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, 4:45 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where are the Morals?
#21
RE: Where are the Morals?
(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.

I bet all those women burnt at the stake enjoyed it.
And all those killed and tortured in the crusades.
And those in Syria can be safe in the knowledge that Islam is giving the good folks of ISIS their morals.


Sure, religion can contain some good moral practices, but these would already have been in existence (unless of course you believe that everyone was going around murdering everyone else before God came along to tell them all to stop it).
Reply
#22
RE: Where are the Morals?
Here's a few religious rules that have been abolished by secular society.

Islam

A man can't beat his wife even if he fears rebellion from her.

A person who has sex outside of marriage isn't lashed 100 times in front of a crowd of Muslims.

Amputating the hands of a thief is no longer allowed

Confining women who partake in sex acts against Islamic law to a house until they die isn't a law people abide by these days.

Christianity

I won't even bother going into detail, the bible basically says stone everyone to death, rape victims in certain circumstances have to marry the person who raped them, to be honest there's no point in even focusing in the bible it's just laughable.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#23
RE: Where are the Morals?
I don't like how the topic tries to imply religion is the source of human ethics, which is completelly wrong.

Human ethics are actually biological constructions, in which everyone has the tendency to fluctuate on those pattern of behaviour, because they are socially advantageous and desirable, not because it is written in some book that one must obey, people that don't "follow" these common ethics are actually regarded as suffering psycho-social disorders.
Reply
#24
RE: Where are the Morals?
(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: First, your asserting there is an absolute moral law(s).

Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?

In the absence of God there are no objective moral values and duties. Ethics is basically a subjective illusion of human beings.

Historically, governing by absolute morality is favoured because it simplifies the creation of laws, obedience to them, and it facilitates the judicial process.

Ethical obligations are based on external moral principles (“higher truths”) that are absolute, invariable and do not allow for exceptions or extenuating circumstances. These principles create absolute duties that must be performed regardless of the consequences and in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. There are no exceptions, no excuses.

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: Second, the data is not on your side. For example, the atheist prison population is about 1%.

Someone should be naïve enough to assert such an illogical comparison.

According to “Population Matters” there are 7.125 billion (2013) inhabitants in the world.

http://www.populationmatters.org/?gclid=...tAod32gAgg

“Atheists comprise an estimated 2.01% of the world population.”

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

Let us do a simple math:

Case one:
If you mean that atheist prisoners are only 1% of total prison population than according to above mentioned statistics:

Atheist = 2.01% of the total world population

Total world population = 7 billion

2.01% Atheist population = 140,700,000

1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000

Above calculation shows, 50.2% atheists of total atheist population are spending their lives in prisons.


Case two:
If you are saying, Atheist prisoners are 1% of the total atheist population then point to some authentic source that justify your claim.

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: Third, atheism is not a world view, so it doesn't provide a moral code to live by. Secularism and humanism are atheistic world views.

You can say that God does not exist, that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc. Your disbelief in God is the standard of how you perceive the world. However, this demonstrates your concern about the world, purpose, morals, etc. You may say that every atheist has his own personal worldview and based on that you can argue that atheism is not a worldview. If atheism is not a worldview then every atheist, lives with a subjective worldview, which display a defective understanding of social relations. It is not surprising that selfishness has found favour with most of those who subscribe to the worldview of secular modernity.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:29 am)genkaus Wrote: You start off fine, but then devolve to typical religitard stupidity pretty quickly….


Sure! Man is capable to develop morals based on the needs and their fulfilments. You can determine your own purpose and develop your own morals, etc. however, you have overlooked an obvious fact that man is also capable to be selfish and cruel.

Selfish person do not care for morals and good or bad reasoning. If he loves incest or rape, he will go after it to satisfy himself.

“But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life?” All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?”

Page 376 The Brothers Karamazov
Part 4, Book 11, Chapter 4 ("A Hymn and a Secret")
Fyodor Dostoevsky

The only way to stop selfishness and brutality is by the use of force.

Robert Winthrop (Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives) has expressed this fact like this.

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

Page 172
Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.
Robert Winthrop

Only remove the idea of accountability from the minds of people and see how quickly they transform from rational beings into nasty beings. That is exactly what happened with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler kill, Chiang Kaikillshek kill, Vladimir Lenin, Hideki Tojo and Pol Pot.

Atheism only helps removing the idea of moral accountability and pushes people to selfishness. However, this idea of moral accountability is crucial because it provides the power within people to control their egos without enforcement of any threat of external powers.


“If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible what was the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

Yes! People are capable to study philosophy of morals but think about how many people are there who bother to dig heap of those philosophy books in order to learn how to live a moral life. On top of that, philosophy of morality only tackles with the muddled hitches of morality and it does not gives any agenda on how to live a moral life. The evident example is the secular world, which lacks institute that is capable to provide precise guidance to a pure moral life. Secondly, think about people who are mean and selfish and do not care about morality.

The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, conscience get diseased or get deceased.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:29 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, in atheism, when you look at the bottom of the universe, all you can say is "can't see a god, so religious morality is bullshit".

You see the designs around and within your being but not the Designer. You reject the existence of the designer (God) simply because you cannot perceive Him with your physical senses.

When you do scientific research, you use logic concerning indiscernible phenomenon. However, if you cannot identify God with your physical senses then you are not interested to use the same logic because if you get convinced in the existence of God then you may give up some of your favourite habits, which you do not want to give up.

