Where are the Morals?

[paulpablo]

Harris wrote

Sex is such a potent sense that it may obscure all of your logic and rationality. The only way to stop sexual abuses is the use of force and fear. I am preparing something interesting on this topic and you will have full opportunity to give your critical opinion.

Ok but our definitions of what constitutes a sexual abuse might be different, and there's probably several grey areas where I don't know if I could judge what is and isn't a sexual abuse.

You possibly, among with other Muslims, view marriage at the age of 9 years old permissible if the girl shows signs of puberty, which in my opinion would be an abuse no matter what stage of puberty she is at.

I don't see homosexuality as a sexual abuse, you may do.

Also what I would do in a situation where I had a wife and she cheated on me, most likely would not be the right thing to do, it would just be the thing I would do in the heat of the moment.

So if I had a wife and I found her in bed with another man I'd want to beat the man to death (assuming I loved her very much), I'm sure in the history of crimes of passion this has happened quite often.
But I don't think this makes it right to introduce a nation wide law that men who get caught in bed with someones wife should legally be beaten to death.

But I'm looking forward to the question you want to ask.

[genkaus]

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. He is the locus and source of moral value. God's own holy and loving nature supplies the absolute standard against which all human actions are measured.

Atheists fail to explain how morality is possible in a godless universe at all. There is no adequate explanation for how objective moral value can be grounded in a nontheistic universe.

Is not the nature totalitarian, at the mercy of which our lives are dependent?

If it comes from god, then it is not objective - it is totalitarian and subjective.
Your ignorance of objective morals within atheistic worldviews is not evidence that they don't exist.

Yes, I can see where I have gone wrong.

http://natskep.com/only-0-07-of-prisoner...ns-report/

Do you? Doesn't sound like it.

So you dance on the music of selfish gene! But genes are not selfish because you are not walking around with one big tail and two long ears (I presume).

I dance to the music of a rational mind.

You may agree with the good reasoning but if you are a selfish person then in practice you cannot be a Moral person. By definition, selfishness goes against moral and empathetic behaviour. Whether you are a dolt or you are trying to deceive the world on purpose.

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

Wrong. Read your own article - it says nothing about selfishness being inherently immoral. In practice, I'm bot moral and selfish and you are the dolt for not understanding the significance.

Aah! So, now Dostoevsky is also a Moron! Without having the afterlife and concept of absolute justice this world is no less than a hell where people are dying without getting justice.

I don't know about Dostoevsky or what his views are, but judging by yours, you are a moron. And no, people don't die here without getting justice - the judiciary tries to ensure that. And yes, there is no absolute justice.

Oh, Yeah! So those ELECTRIC CHAIRS and GAS CHAMBERS are there only for fun!

Your peeps, not ours.

Interesting!
So secular US government is moronic because there are 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,259 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails.

I wonder why you need so many jails.

http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com...ates-2014/

The article doesn't provide an answer. And if your false dichotomy was correct, there would be many more prisoners.

If you convince people on moral accountability that would make them wise and virtuous without any need of external powers. The brightest example is how Islam transformed Ferocious Arabs into leaders of civilized world in the age of only one generation. That is not anything less than a miracle.

Miracle? Hardly. It simply gave a direction to their barbarism. Not the same as becoming world leaders. And while we are at it, it also plunged them to their current state. All in all, an extremely poor example.

Today, we live in a time when, having fundamentally rejected the absolutes and clear teachings of Scripture, man seeks to make God accountable to him for his comfort and pleasure. Thus, people are not only doing what is right in their personal understandings, but also the prevailing attitude is “Do your own thing. You are only accountable to yourself and your own self-fulfilment.” This is a shift from a God-centred perspective of life to a man-centred perspective. This is all part of man’s attempt to dismiss any accountability to God. The reality is that when men seek to ignore accountability to God, they leave themselves vulnerable to the cold misery of slavery and eventually to the menace of a dictator. Good examples menace dictators are Lenin and Stalin.

Right premises. Wrong conclusion. Yes, we don't have any moral accountability to imaginary things like god. Yes, we develop a man-centered perspective and accountability to ourselves and the society. And when done well, it leaves us stronger and happier than ever.

Prove Solzhenitsyn is wrong by giving logical reasoning instead of throwing one word in empty air.

