods were not involved in the life of humans.

Democritus was born about 2,474 years ago. By this, I can say official atheism was born 2474 years ago.

In 2,474 years, atheists only reached 140 million mark whereas Muslim population that started with one man (Prophet Mohammad) about 1400 years ago has reached about 2 billion in today’s world.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year:

"Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990–2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity.”

Therefore, the numbers tell that Islam is a rational and logical religion.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Ethical rationalism isn't relativistic. You don't even understand your own examples.

Suppose a person wants to stay out of debt. This may move him to calculate how much money comes in and how much goes out, but mathematical reasoning by itself does not move him to do anything. Mathematical reasoning, when it bears on action, is always used in connection with achieving some purpose and thus in connection with causal reasoning.

Reasoning is a process that moves people from one idea to another. If reasoning is to have motivational force, one of the ideas must be tied to some desire or affection. When causal reasoning figures in the production of action, it always presupposes an existing desire or want.

It immediately follows that reason alone cannot oppose a passion in the direction of the will. To oppose a passion, reason must be able to give rise to a motive by itself, since only a motive can oppose another motive.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

SECTION III. Of the influencing motives of the will.
PART III. of the will and direct passions.
A Treatise of Human Nature
David Hume

Hume refers to moral sentiments as feelings of approval or disapproval, praise or blame, esteem or contempt. Approval is a kind of pleasant or agreeable feeling; disapproval a kind of painful or disagreeable feeling.

Our first-order sentiments, passions and affections, as well as actions expressive of them, are what have moral value. Our second-order reflective sentiments about our own or other people's sentiments, passions and affections are what give them value.

If an individual has no strong motivations that come into conflict with moral principles, then moral action is less costly, and he will be more likely to act morally. Yet, there are often motivations present that compete with moral motivations. Selfishness or even sympathy might then lead an individual to do something that violates moral principles.

Moral rationalization is an individual’s ability to reinterpret his immoral actions as, in fact, moral. It arises out of a conflict of motivations and a need to see the self as moral. People can violate their moral standards because they have convinced themselves that their behaviour is not immoral at all. When moral rationalization interacts with certain situational variables, extreme evil can result.

Difficult life conditions and everyday self-interest and obedience are motivations that might come into conflict with moral principles. Any motivation that would lead to the violation of an individual’s valued moral principles can conflict with moral motivations and lead to moral rationalization.

Moral rationalization plays an important role in allowing an individual to autonomously engage in immoral behaviour while still seeing the self as moral. The individual then engages in more and more extreme behaviour, until small unethical acts escalate into large atrocities. Because of moral rationalization, large-scale evil and small breaches of morality are, on a certain level, qualitatively similar.

If ethics change due to modifications in influential communities then that is relativism.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are no universal values in theism, either. You're still trying to compare apples and oranges. I think you're avoiding comparing humanism and Islam purposely because you know Islam would come up short.

I am not comparing atheism with humanism because all the arguments you guys are giving are in favour of atheism. I am not receiving any argument in favour of humanism.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Atheism pushes people to the law of jungle where the feeble should suffer for the enjoyment of the powerful.

No, it doesn't. And my unsupported assertion is equal to yours.

If you do not have, the sense of moral accountability that gives personal desires a privilege and thus relativism wins out.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I am not worried about Polytheism, Buddhism (atheistic religion), Paganism, Animism, Pantheism, totalitarianism and of course Atheism. In Quran, I find logical answers to every concern relevant to human life.

Then maybe you should stop saying 'religion' and stick to saying 'Islam'.

When I use the word “religion,” I mean monotheistic religions. I should have made this reform distinct at the beginning, which I did not and for that, I am sorry.

Existence of one God, moral accountability at the Day of Judgment, hell and paradise, etc. are commonly accepted wisdoms in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In many places, I used the expression “religion” in place of “Islam” because such divine notions are not specific only to Islam.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Quran teaches that fornication, adultery, incest (based on consensus or not), homosexuality, alcoholism, gambling, disrespect to elder parents, disrespect to neighbours, meanness ... are the acts which are illogical, irrational, and against nature of man and therefore sins. I committedly agree with all that.

I'd be interested in seeing the sura that ssays that those acts are illogical, irrational, and against the nature of man and THAT's why they are sins. Are you sure they're not sins because Mohammed says Gabriel says Allah says so? If they're against human nature, why are they so common?