“As a physics teacher, I hate to tell students something important and then say I can’t explain it. It’s too advanced. Or it’s too technical. I spend a lot of time figuring out how to explain difficult things in elementary terms. One of my biggest frustrations is that I have never succeeded in finding an elementary explanation of why String Theory is happy only if the number of dimensions is 9+1. Nor has anyone else. What I will tell you is that it has to do with the violent jittery quantum motion of a string. These quantum fluctuations can pile up and get completely out of control unless some very delicate conditions are met. And those conditions are met only in 9+1 dimensions.”

Chapter: Origins of String Theory
Cosmic Landscape
Leonard Susskind

Our minds get troubled when asked to imagine fifth dimension and Susskind talks about 10 dimensions. Although, no one has ever experienced fifth dimension neither seen the strings but everyone is happy with the idea because, MATH SAYS THAT!


I am not arguing against string theory rather I am trying to make my point using this idea of several dimensions.

If we can believe in the idea of ten dimensions, which is outside the capacity of our minds to perceive, then what is the problem in believing the existence of the world that, perhaps, exists in those perplexing 9+1 dimensions and parallel to our 3+1 dimensional world? Perhaps, all monotheistic religions have talked about that same invisible world which string theory is trying to explicate in the language of science.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, we've got no alternative, do we? Funny, because you gave one at the top of your post…

Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.

The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: I wanted to at least give you a fair chance to argue your point, and I guess I still did, but I initially stopped reading after the part listed above. If your argument is based on this straw man then you will have to revise it. Atheism does not 'say' anything other than that there is no convincing reason to believe in gods. I would like to point out the existence of atheistic religions, the existence of which categorically refutes your base argument. You seem to be arguing that atheism is an inherently amoral position; however, it only relates to one very specific issue, and so morality does not fall under its domain.

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Page 133
River out of Eden
Richard Dawkins

Keep in mind that atheism had never produced any atheistic religion. I have not come across any religion that does not hold the notion of deity. The only exception goes to Buddhism, which is a way of life. However, comparable to all theistic religions, Buddhism offers precise moral rules and the concept of moral accountability, which in fact is an explicit feature of all monotheistic religions.

Generally, Buddhists consider seven years to be the "age of accountability" in regards to things like stealing; it is the minimum age required for corruption and enlightenment, according to the arahant Nagasena in his debate with King Milinda:

Now my question to you is as being an atheist which religion(s) are you following to maintain your moral views because I am unsure that there is any atheist who studies philosophy of moral to build a perfect moral code for his/her life.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: But are they good laws? Why have laws simply for the sake of having them? There are compelling reasons to be moral even in the absence of religious dogma, but dogma, by its very definition, is unopen to revision. Bad dogma will never be fixed, but freethinkers can come up with moral rules without being forced to conform to arbitrary guidelines. You see the absoluteness of religious laws as their greatest strength, but they too were created by humans; their absoluteness is also their greatest weakness.

FREETHINKERS sounds like liberal thinkers. Why you think that FREETHINKERS are also free from the influences of their personal desires. On the contrary, they are more obsessed by their personal desires than anyone else is and that is why they are FREETHINKERS.

Morals can be develop on the rational grounds but where is the guarantee that FREETHINKERS are the angles from whom we do not expect anything immoral in the name of morality?

Bible is the Word of God and no man has the ability to write things that he cannot comprehend. However, man has powers to spread corruption. After looking at the prevailing influences of Bible over people, FREETHINKERS have corrupted it’s verses for the sake of gaining power and possession. Today’s Bible is a corrupted version of the original Bible because scriptures cannot be Divine if it contains:

a. Historical errors
b. Scientific errors
c. Mathematical errors
d. Contradictions
e. Discrepancies
f. Unfulfilled prophecies
g. Evidences of human art work


“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. “
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 79-


“Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed" …”
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 93-

In the contemporary world, the same FREETHINKERS have wiped out the name of God from their dictionaries for the sake of seeking pleasures within and outside of moral limits. These FREETHINKERS are cunning enough, as they have done so within the scope of rationality to convince people on their immoral acts. But this gives rise to a question for those who are convinced at legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution that, have we accomplished ample knowledge of all troughs and crests of rationality?


(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: And yet many religious groups over the centuries have justified genocide by their own moral laws. The in-group? Treat them well. The infidels? Off with their heads!

You can find black sheep in every community. Few culprits here and few there that is part of the social structure. Here I am writing about overall impact of any ideology that overwhelm some community.

Within 400 hundred years, atheists have killed people insanely. The number is astronomical that cannot be defeated by the combined number of killed people in the entire human history. Check out the history books.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: So we're going to pretend that non-religious moral philosophy doesn't exist now?

It does exist but it has not given any established code of conduct. You have to assemble your own code by taking guidance from that philosophy. In such exhaustive drills, only few people are interested. Secondly, you cannot build up your own code until you have scholarly skills. Look around you and tell how many people have the scholarly skills. The easy way is to look into religious teachings for the guidance to live a moral life.

Manmade laws cannot equate the laws given in the scriptures. Manmade laws are the Mumbo Jumbo of men’s desires and desirable religious contents.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you invalidated your entire argument here. It isn't so much religion as religious morality that you are claiming is necessary, meaning that an atheist who follows the moral laws in question would be no less moral than a religious person who did so. An atheist may reject the concept of a god, but this does not mean that s/he must also categorically reject religious moral teachings. That's the beauty of not being religious; you can pick out the good parts of religious teachings and reject the bad, rather than categorically having to accept them all.

A person, whether theist or atheist, cannot regard importance, worth, or usefulness of morals without the sense of moral accountability. Sense of accountability is crucial for a self-critique. Without the quality of self-critique, a person is a FREETHINKER like a beast in the wild where only powerful has the right to live and enjoy life. Religion gives the vision of self-critique to every believer, control his wild desires, and develop insight into fellowmen’s emotional states.