What is asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason. There is no reason to give logical reasoning to disprove it beacuse there is none proving it.

Philosophy of moral only discuss moral issues, it does not offer precise code of conduct.

If institute dictates rather than to teach then all secular institutes are dictators.

If your morals works exclusively for your own being then it is known as pure selfishness and meanness.

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

A precise code of conduct should be based on individual facts of life and based on general principles derived from philosophy. That is the better way to do it- unlike religion that dictates an arbitrary code of conduct. And yes, individual moral codes work for individuals - which is selfish.

“God does not exist,” is a belief. However, belief has nothing to do with morals. Once there are no morals disease of morality become irrelevant. You have already cut a stem on which you were sitting. You are now in a state of falling but you cannot feel that because your eyes are unable to see anything else other than your dear desires.

Ignorant blather. I stand firmly on the ground of rationality - not up the imaginary tree of god.

Go and teach Plato and show him there is no design and the idea of designer is patently illogical. Secondly, today’s science exhaustively talks about design however, your incapacity to see design only points to a dolt or wicked personality.

Plato could learn a lot from modern science - sadly he's been dead too long. And no, science does not talk about design - it talks about patterns.

Then why you persistently reject all logical evidences provided by cosmological argument, fine-tuning, and intelligent design? Epistemology is not the base of your rejections.

Because they are not logical. All the logical fallacies inherent in those arguments have been exposed multiple times.

You support inconceivable scientific phenomenon simply because Math supports that idea. I will not argue on that (although I can) simply to avoid deviation from the topic.

Mathematical equations offer a window into the workings of nature. Our physical world not only is described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics, making us self-aware parts of a giant mathematical object.

We are made of cells made of molecules made of atoms made of elementary particles, which are purely mathematical structures in the sense that their only properties are mathematical properties. Although we do not yet know, what if anything these particles are made of, string theory and its leading competitors all suggest that any more fundamental building blocks are purely mathematical as well.

But why has our physical world revealed such extreme mathematical patterns and regularities that Galileo proclaimed nature to be “a book written in the language of mathematics.” This give rise to another question, who wrote that book in the language of math?

All our speculations starts from intelligible nature of patterns in structures and ends at the ideas about the designer who is formulating those structures mathematically with prodigious precisions. This is an inherently logical sense, which is natural, and if you lack that sense, the only reasons seems to be whether you are deceiving your own being deliberately or your logic is facing some serious trouble.

Mathematics is a descriptive abstrction of how the physical world works. That is it. There is not supernatural book of maths and there is no book writer.

Ah Reality! I will tell you what it is. It is legal sex workers (prostitutes), legal homosexuality, incest, fornication, hardcore pornography, and serial killings of young children after raping them. Atheism is pushing people to this reality.

We'll get everything other than the last one. And that is good. Those things should be legalized.

Pleasure seeker never think about God, morals, and rationality. How intensely one follows his desires for pleasures that far he would be from reality and rationality. Pleasure seeker may give million reasons to disprove God, morals, and rationality for the justification of his pleasure seeking behaviour. Atheism supports pleasure seekers.

Wrong - atheism does not support pleasure seekers.

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. Your worldview normally based on what you believe in. I agree that Atheism is not a religion and it cannot be because it lacks concept of absolute goodness, which is essential to evaluate the limits of evil and produce moral code of conduct. Without the concept of absolute goodness, it only sucks human values like a powerful black hole in the middle of human morality. Secondly, it preaches nonexistence of God without rationalisation. If you are a lucky person whose conscience still alive then you have no other option then to run after piles of philosophy books or peek into religions in order to get your life saving moral guidance.

Firstly, any concept of absolute goodness is unnecessary to develop a moral code of conduct. Secondly, non-existence of god doesn't need rationalization because his existence isn't rational to begin with. The rest is ignorant blubbering.

History is evident that 99% of people in all times believed in the existence of God or deity. Only handful of atheists deny existence of God who rebel against religious laws because they were against their wishful activities. One of the most fundamental cause of atheism is the demand of illegal sex and eradication of any limitation over sexual activities.

No, those are the perks. The cause of atheism is critical thinking.