Quran is not a book of philosophy or science. It is a book of guidance. It contains case in point, instructions and, commandments. As being a Muslim, I am obliged to obey all the commandments of Quran whether I understand them or not. The reason for such behaviour is my belief that Allah is the creator of everything and He knows the best what is beneficial and harmful for me.

Let me give you a cheap analogy.

Parents normally prohibit their children from getting involved in certain activities without caring whether children understand the wisdom behind that ban or not. Parents do it because they know that children lack essential experience to perceive and understand things appropriately.

If the children disobey commandments of their parents and act according to their likeness or dislike then they put themselves at high risk to harm themselves unknowingly. That is true for grownups as well. Regardless of what experience and knowledge man has, the limitation of his age do not let him comprehend all aspects of life within his lifetime. He is obliged to depend over established instructions for his welfare.

Quran is the guidance for whole of humanity. It gives different cases and thought provoking analogies so people can realise the presence and majesty of God through His creations. If people do not comprehend the discrete eminence of God that will abide them to contemplate about anything affiliated to Him no matter how decisive that would be for human development. Only the belief in the existence of God can help a person to accept the commandments given in Quran.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Islam is based on standards set by God, which are not conditional to cultural customs. Therefore, if homosexuality and adultery were sins yesterday, they are sins today and they will be sins tomorrow regardless of changing trends of influential cultures.

Another reason why you shouldn't say 'religion' when you mean 'Islam'.

When I say religion, I mean Monotheistic religions. Many laws in Monotheistic religions are common and for that reason sometimes I use the word religion instead of Islam.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In today’s world, other than Quran, all scriptures are corrupted versions of their originals. Therefore, any religion that is based on corrupted scripture classified as UNRELIABLE.

So why do you keep talking about religion when you mean Islam?

Monotheistic religions shares some similarities and based on those similarities I use the word religion to epitomise those religions as well. I try to avoid differences as much as I can.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I believe every religion in today’s world evolved from one single religion by means of concoctions and corruptions. According to Quran that first religion was:

“Submission of self to the will of God.”

Why should I care what you believe when the evidence points to animism as being the earliest religion?

According to oxford dictionary, “animism is the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.”

According to Wikipedia:
“In many animistic worldviews, the human being is often regarded as on a roughly equal footing with other animals, plants, and natural forces. Therefore, it is morally imperative to treat these agents with respect. In this worldview, humans are considered a part of nature, rather than superior to, or separate from it.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Islam states that it is the responsibility of each individual to treat all of creations with respect, honour and dignity. The most deserving of respect is the Creator Himself. Respect begins with loving and obeying the commandments of God and from this perspective follow all the manners and high standards of morality that are inherent in Islam.

For me animism is a distorted version of “Submission of self to the will of God.”

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Today, we call that religion Islam. Why Islam is authentic religion because Quran is not a corrupted and concocted scripture, which is a miracle in itself.

It's not corrupted and concocted...in your opinion.

Quran “not corrupted and not concocted,” is a FACT not OPINION. I think I know where your eyes are looking at. If I am correct and you truly are looking at the critisms made by non-Muslim theists then I ask you to take something from them and throw on me. “By the Will of Allah,” I will give you a logical and satisfactory response.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Quran is all about accountability in the afterlife.

Accountability in this life is more effective.

Come on buddy, that is not true. People who died without getting justice are in billions. In the contemporary world, large number of people are dying without having justice. I can give you so many examples of discrimination and injustice that you can compile whole book out of that.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Study life of Prophet Mohammad, life of his close companions, and spouses. That study would give you sufficient examples on how these pioneers had demolished unethical norms in different societies with the help of universal commandments of Quran.

You don't even understand what kind of facts would actually support your position.

If you suspect my knowledge that is because you yourself are not sure about the nature of your own criticism since you are emotionally motivated.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: When you target humanism instead of chasing atheism, I think that would be wonderful. But you seem to only get my point when you're on the receiving end of having someone drone on about a postiion that hasn't much to do with what your really think.

See! I am not receiving any pros or cons for humanism and for that reason; I am not criticising it or favouring it.

Many people think humanism is the secular version of religion and I agree because atheism (as you correctly think) is not capable of giving any foundation for developing religion or ideology.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What is it with you and quoting random people? Are you afraid to engage with what the people you are talking to you actually think? Are you unable to express your own opinions. I can't even tell if that's what you think or what you think I think. Context matters.