In contrast to morality based on religious teachings, manmade rational laws are only workable at the cost of using force. In contrast to religious morality, manmade laws can control people but they cannot make them virtuous and wise.

(September 14, 2014 at 1:54 am)Darkstar Wrote: "But how would you know what was good or bad in the first place?" you might ask. Well, how did the people who first invented religious laws know? There is no reason to think that religious morals are necessarily superior to secular ones.

People have not invented the scriptures rather they have corrupted them. Islam is a religion based on logic. Therefore, all its laws are logical. The difference between religious law and secular law is that the scripture ordain laws before calamity hit whereas rationalism start thinking about laws after the calamity hit. The effectiveness of Islamic laws are 100% if completely implemented.

For example, rapist is eligible for a capital punishment in public according to Sharia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Humanist may say this law is barbarism. However, if you dig some interviews of the victims, those victims will give you understanding about what disgusting humiliation they had gone through. I personally know cases where victims of rape committed suicide.

People may give their right or wrong opinions about punishment to a rapist but interestingly, whenever I posed questions to my atheist friends about their actions if someone rape their wives or daughters, believe me or not but 100% answers were in favour of the capital punishment.

USA is one of those unfortunate countries that faces highest rate of rapes in the world. USA has the finest secular laws in the world but those laws are helpless to control the sexual crimes in the country.

Now think about implementing Sharia Law in USA at least to stop rapes. Only after two or three culprits get capital punishment in public do you think sex crimes will increases, remain same or decline radically? My answer is it will decline radically.

Saudi Arabia is the country where sharia is in its full swing. Compare the statistics of sex crime in Saudi Arabia with the data from USA. This comparison is more than enough to justify the effectiveness of Sharia.

(September 14, 2014 at 2:13 am)Bibliofagus Wrote: Funny how the concept and feelings of empathy are not explored in the OP.

I intentionally kept this post short.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:28 am)Zack Wrote: Catholics and Shiites will be glad to hear they can take off their cilice and stop the self-flagellation. Not so much those that suffer from algolagnia.

In Islam, no one is forced to perform his or her religious rituals. People have their choices. Maximum my job is to remind someone about his religious obligations but by no means am I authorised to force someone.

Unfortunately, some corruption entered in Islam as well, we call it Bidah. It means there are some rituals, which were not present in the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad but invented afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%E2%80%98ah

(September 14, 2014 at 3:30 am)whateverist Wrote: Personally I'm not looking to define a code or law for myself. We already have the law of the land for guidance. Why should I look for yet another barrier to my ability to act spontaneously and with empathy in the world?

I'll leave that to the OCD driven among us like yourself, Harris. Personally, I've managed to win my trust. I don't need a set of operation instructions for getting through my day. I always thought that was sort of the point of being alive.

I am with Genkaus.

“The law of the land governs only our public life and that to a limited extent. It is not sufficient as a guide for the whole life.”

(September 14, 2014 at 7:19 am)DramaQueen Wrote: Many Buddhists are atheists.

And religious morality usually distracts us from the real issues e.g focusing on the separation of the sexes instead of combating poverty

Islamic teachings give most logical reasoning for the segregation of sexes in communities. This topic I will discuss in my next post.

As for the poverty, Islam has provided most effective laws in the world. Abundance of literature available regarding Islamic laws to minimise poverty however, here I will quote only one verse from Quran in this context.

“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 177-

(September 14, 2014 at 10:00 am)paulpablo Wrote: Everyone has their own outlook on what is morally acceptable, every religious cult has its own rules and motivations.

If everyone has his own standards of morality then it is known as atheism. A believer count to be a believer if and only if he has firm faith in the laws given by his religion.

(September 14, 2014 at 10:00 am)paulpablo Wrote: In most societies punishments are based on empathy. For example murder is illegal because people think it's not very nice to be murdered.

There's other points to that to be made about religions usually resulting in inhumane punishments such as lashing, stoning, crucifixion. And how also the prejudice against people who have different sexualities and prejudice against women.

So what kind of punishment you prefer for someone if he has sexual relations with your wife? How will you treat your wife if you learn she is in sexual affairs with another man behind your back? What are your suggestions to stop sexual abuses in a society?

I hope I am not upsetting you by giving such intimidating questions!

(September 14, 2014 at 10:25 am)whateverist Wrote: Tonus Wrote: I'm not seeing how "we develop our system of moral and ethical behavior as we learn" is somehow less desirable than "we get a rigid set of instructions that we must blindly follow."

Whateverist Wrote:
And how well does that "blindly following" play out for most of them? I don't trust anyone who can't imagine how the godless hold themselves back from wholesale rape and murder. Thinking the rules are 'objective' results in their feeling no ownership of them. Thus they remain moral imbeciles.


You think all those believers are stupid and only 2% atheists are genius. You are not looking at the figures, which say something different then what you are thinking.

There is a popular Russian saying:

“A person who laughs at other people is the last person in the queue.”

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You perceive a life form as a bundle of sensory receptors. I agree.

I think that alone sounds very primitive though. I know that human beings are capable of abstract and concrete thinking. Just because we're all a bundle of nerves doesn't mean we don't have the potential to be just as grounded in reality as our biology itself.

Most atheists think that human bodies are no more than living machines. Therefore, for such people I have used that kind of language to make my point clear.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You say that morals develop through living with a group of people and learning the virtues of living among others, as well as the dark side of human nature, which is selfishness, rage, exploitation, etc. You assert that although atheists are against religion, they offer no alternative to the "the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life."

I think if religion was successful and reliable then we wouldn't be having this argument.

Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: If religion was as useful as everyone says it is, then all we would need is religion and there would be far less problems in the world. However, we have religion. The majority of the world is religious. However, it doesn't do much for solving moral dilemmas and problems.

All problems and dilemmas are the product of people who are obsessed by their personal desires and ready to achieve their moral or immoral objectives at any cost. If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that. It is similar to say that constitutional laws of USA are wrong because there is so much crime in this country. Why to blame legislation?

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I, myself, being an atheist, and knowing other atheists, feel strongly that atheists are just as capable of being moral as any theist.

I have many atheist friends and I can bet they are caring and loving people and better than many religious people. In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do. Every person has conscience. Some people obey the voice of their conscience some not.

Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: How do you think the theists pick which stories are moral out of their book and which ones aren't? If I recall, the bible condones slavery and rape.

Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I have my own idea for why I'm moral. Whether it be learned, or inherent, I feel guilty when I do something wrong and I feel bad when I see someone else in pain. I was reading about the logical capability of dogs once. It said that dogs will never actually feel remorse for their actions. If they pooped on the floor and you come home to find them with their tail between their legs, it's not because they feel sorry, it's because they're afraid of the consequences because they know that poop on the floor = something bad will happen.

It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.


(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: As shown as this image, humans feel guilt. Obviously there is a difference between feeling guilt and simply fearing punishment. I learned in psychology class once that morality based off of fear of punishment is the lowest form of morality. I really wish that I remembered the source of that hierarchy of morality and who was responsible for the research so I could go into more detail. I think that alone shows that the whole basis for morality, by the religious standard of fear of god, is a very weak one.

On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.

Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers. If a Muslim intentionally do something wrong then he will face the punishment. Along with the faith in Allah, good actions, especially controlling desires, are obligatory. Belief alone is not enough for the salvation in Islam. Islam commands for deeds based on moral values.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You site authors who say that morality under fear of god is infantile. You say that atheism is only the belief that god doesn't exist. You say that atheism itself eradicates any morals given by religion and does not offer anything to fill in the gaps to replace them. You say atheism gives no grounds for morality. You say atheists practically say atheists are nihilists.

I think in a vacuum everything you say is true. Atheism does not offer alternatives to religious morality. There is no inherent laws of morality. I think if simply denying the belief in god strips away all of these religious morals, then religious morality is not very good in the first place.

How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Religious principles are morals that were adopted by religion, they were not created by religion (unless you believe that god literally wrote the bible himself).

Psalms, Torah, Gospel, and Quran are the literal words of God. I have logical reasons to believe that. It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend. In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths. Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.

The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: The only thing I can think of that is exclusively a religious moral is not being bad for fear of being sent to hell.

If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Being an atheist myself, I know that I feel more emotions than a dog. I feel empathy and guilt and contempt and a whole range of complex emotions.

Whether or not it's nature or nurture which instills these in me is an entire discussion entirely. I think it's a little of both.

Leaders of atheism do not think like you.

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Page 133
River out of Eden
Richard Dawkins

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Human beings are social creatures. That is a fact, the evidence is that we all live in large groups on planet earth. Albeit the relationship with each other in large groups can be a bit impersonal, for the most part people abide by the law and society functions. It obviously works as proof that we have been sustaining ourselves for a long period of time. What strikes me as ironic is that often the more primitive societies like the ones that live in the woods are the ones who are more spiritual. For instance, a primitive tribe may have witch hunts, try to cure illnesses by praying or casting what they believe to be the "demons" out of host. In our modern society, we rely heavily on science and logic to maintain our existence. I think logic seems to be winning over superstition. It seems that the more sophisticated society becomes, the more we drive out the superstitious ways of thinking of the past.

Roots of our lives are scattered deep inside the essence of nature therefore, nature dictates the rules for our instincts and rules for our survival. We are heavily dependent over nature for the fulfilment of our needs. If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking. Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.

Why human logic works well because universe is stable and predictable. In this intelligible universe human logic, supersede everything, even science. Success of science in fact depends over human logic. Why logic is powerful because natural events are consistent. Think about chaotic universe. That universe will instantly kills the human logic.

In other words, reliability of human logic is subject to the consistency in natural events. Scientific innovations are dependent over human logic not human logic reliant over science.

Because of the evident achievements of scientific discoveries, many people get deluded about the reality of science. Like many people, who believe in the superstitious phenomenon, modern people measure science as all mighty. They have literally replaced God with science. However, as I said that human logic supersede all scientific marvels therefore the real credit for all human achievements goes to human logic not to the scientific principles.

Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: To me the arguments of morality seem to be an overtly scholarly practice, reserved for philosophy classes and higher level education. The ideas are still important none the less as they are the groundwork for society. Science and philosophy work hand in hand in building societies. Religion is merely a traditional method of handling morality. Traditional wisdom does not mean absolute wisdom. As I stated earlier, fear of god is not a good base for morals. I think we need to rely more on the capability of human beings to think rationally then to tell them that they are merely animals, incapable of achieving godly wisdom. We should teach people to think for themselves. We should teach people to question themselves. I think that is the fundamental reason why religious morality is wrong.

Religion was running all communities in the pre-scientific era. Religion is controlling many communities even in today’s scientific world. As benchmark values are vital for the success of scientific exploration, similarly, absolute morals are indispensable for the evaluation of moral values for judicial proceedings and the administration of the law.

As for science, it has no concern with the morals. It only deals with the cause and effect of the material events. Science cannot explain how mind and physical body entangled together.

Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.

“Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen…”
Page 469
Crime and punishment
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Translated By Constance Garnett

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You site cases in which people acted under their own conviction in a way that they perceived to be moral and killed millions of people. Morality that is justified rationally through ethics allows people to behave immorally. Religion attempts to provide practical morality. Religion gives definite laws. Religion provides a larger context for existence beyond morality (i.e. why we're here) as opposed to the views of atheism, that were's "an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.". You say that atheists have no basis for morality, so they are forced to look into religion for morality. Judgement day and belief in miracles are a good source of motivation to behave according to the morals of scripture which have a "rich narrative". The structure of secular morals is entirely based on religious morals which have been with humans throughout the history of mankind.

I personally would like the truth about reality, instead of anecdote (which is all the stories really are). As opposed to believing god exists and that we all go to heaven if we're good is merely a fairy tail, or to put it more respectfully, an anecdote (or part of one). I think most atheists who have developed emotions are capable of realizing that killing is wrong. You seem to be arguing that without grounds for morality people can do whatever they want. I just don't like your example because I think it leaves out the question of those people's personal character and rather focuses on their trivial lack of biblical morality. I think your assertion that secular morality is based on religious morality is backwards. Religious morality didn't just appear. It's obviously based off of preexisting concepts and ideas that were implemented into scriptures.


Religion may provide practical morality (unless you're me, who was too bored to pay attention in Church). I think that the problem with religious morality, as I said earlier, is that it is absolute, unquestionable. Religious people are literally told that they are sinners and below god. That seems to imply that morality is objective. I think morality is subjective. I know this may seem sad to some people, but in my atheistic viewpoint, I believe that when someone is murdered, the universe does not care. So it is the responsibility of human beings and our innate sense of empathy and compassion (which is something else that has been hijacked and claimed by religion) to determine morality. Since god is not here to tell us how to interpret scripture (nor will he ever be), even the bible itself is morally subjective. Interpretation of the bible varies widely and I think that's common knowledge. Some even use their scripture to make ethical moral justifications to kill other people. The bible literally says to stone homosexuals just to give one example. Some extremists even use their scripture to justify killing other people (i.e. 9/11). So not only is biblical morality subjective, it is unreliable. The scripture is unreliable, subjective, has hijacked moral concepts, and does not give people the tools to think for themselves. It is a very bad system.


Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.

Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.

God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.

By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.

Selfish person whether theist or atheist use anything to his advantage, within or outside moral limits.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I may have simply discredited biblical teachings like any other atheist has at this point. I think that perhaps education and open mindedness has taken use as far as we are today. As I said, logical and science has taken us further than religion has ever taken us. In fact is it responsible for the largest logical explosion mankind has ever seen in history. What has religion been responsible for? Wars? Witch hunts? Bigotry? Destroying the library of Alexandria and setting us back 1000 years? If you want answers to the problems of the world, don't look to religion. Look to the people who are making the world a better place. Look to the atheists who are already living without religion who are living healthy, productive, morally justifiable lives that coincide with the peacefulness of society. Look to the scientists. Look to the forward thinkers. Look to yourself and question your notions of morality.

Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.

For your information, all of the scientific benefits that you are enjoying today, Muslim and Christian scientists were the one who explored and developed that science. Atheists have done very little in the development of science. Most of their activities emerged in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when atheist took readymade principles and laws developed by Muslim and Christian scientists and made some cosmetic modifications in them.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

(September 14, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, you have it all quite backwards. Evolutionary Human morality was abducted by religion, packaged for sale, and sold to those who knew not what they already had. It is religions that are freeloading off of secularism, and not the other way around as you have stated. In the real model, religions are, to use your stab, the 'transgressors'.

A fact that even a single good goddamn second of thought would have revealed, unless Harris is actually saying that until religion was invented- and these specific modern versions specifically- people were okay with stealing and murder and all that.

Of course, history would prove him wrong on that claim too, since there are plenty of secular moral codes written sometimes literally in stone that both predate the major religions of today, and cover much the same ground. But then, again, knowing that would have required Harris to do any research at all before he opened his mouth.

You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?

According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.

(September 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm)FreeTony Wrote: I bet all those women burnt at the stake enjoyed it.
And all those killed and tortured in the crusades.
And those in Syria can be safe in the knowledge that Islam is giving the good folks of ISIS their morals.

Sure, religion can contain some good moral practices, but these would already have been in existence (unless of course you believe that everyone was going around murdering everyone else before God came along to tell them all to stop it).

First, politicians (no matter they are believers or not) who adopted secular laws like legalization of homosexuality and prostitution are all egocentric beings.

Second, God has given us the free will to live our lives in what way we like. He has also given us the guidance through scriptures and prophets on how to control our wild desires and how to live moral lives in pursuit of Divine bounty. God will not come to interfere any person’s deeds because free will then loose its meaning. The rewards and punishments are secured for the day of judgement.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Here's a few religious rules that have been abolished by secular society.

Islam

A man can't beat his wife even if he fears rebellion from her.

A person who has sex outside of marriage isn't lashed 100 times in front of a crowd of Muslims.

Amputating the hands of a thief is no longer allowed

Confining women who partake in sex acts against Islamic law to a house until they die isn't a law people abide by these days.

You love to twist and distort, quote out of context, and misquote simply to build up a false impression. I preserve my response until my new post in which I am planning to discuss on the tricks and tactics of selfish beings.

My only comment for now is I 100% favour all those punishments that you have presented as barbaric by concealing some real facts.

I do not think that your love and compassion for your wife will increase drastically if (God forbid) you learn that she is sharing bed with your friends.

(September 17, 2014 at 6:43 am)Madness20 Wrote: I don't like how the topic tries to imply religion is the source of human ethics, which is completelly wrong.

Human ethics are actually biological constructions, in which everyone has the tendency to fluctuate on those pattern of behaviour, because they are socially advantageous and desirable, not because it is written in some book that one must obey, people that don't "follow" these common ethics are actually regarded as suffering psycho-social disorders.