You are a lucky person who cares about morality. I have spent some time among hardcore atheists and found non-who was interested in reading boring philosophy books to find boring morals ethics in them. Every one of them was more concern about personal comfort and enjoyment.

Luck has nothing to do with it - rational thinking does.

So why Stalin and his men (who were hardcore atheists) were so successful in killing millions and millions of people if irrationality was so easy to be removed from rational grounds? Irrationality of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. is in fact the product of atheism.

It isn't easy. And no it wasn't.

Because of the concocted verses in Bible, I will not take any chance to establish my proof for today’s Bible to be the world of God. However, I am not reluctant to prove Quran to be the word of God because corruption has not yet touched it.

Prove it.

Do not twist and alter my words. The real text was:

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

Again - prove that the original bible is the word of god.

“Therefore, living in an Ethical and rationally governed society would afford everyone the best chance of achieving any rational plan of life, including immoral ones. Transgressors are often actually socially and legally rather morally, prim apart from their own immoral behaviours. In effect, they are civil freeloaders, happy to endorse morality and law for others while selectively exempting themselves from them.

People can and do have rational plan of life that include desires to achieve things that they morally ought to refrain from doing. For example,

Joseph Stalin kill 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong kill 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler kill 20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek kill 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin kill 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo kill 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot kill 2,397,0003 people

Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end. So, insofar as Ethical Rational justification uses the motivation to realize rational plan of life, any rational plan of life, Ethical Rationalism would, at least in some instances, legitimize immoral rational plan of life”

Those plans aren't rational nor are they moral. You can keep repeating it, that won't make it so.

Atheist regimes have killed 143,637,003 people within the span of 300 years only. Go and try to beat this figure.

To start with - Hitler, Chiang and Hideki were not atheists. So let's move their killings to the religion side of the figures.

… “there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That’s not all. He ended by saying that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.’”

Page 45 The Brothers Karamazov
Part 1, Book 2, Chapter 6 ("Why Is Such a Man Alive? ")
Fyodor Dostoevsky

More nonsense from dead authors.

Fortunately, Quran has not yet corrupted. Although people are trying to corrupt it day and night but they are failing miserably. Read Quran and Tradition of Prophet Mohammad before you criticise them based on false propaganda against Islam.

It is corrupted at the conception.

I am with you on that however; think logically whether it is possible for you and me to help even a single person in developing scholarly skill in him? What about millions of other mundane people in our communities who are spending their lives like living machines? Religion is the only and easily approachable place to look for moral code.

Yes, it is possible to help them develop the scholarly skills - its called education.

Oh! I am extremely sorry that I totally forgot about the most superior laws made by the best secular systems in the world: Legalization of same sex marriages and prostitution.

Yes.

They have already produced a culture where “Father of my daughter is my father.”

That's logically impossible.

It will not be a surprise if tomorrow these far superior laws make anal sex compulsory for everyone.

I would - since these laws are about freedom, not making things compulsory.

Here is law of the scripture:

“Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”

An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 23-

Disgusting. A fine example of how the quran is corrupted at conception.

If for you it is an imaginary vision, so let it be such. Main thing is, this imaginary vision works well and gives very practical results. The evidence is, out of 7 billion people, Atheist have not yet reached even 200 million mark. It is because atheism is irrational, illogical, and goes against the nature of man.

The practical result like ISIS and 9/11. Those are the results we can do without.

Have you ever seen anyone caught by those imaginary forces and punished by them? Have you seen God running after you for your disbelief? On the contrary, we see those so-called rational manmade laws practically catching and punishing people every single day.

God has given us the opportunity to believe or not. Within this lifetime, God will not interfere any person’s deeds so at the day of judgement no person will have any excuse.

Yes, man-made justice is swift and decisive while allowing opportunity for future rehabilitation. Much better than your god's.

“But your Lord is Most forgiving, full of Mercy. If He were to call them (at once) to account for what they have earned, then surely He would have hastened their punishment, but they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no refuge.”

Al Kahfi (18)
-Verse 58-

More corrupted morality from quran.

My pleasure! I will tell another one but first use your logic.

If A = B and B = C then A = C to disprove Cosmological argument and intelligent design.

You crack me up.

Correct! Rapist is truly “a perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.”

Which is why religious people - who don't follow morality based on logic and rationale - rape more.