All of those quotes are to the point and within the context of your inquiries and criticisms.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: “To affirm that humans thrive in many different ways is not to deny that there are universal human values. Nor is it to reject the claim that there should be universal human rights. It is to deny that universal values can only be fully realized in a universal regime. Human rights can be respected in a variety of regimes, liberal and otherwise. Universal human rights are not an ideal constitution for a single regime throughout the world, but a set of minimum standards for peaceful coexistence among regimes that will always remain different.”
Page 21
Two Faces of Liberalism
John N. Gray

And?

This quote is showing the flaws in humanism which you are trying to show dominant over religion. Universal human rights cannot be achieved due to cultural differences among different communities of the world. In other words, humans are not capable to create universal human rights in varying cultures without recognising the existence of God and His divine laws.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: How so? On what religious moral precept of Apollo did Aristotle depend? Do you believe Hera was real?

I do not believe in deities and mysticism. I am convinced that one true God exists and He is running everything including our bodies. I do not ask Allah for supernatural forces, as I believe I have not come to this world to enjoy my life rather this world is the examination hall where I have a chance to prove myself a good candidate for paradise or for hell in the afterlife. I believe I would be accountable for my deeds at the day of judgement.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: No atheist has the authority to speak for all of us for the same reason that no theist has the authority to speak for all theists or no religious person has the authority to speak for all relgious people. You refuse to engage us at the next level, where you try to find out what we really think, where you would find out that, just as religious folks vary by religion, atheists vary by philosophy.

I can understand variations in religions because of the existence of God but variations in atheism is nonsensical. Communism, socialism, humanism, etc. all these are secular versions of religion because atheism in itself is nothingness and nothingness cannot be the foundation of any ideology.

By the way, I am not forcing anyone to speak or not to speak. First, I cannot force anyone but somehow if I can, I will not because I am following the commandments of Allah that He has revealed in Quran through His last Prophet Mohammad.

(November 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: We don't 'fabricate' our morals. We derive them from our experience and culture in concert with our reason and innate moral sentiments, like everyone else, and the more philosophically-inclined of us go deeper into moral philosophy, just like more religiously-minded theists go deeper into religion; and some of us are morally broken for one reason or another and wind up as immoral people, just as happens among the religious. Your failure to understand us is proportionate to your failure to treat us as human like you.

I humbly apology to anyone who got the impression that I am treating him/her as less human than my own being.

My intensions are not to humiliate anyone however sometimes I may give an aggravated reaction against harsh, unethical, illogical and baseless attacks the purpose of which is only provocation and humiliation.

I do not have any problem to agree that every community has all kinds of people. However, I believe that without God (The creator of everything) no one is capable to obtain a universal law that can bring people in huge numbers from all cultural backgrounds and all walks of life to a single platform. This credit only goes to religion and Islam is the most recent and most obvious example of that.

(November 24, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not actually here to talk to Harris, but I do want to point out yet another indication that he isn't reading anything at all, even his own posts; he asks for a government source for those numbers, the ones he'd already disagreed with out of hand, apparently unaware that the original source for those numbers was a freedom of information request from the United States prison service itself. This was clearly indicated in both the original link that I and some others had provided, and even in Harris' own link that he claims disagrees with the numbers, when it actually doesn't.

How could he not know it was a government source when he himself posted a link saying that it was a government source?

Easy: he isn't even reading his own links and posts, much less anyone elses'. And that is why he should be ignored.

Although you are not talking with me but because you are targeting my personality, therefore I am forced to respond.

I made an unambiguous point. If you have trouble in understanding that then the burden is yours. Otherwise, you are intentionally trying to twist the meanings.

The figures for which you are fighting are about 15 years old. Please give some government source that confirm the latest atheist prison population according to the survey held in 2013 or 2014.

“As one proof that atheists aren’t without morals, in comparison to the general population, atheists, have been using one evidence, which is that only 0,2% of the prison population is made of atheists. The statistical data that they have been using was taken from a 15 YEAR OLD AND NOT VERY ACCURATE REPORT OF THE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF INMATES given to Denise Golumbaski, who used to be a research analyst at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but till now there has been no official data or contact to trace and authenticate the report.”
July 28, 2013 By NatSkep Staff

(November 25, 2014 at 7:12 am)Irrational Wrote: 25th November 2014, 12:12
Do you have any idea who these people are?

Stalin
Mao Zedong
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Pol Pot
Benito Mussolini
Hideki Tojo
Nicolae Ceausescu
Slobodan Milosevic
Kim Sung

Yeah, but what does this list have to do with my moral standards?
Well, at least you did not deny that religion advocates certain atrocities.