“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Richard Dawkins
Reply
#25
RE: Where are the Morals?
Quote:In the article I will discuss, why an atheist who adopted a moral way of living is more vulnerable to immorality compared to a religious person.

LOL. I stopped reading here. What is a religious person? A follower of Yahweh? Of Mohamet?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#26
RE: Where are the Morals?
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Let us do a simple math:

Case one:
If you mean that atheist prisoners are only 1% of total prison population than according to above mentioned statistics:

Atheist = 2.01% of the total world population

Total world population = 7 billion

2.01% Atheist population = 140,700,000

1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000

Above calculation shows, 50.2% atheists of total atheist population are spending their lives in prisons.

Are you saying that all of the world's population is in prison? Because, uh, if you aren't saying that, then calculating via the world's population, as opposed to the prison population that is the thing included in the claim would make you dreadfully wrong. Also, you'd look like an idiot, for crunching global numbers when the claim specifically mentions prison populations exclusively.

But then, that wouldn't be the first thing you'd looked like an idiot over, eh Harris? Dodgy

Oh, and also, the bolded number? Seems to have come directly out of your ass. The real numbers are actually lower: the atheist population of prisons is something like 0.7 percent according to official documentation, and it's actually lower than it should be relative to the atheist population at large, too. Meanwhile, religious people dominate prison populations, and are also in prison at higher rates than one would statistically expect, relative to their actual populations. And I did provide a source there, Harris, since I know you'll forget if I don't point it out. You're just wrong, yet again.

Quote:Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.

Yes, that check and balance is called the rest of the culture. Haven't you been paying attention?

Quote:The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.

Statistics, our modern understanding of psychology, and a number of other sciences, say otherwise. But then, I'm sure your fatuous and unsupported assertion is more convincing than all that evidence based research. Rolleyes

Quote:You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?

There are plenty of early human cultures, as I pointed out, that left governing documents that were both secular and held a lot of the positive tenets that religious documents hold to, while predating them all the same. The Code of Hammurabi being one of the earliest: it predates the Abrahamic religions by quite a while.

Quote:According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.

And why the fuck should I take this assertion of yours seriously when you won't back it up? This is just you desperately inventing fairytales to retrofit your desired conclusion over the fact that anthropology contradicts you, and has actual evidence to support it.

Unsurprisingly, I find your little fantasies entirely unconvincing. Dodgy
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#27
RE: Where are the Morals?
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 2:13 am)Bibliofagus Wrote: Funny how the concept and feelings of empathy are not explored in the OP.

I intentionally kept this post short.

Lol. That wall of text is short?
I think you left it out because the fact that basically everyone on earth has empathy entirely fucks up your argument that we need rules to be moral.
Reply
#28
RE: Where are the Morals?
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?

In the absence of God there are no objective moral values and duties. Ethics is basically a subjective illusion of human beings.

Historically, governing by absolute morality is favoured because it simplifies the creation of laws, obedience to them, and it facilitates the judicial process.

Ethical obligations are based on external moral principles (“higher truths”) that are absolute, invariable and do not allow for exceptions or extenuating circumstances. These principles create absolute duties that must be performed regardless of the consequences and in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. There are no exceptions, no excuses.

Incest or torturing a baby is not absolutely immoral. There is not such thing as "absolutely" immoral.

Don't confuse absolute morality with objective morality. Your god's morality is absolute and subjective. Human morality is often contingent and objective.

Historically, absolute morality leads to totalitarian states.

Obligations of the nature you just described are almost never ethical.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Someone should be naïve enough to assert such an illogical comparison.

According to “Population Matters” there are 7.125 billion (2013) inhabitants in the world.

http://www.populationmatters.org/?gclid=...tAod32gAgg

“Atheists comprise an estimated 2.01% of the world population.”

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

Let us do a simple math:

Case one:
If you mean that atheist prisoners are only 1% of total prison population than according to above mentioned statistics:

Atheist = 2.01% of the total world population

Total world population = 7 billion

2.01% Atheist population = 140,700,000

1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000 - WRONG

Above calculation shows, 50.2% atheists of total atheist population are spending their lives in prisons.


Case two:
If you are saying, Atheist prisoners are 1% of the total atheist population then point to some authentic source that justify your claim.

Case 3: 1% of the total prison population is atheist.

Do you see where you went wrong? Moron.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: You can say that God does not exist, that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc. Your disbelief in God is the standard of how you perceive the world. However, this demonstrates your concern about the world, purpose, morals, etc. You may say that every atheist has his own personal worldview and based on that you can argue that atheism is not a worldview. If atheism is not a worldview then every atheist, lives with a subjective worldview, which display a defective understanding of social relations. It is not surprising that selfishness has found favour with most of those who subscribe to the worldview of secular modernity.

I say that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved and that we develop our own morals irrespective of whether or not there is a god. God's non-existence is incidental.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Sure! Man is capable to develop morals based on the needs and their fulfilments. You can determine your own purpose and develop your own morals, etc. however, you have overlooked an obvious fact that man is also capable to be selfish and cruel.

Selfish person do not care for morals and good or bad reasoning. If he loves incest or rape, he will go after it to satisfy himself.

Says who? I'm extremely selfish and yet I care a great deal about morals based on good reasoning.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: “But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life?” All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?”

Nonsense. Laws are required for life here - they have nothing to do with afterlife.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: The only way to stop selfishness and brutality is by the use of force.

Not the only way - just religion's way.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

Sounds as moronic as you.

False dichotomy, btw.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Only remove the idea of accountability from the minds of people and see how quickly they transform from rational beings into nasty beings. That is exactly what happened with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler kill, Chiang Kaikillshek kill, Vladimir Lenin, Hideki Tojo and Pol Pot.

Putting in imaginary accountability isn't much better.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Atheism only helps removing the idea of moral accountability and pushes people to selfishness. However, this idea of moral accountability is crucial because it provides the power within people to control their egos without enforcement of any threat of external powers.

Nonsense - atheism simply removes imaginary accountability.
Moral accountability to oneself is a sign of a truly selfish person.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: “If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible what was the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.”

Wrong.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Yes! People are capable to study philosophy of morals but think about how many people are there who bother to dig heap of those philosophy books in order to learn how to live a moral life. On top of that, philosophy of morality only tackles with the muddled hitches of morality and it does not gives any agenda on how to live a moral life. The evident example is the secular world, which lacks institute that is capable to provide precise guidance to a pure moral life. Secondly, think about people who are mean and selfish and do not care about morality.

Wrong. Philosophy does teach how to live a moral life. But an institute dictating morality would be immoral itself - a person has to judge that for himself. Secondly, it is impossible to be truly selfish without being moral.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, conscience get diseased or get deceased.

On the contrary - faith in anything whether god or an ideology - is the disease of morality.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: You see the designs around and within your being but not the Designer. You reject the existence of the designer (God) simply because you cannot perceive Him with your physical senses.

I see no design. And I reject your god because the idea is patently illogical.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: When you do scientific research, you use logic concerning indiscernible phenomenon. However, if you cannot identify God with your physical senses then you are not interested to use the same logic because if you get convinced in the existence of God then you may give up some of your favourite habits, which you do not want to give up.

You err in your assumptions.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: If we can believe in the idea of ten dimensions, which is outside the capacity of our minds to perceive, then what is the problem in believing the existence of the world that, perhaps, exists in those perplexing 9+1 dimensions and parallel to our 3+1 dimensional world? Perhaps, all monotheistic religions have talked about that same invisible world which string theory is trying to explicate in the language of science.

When your god has the same logical support for it that string theory has, then you can talk.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.

Imaginary constructs like god or heaven are not a proper system of checks and balance. We prefer things based on reality.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.

On the contrary, being wise and virtuous is possible only through rational thinking and understanding the nature of things - faith in god is antithetical to that and therefore a disease upon one's conscience.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Keep in mind that atheism had never produced any atheistic religion.

Yes, do keep that in mind.

The next time some moron says that atheism is a religion or a worldview or talks about "atheistic morals" - keep this in mind.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Now my question to you is as being an atheist which religion(s) are you following to maintain your moral views because I am unsure that there is any atheist who studies philosophy of moral to build a perfect moral code for his/her life.

Allow me to correct your unsurity - I am an atheist and I study philosophy to build a moral code for my life and no, I do not follow any religion.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Morals can be develop on the rational grounds but where is the guarantee that FREETHINKERS are the angles from whom we do not expect anything immoral in the name of morality?

If it is developed on rational grounds then it doesn't rely on freethinkers themselves. Their being free from personal desires is irrelevant - any influence of personal desires can be pointed out as irrational and thus removed.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Bible is the Word of God

Prove it.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: After looking at the prevailing influences of Bible over people, FREETHINKERS have corrupted it’s verses for the sake of gaining power and possession. Today’s Bible is a corrupted version of the original Bible because scriptures cannot be Divine

I agree.




(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: In the contemporary world, the same FREETHINKERS have wiped out the name of God from their dictionaries for the sake of seeking pleasures within and outside of moral limits. These FREETHINKERS are cunning enough, as they have done so within the scope of rationality to convince people on their immoral acts. But this gives rise to a question for those who are convinced at legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution that, have we accomplished ample knowledge of all troughs and crests of rationality?

Yes. And if it is within the scope of rationality, then it is not immoral.




(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Within 400 hundred years, atheists have killed people insanely. The number is astronomical that cannot be defeated by the combined number of killed people in the entire human history. Check out the history books.

Do you even realize how nonsensical this argument is? Moron.
And religion has killed many, many more.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: It does exist but it has not given any established code of conduct. You have to assemble your own code by taking guidance from that philosophy. In such exhaustive drills, only few people are interested. Secondly, you cannot build up your own code until you have scholarly skills. Look around you and tell how many people have the scholarly skills. The easy way is to look into religious teachings for the guidance to live a moral life.

I agree - looking to religion for a moral code is the easy way out. But that''s not the right way. Especially given the corrupt morals of religion.

The right way would be to help people develop the necessary scholarly skills.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Manmade laws cannot equate the laws given in the scriptures. Manmade laws are the Mumbo Jumbo of men’s desires and desirable religious contents.

Equate??
They are far superior to your scriptural mumbo-jumbo.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: A person, whether theist or atheist, cannot regard importance, worth, or usefulness of morals without the sense of moral accountability. Sense of accountability is crucial for a self-critique. Without the quality of self-critique, a person is a FREETHINKER like a beast in the wild where only powerful has the right to live and enjoy life. Religion gives the vision of self-critique to every believer, control his wild desires, and develop insight into fellowmen’s emotional states.

An imaginary vision.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: In contrast to morality based on religious teachings, manmade rational laws are only workable at the cost of using force. In contrast to religious morality, manmade laws can control people but they cannot make them virtuous and wise.

On the contrary - man-made rational laws work for most rational people without any use for force. Force is required only for irrational people - like religious zealots. Religion, on the other hand, works exclusively on the threat of imaginary force.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Islam is a religion based on logic. Therefore, all its laws are logical.

ROFLOL.

Wait, not done.