When did I say that all religious people are angles or all atheists are devils? In fact, many religious people corrupted their own religion to procure cheap benefits out of it. What else can be more obnoxious than to cheat people by giving them false hopes in the name of God or threaten them wickedly by deceitfully associating things with God that has no legitimacy?

Anyway, no matter what corruption religious people spread in different communities, when we compare atrocities in atheism with atrocities in religion, in this respect, atheism certainly outclass any religion of the world. I blame atheism for liberating people from moral accountability and this privation is the core reason of all massacres that atheism committed in 19 and 20 centuries.
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
Jesus Christ on a Popsicle stick. I always forget and accidentally open this thread and spend hours trying to thaw my frozen safari. Hasn't anyone in here ever heard of a hide button.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
Harris really needs to accept that evolution is a fact as much as gravity the evidence is overwhelming.

But even if it was wrong (it isn't) the default position would not be "magic man done it", it would be we don't know.
An argument against evolution, as wrong headed as they all are, do not equal an argument for the god of your choice.

So, if you are saying that god made all life please tell us how.
I want a detailed explanation so that we can look at every aspect of the process.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
Wow, you guys can really type out long posts.Bow Down

Now Harris, atheism isn't solely dependent on the concept of "evolution", atheism is stemmed in the knowledge that we have gained so far, which includes biology which contains the theory (read facts) of evolution. Every other avenue of knowledge like astronomy, chemistry, physics e.t.c also invalidates almost any divine or supernatural claims. Actually, the false claims in religion is one of the biggest contributors towards the development of science and atheism. We are skeptic because we are trying to find the truth. Simply claiming to know something without actually knowing or understanding it would be dishonest and immoral.

You have claimed a god to be our creator, and he is the founder of morals, and such. You are claiming to know things which you do not actually know but only assume. Do you really know who this god is? how does he look like? what does he think? What determines his actions? Do you know anything for sure about him? Is he actually a "he"?......do you really know the answers, or do you THINK you know?

About Mohammed, no I don't support his actions. Being 1400 years ago doesn't validate the fact that he actually was a pedophile. Rape isn't about having sex with whom you are married or not married but about the consent of the involved individuals. A child especially at that age is not capable of making conscious independent decisions or provide consent. You mentioned her parents provided consent, and that makes it okay, but parents also sell their their children into prostitution in the third world countries even today, does that make it okay? Even without the sex part, forcing a child into marriage when the child is incapable of understanding the implications of it is clearly a violation of her rights.
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu

Join me on atheistforums Slack Cool Shades (pester tibs via pm if you need invite) Tongue

Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: "The dead have fewer babies than the living" is the best analogy to the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution I have ever encountered.
You're welcome......something tells me it sailed past you though.

Quote: Indeed, Theory of Evolution is a conjecture not scientifically proven theory.
Science doesn't prove, it attempts to explain. It -is- a conjecture though. Might always be (I kind of hope so). Science makes no claim to full knowledge and so all science can be described as conjecture. Is that a problem for you? Unless you have full knowledge yourself you are also making conjectures. If only there were some tool....a method maybe, a practical means by which a person might determine which of two conjectures has greater explanatory power?

........Thinking
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
(December 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: "The dead have fewer babies than the living" is the best analogy to the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution I have ever encountered.
You're welcome......something tells me it sailed past you though.

It's also not an analogy. It's a statement of fact so painfully obvious that only a religious person could argue against it.
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
Oh dear gawd, don't tell me someone has mislaid the atheist morals again. I personally will be damned before I make do with the theist variety. Oh to hell with it. I'll just play it by ear.
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
How can I tell my morals are good if some arbitrary authority hasn't told me they are good without explanation?

I'm stumped. It's hard work being an atheist. It's almost like you just have to make your own moral assessments, so that you know you're doing the best you are capable of.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Where are the Morals?
(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: Correct, people care about what other people think of them because humans are contingent beings. As part of a social group, a person is obliged to respect others in order to earn respect for himself. However, true nature of each individual is egotistical. Man never releases any opportunity out of any event or activity from which he can derive enjoyment whether there is a necessity for it or not. This attribute shines when a man gets the power to implement his preferred criterions over others and does not fear of having any moral accountability. Hitler, Stalin … are great examples of such narcissistic character.
Thats a long way to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since God created us in his image, then he must be the most corrupt, immoral being in the universe. Thinking Smile

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Irrelavent. Other people commiting paedophilia paedophilia doesn't excuse them nor Muhammad.