ROFLOL

Go on. Tell another one.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Humanist may say this law is barbarism. However, if you dig some interviews of the victims, those victims will give you understanding about what disgusting humiliation they had gone through. I personally know cases where victims of rape committed suicide.

People may give their right or wrong opinions about punishment to a rapist but interestingly, whenever I posed questions to my atheist friends about their actions if someone rape their wives or daughters, believe me or not but 100% answers were in favour of the capital punishment.


A perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: USA is one of those unfortunate countries that faces highest rate of rapes in the world. USA has the finest secular laws in the world but those laws are helpless to control the sexual crimes in the country.

Highest reported rapes.
Islamic countries, on the other hand, redefine rape and have laws to make them harder to report. Atleast the laws in US don't promote sexual atrocities.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Now think about implementing Sharia Law in USA at least to stop rapes. Only after two or three culprits get capital punishment in public do you think sex crimes will increases, remain same or decline radically? My answer is it will decline radically.

If we impose Sharia law? They'll definitely increase, they just won't be called crimes anymore.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: I intentionally kept this post short.

Ha.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: I am with Genkaus.

“The law of the land governs only our public life and that to a limited extent. It is not sufficient as a guide for the whole life.”

Just to be clear - only on this question. Also, I'd say that that is all the law of the land should govern. It should not reach into my personal life.

Which is why the idea of imposing of Sharia law is disgusting.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Islamic teachings give most logical reasoning for the segregation of sexes in communities. This topic I will discuss in my next post.

If by 'logic' you mean based on bigoted presuppositions, I agree.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: As for the poverty, Islam has provided most effective laws in the world. Abundance of literature available regarding Islamic laws to minimise poverty however, here I will quote only one verse from Quran in this context.

Is that why Islamic nations are so poor?


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: So what kind of punishment you prefer for someone if he has sexual relations with your wife? How will you treat your wife if you learn she is in sexual affairs with another man behind your back? What are your suggestions to stop sexual abuses in a society?

Consensual relations? No legal punishments for either the wife or the other guy. Whether or not this results in a divorce would depend on facts on the ground.

And to stop sexual abuses - let's start with getting rid of religion.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: You think all those believers are stupid and only 2% atheists are genius.

Not stupid - just mistaken.

You, on the other hand, are stupid.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.

And we've finally succeeded and changed those nonsensical rules and regulations. Not completely, but to a great extent. And we shall not stop.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that.

We don't blame religion for that - not at all. We blame it for people going against their personal desire to fulfill religious laws.

Like the part about stoning your wife to death if she commits adultery.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do.

I doubt that.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.

it is the only thing that can liberate it.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.

Unlike religion - which maintains all the wrong standards.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.

Unlike religious laws that are based on use of imaginary force.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.

Thus, it is applied through fear and threat of force.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers.

In that regard, it is exactly the same as other religions - the whole "justice after death" is a false hope.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.

Atheists don't have religious morals, but most of us do study philosophy and develop our morals based on that.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend.

Ofcourse it is. Just listen to you talk about atheism and morals.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths.

You telling me that whoever wrote those scriptures foresaw the rise of ISIS and still wrote it the way he did? What kind of dumbfuck retard would do such a thing? Oh, wait....


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.

They were not suitable then and they are not suitable now. Universal, my ass.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.

So, the NT bible is the corrupted version? Atleast it is better than the quran.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”

Only those who are not wise or virtuous based on rational morality.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Leaders of atheism do not think like you.

What leaders of atheism? Who are these leader? I don't remember casting any vote.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking.

Exactly. One of those superstitious beings would be your god.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.

Yes - they are called "religious".

(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods.

Between the three of them they employ almost every logical fallacy known to us. Those three arguments not only conflict with, they openly flout the rules of rational thinking - as has been proven in this forum many, many times over. If those three arguments are the best you got, then you got nothin'.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.

Only as far as irrational beings are concerned.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.

Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.

God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.

Blah, blah, blah, god, god, blah....

Nothing interesting or logical here.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.

Get your facts right - we're still working on prostitution and we've not won the battle for homosexuality just yet. We can't call it an achievement until we've achieved it.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.

If the life of your pedophile and war-mongering prophet is an "ideal" example, then we are well rid of that morality.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?

According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.

Adam wasn't my "evolutionary" ancestor - and I object to the idea of being a product of incest.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: First, politicians (no matter they are believers or not) who adopted secular laws like legalization of homosexuality and prostitution are all egocentric beings.

Wish they'd be as egocentric as that.


(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: Second, God has given us the free will to live our lives in what way we like. He has also given us the guidance through scriptures and prophets on how to control our wild desires and how to live moral lives in pursuit of Divine bounty. God will not come to interfere any person’s deeds because free will then loose its meaning. The rewards and punishments are secured for the day of judgement.

Balderdash.



(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote: My only comment for now is I 100% favour all those punishments that you have presented as barbaric by concealing some real facts.

I do not think that your love and compassion for your wife will increase drastically if (God forbid) you learn that she is sharing bed with your friends.

Again - example of morality based on personal desires.

This is about as low and disgusting as religious morality gets.
Reply
#29
RE: Where are the Morals?
I find it rather amusing that Harris' religious views are "logical", but in his last post he says
Quote:Without faith in God, there can be no conscience
.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#30
RE: Where are the Morals?
Yeah, one of those people for whom god is the thin line between himself and sodomizing a toddler, or so he would have us believe. Hell, he's got me convinced on that count...who am I to tell him that his self assessment is in error?
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



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 4582 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 8956 May 5, 2014 at 11:58 am
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  Morals of Executions IAmNotHere 20 4383 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 37158 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)