I guess you do not differentiate between marriage and paedophilia because of the age factor. If so then you are gravely wrong.
First off, you should quote me correctly. Don't clump your statement as if it were mine.

It's also apperent that you don't use the definition of paedophilia. The definition has no exception for marrage. Therefore, your argument is a FAIL.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Harris:What is the source of your information?
Your quotes and logic.

My arguments are saying that Prophet Mohammad was not a paedophilia.

I am still waiting to see the source of information based on what you are making flamboyant allegations on the character of Prophet Mohammad.
So mohammad claimed he is not a pedophile while married to a child. Then mohammad is a liar or dilusional. Mostly likely both.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Definiton of pedophilia.

What the definition of paedophilia has to do with the source of information, which gives us the knowledge on how Prophet Mohammad lived his life?
Your quotes.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: It's called a definition.

Please try to be precise.

From where did you get the knowledge that Prophet Mohammad married with 9 years old Aisha.
Answer above.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So you decided to go after a character assassination route. Seems like you can't argue against the obvious counter to your BS.

Are you kidding? Drugs are nothing new to humans. Your statement “Science can modify primal senses, feelings, and emotions. It's called drugs,” is a baseless assertion that only shows lack of your knowledge.

http://inpud.wordpress.com/timeline-of-e...-of-drugs/
ROFLOL 5 seconds of google easily refutes your claim.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nid...ansmission
http://www.livescience.com/16287-mushroo...-term.html

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: People until recently did not know about Halocline, process of child birth, the way the universe came into being, and many other things which Quran had pointed to about fifteen hundred years ago.

So you found a gap in knowledge and shoved your god in there. I hope he's not claustrophobic, because those gaps keep getting smaller.

You have no knowledge about Quran and all what you are saying is based upon the popular propaganda against Islam.

Let us take an example of Halocline again. This phenomenon is a modern discovery but Allah has revealed this fact about fifteen hundred years ago in an illiterate and ignorant community, which lived in the middle of a desert far from coastal regions and has very little knowledge about oceans.

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.”
Al Furqaan (25)
-Verse 53-

“He has let loosed the two seas (the salt water and the sweet) meeting together.
Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress.”
Ar Rahmaan (55)
Verses 19 – 20

“Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.”
An Naml (27)
-Verse 61-

These three verses only confirm that revelation of Halocline in Quran is by no means a coincidence.

So as you see that Quran has exposed a recently discovered scientific fact about fifteen hundred years ago.

Is to this you call “God of the gaps?”

Modern science is only endorsing the fact what Quran had revealed about 1500 years ago.

Is not it a miracle?
ROFLOL Thats you evidence.
First, none of your quotes even mention nor hint anyting about child birth.
Second, halocline gives you a difference between salty water and saltier water.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So we need to know everything before we can say anything?

We should have sufficient knowledge about human endeavours because they literally influence almost all concepts.
We do know sufficient knowledge. And it disagrees with your belief. Deal with it.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: A previously split moon would be easy to identify. You just need to look for a the big-continuous ridge circling the whole moon.

People have pointed it out that the moon was not split. How do you think I knew about it?

Today, the information (true or false) spread around the world in seconds. There are people who take any information flippantly whereas some people contemplate before they give their opinions.

I have a solid ground to believe that Quran is the word of God even if something in it scientifically unproven. Scientists are working hard and they are testifying truthfulness of the facts mentioned in Quran by their scientific discoveries. I am sure that eventually science would testify the split of the moon if that fact yet not discovered. We cannot rule out the possibility that this discovery had already been made but due to strategic importance, this information is concealed from the public by intention.
Sorry pal, but the overwhelming majority of scientist already know the Quran's claims are plainly wrong. Plus, we mapped 99 percent of the moon. If the moon was split, we would know about it.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I'm so sorry for making fun of you. I thought you were full of shit until you quoted your holy book. That makes all the difference.

I ask you to spend some time in reading this conversation from the beginning. In this conversation, I have established sufficient reasoning with the help of Quran, philosophy, and science to show that disbelief in the existence of God is irrational.
I encourage you read the responces to your arguments. If you imagine that they're countering Judaism, you'll realize how your arguments don't hold up.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I would be obliged if you show some logical things proving the Quran and Hadith.

Read this discussion from the beginning. After reading it you will have enough logical reasoning that helps you to understand Quran and Hadith in a better way.
So I'll understand the details of how the Quran and Hadith is wrong. No thank you, I have better things to do with my time.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The percentage rose since the last time to 2.4%
The government site is in there

Internet is flooded with such websites. Please find some government source, which gives the figures based on survey conducted in 2013 or 2014.
Or, you can look at the main source inside the link I gave you. This will at least make you glance at the counter argument. It migh force you to read it.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Do I really need to point out the atrocities done in the name of religion like this, this, this, this, and of course this.

I had already given my responses on similar criticisms. Please read this conversation from the beginning.

It is so intimidating that you (atheists) have replaced God with science but when you talk about homosexuality, you utterly ignore your own Majestic Science.

You mean that homosexuality happens naturally? If god didn't want it, you shouldn't make animals gay.
[/quote]
Do you not know how to use the qoute button? Your mixing my quotes with yours.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: What are you trying to prove here? Are you saying there is no difference between humans and animals including low life forms?
Are you telling me that humans are not animals? Or you don't understand that your god can't even make the animals straight. She must really be pathetic or likes to see some man on man action once in a while.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: If you are saying that because there are rare homosexual cases in animals and God made them so to justify homosexual behaviour in human then I can bring savage behaviour of animals to justify acts of Hitler and Stalin and say God made them so.

What kind of argument is that?
It's an argument against your perfect god. It's also not a rare cases.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: God is the creator of everything. He knows best what the purpose of His created beings is. We can never comprehend the purpose of everything in our short lives hence best thing for us is to obey the instructions of our creator and that will keep us away from any unseen harm.
And here is the I'm-too-stupid-must-obey argument. You know that god has the power to make us understand.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Why should I argue against a fallacy?

First, you have to prove my argument is a fallacy only than you would be in position to decide whether to give counter argument or not.
Already did. Moved on a long time ago.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Instead of saying no, they don't and heres the proof, you argue that man's do to.

Religious people indeed had done some brutal acts and I am not planned to hide those proven atrocities. I had only given the comparison between the evil done by theists in the name of religion and the evil done by atheists in the name of atheism.
"In the name of atheism." We've been through this. Atheism is not a worldview. It doesn't have any positive claims.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: Atheism has proven itself to be the cause of biggest evil in the entire human history.
ROFLOL Somehow I don't think you accounted for development on weaponry, transport, and communications in your analysis. Just imagine what mohammad could of done if he had modern weaponry.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: This means you will stop quoting Dawkins or Harris about atheism as if their opinions dictate other atheist opinions. I look forward to it.

Whenever, I give some quote the sole purpose of that is to expose how disbelief in God turn people into Hitler Stalin, Mao, or supporters of those monsters.
ROFLOL

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Yes, we know about those theist dictators and their wonderful morals. Before you start listing your list, you should look up nationalism. It will explain a lot if you're willing to think about it.

I am a student of philosophy and comparative religions. To study “–ism” is part of my studies. If atheism would be the tenant of any code of belief then that ideology would be at a very high risk to end up in barbarism.
ROFLOL I'm sure all those secularist countries devolved into barbarism. ROFLOL

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote:
(November 24, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Lets start with the man from clay. Please provide evidence that man was made from clay.

Think logically and scientifically.
Still waiting for you do the same.

(December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Harris Wrote: The food, which people consume, is the product of soil and water. Human body transforms food into proteins, which then render into different parts of human body in the mother’s womb by using information stored in genomes. In a way, people are made of soil and water, who decompose and transmute back into dust when they die.

Logically, this fact conforms the miraculous creation of first man (Adam) from clay.
Clay is a specific type of soil. Very few plants can grow in clay, not to mention animals. And non of the common plants or animals we eat come from clay. Your reaching, and it's obvious.

Plus, your verse seem to suggest more of a clay molding than your interpritation.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Morals Panatheist 19 2415 August 30, 2016 at 2:09 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  What is the source for our morals? Mechaghostman2 67 9079 December 12, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  From where come your morals? urlawyer 33 4579 April 26, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  Why do we need morals? dazzn 68 21401 November 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Objective vs Subjective Morals FallentoReason 36 8952 May 5, 2014 at 11:58 am
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  Morals of Executions IAmNotHere 20 4382 November 1, 2013 at 3:20 am
Last Post: Sejanus
  Aspects of modern "morals" that don't make sense dazzn 30 15332 June 5, 2013 at 9:11 am
Last Post: dazzn
  God & Objective Morals FallentoReason 95 37157 May 15, 2013 at 10:26 am
Last Post: smax
  ReB's Philosophy and Morals ReB 11 2883 September 27, 2011 at 7:53 am
Last Post: medviation



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)