Assertion. Bring the facts in your argument. Do not talk abstractly.

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

Pay specific attention to the rape laws in Islamic countries.

As I mentioned earlier, Saudi Arabia is the country that goes according to Sharia Laws. Can you give statistics of increased sexual violence in Saudi Arabia?

When did it turn from secular laws to sharia law?

Indeed! Which rapist would like the bondage of any law no matter Sharia Law or Law of the land. Have you ever seen any burglar or rapist who loved public laws that threaten him for his actions? Is not it that constitutional laws directly affect your personal life and therefore they are disgusting for you? You love Double Standards.

Any laws that would punish the victim - as Sharia law does - is vile and disgusting.

In logic there is nothing like “Bigoted presuppositions.”

Like? They are bigoted presuppossitions.

I can write many frightening facts how wickedly secular world intervene in the matters of Muslim countries specially those countries which are rich in natural resources or have strategic importance. Secular governments use banking system and powerful culprits in the Muslim countries for the achievement of their purposes. Here I will point out only one logical fact that why Muslims are suffering in the Muslim world today.

Take example of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, and Bosnia. Do you think all those killed Muslim died because of poverty, starvation, and lack of medical care? NO! The bombs of secular world and culprits who have support of the secular world have killed all those Muslims.

This documentary gives you some insight on how secular world commits crimes in foreign countries.

Well, the simple fact is this: If your religion provided effective laws to combat poverty, then, given the Islamic countries natural resources and strategic importance, they'd be prosperous. And if they were prosperous, the secular world wouldn't be able to treat you like a little bitch. The fact that you are being treated like a little bitch shows how ineffective your laws are.

Great! I was not expecting anything intelligible from the atheist mind. Yes, get rid of religion that opposes Homosexuality, Adultery, and fornication and implement atheism that supports a culture of swine in which gays walk with pride in public, Adultery and fornication is a modern way of life, where incest is common, and rapists walk with freedom. Bravo!

Did you miss the part about consensual relations? Let me say it loudly - CONSENSUAL. Which means gays can walk with pride in public, adultery and fornication are permitted, incest is judged on consent and rapists are jailed. So, by all means - let's get rid of religion.

Yeah! Around four billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews are mistaken and handful of atheists are not.

Finally, you understand.

I can see the results of your success in from of sexual crimes where no female and no young lad is safe from sexual abuses.

That would be the result of Islam's success - a religion with a pedophile prophet.

If you like to have a swine’s culture and wants to live like a pig, “you take my wife and I’ll take yours,” then good luck with that. For myself, I prefer to live in fundamentalist Muslim country than to live in a swine’s culture.

Pigs have open marriages? Wow, they are better than fundamentalist Muslims.

You doubt because logically atheism is a big hole in the middle of morality.

Nope. That's just your blind spot.

For example, atheism liberates your conscience from the sense of guilt for being a gay by pushing you away from regret and inspire you to be proud on that.

Exactly.

As atheism is not a religion, therefore it is not a standard as well. There is no standard in atheism, no matter right or wrong. As being an atheist, do you even know what the meaning of STANDARD is?

Sure, my standards come from philosophy.

This is the power of monotheistic religions that today there are about 4 billion believers. It is the power of (so-called imaginary force) that believer can live good ethical life without any need of police because every good follower is a police on his own actions.

Except, when there is no police, you guys turn into terrorists. Not a very good example.

Correct! Through fear and threat of losing infinite love and infinite mercy of God.

Yup, fear of imaginary loss.

You do not know how life starts on earth and you cannot prove there is no life after death. On what basis can you confirm “justice after death” is a false hope?

Because you don't exist after death.

According to the data on near death experiences collected by Dr. Peter Fenwick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwi...chologist)

consciousness and mind are two different entities. Body rely on mind where mind is independent. The new movie “Lucy” by Universal Pictures, try to demonstrate how this concept can be true.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

That the best you got - a hack and a movie?

Concept of justice is different in Islam. Transgressor will receive punishment no matter whether he proclaim loudly or in heart the existence of God. God will not let go any transgressor because that person believed in the existence of God but harmed other people as well.

Except, none of that really happens.

Not most of you but only few of you study philosophy and even a small fraction of you try to develop morals. Developing morals based on philosophy is a very tedious work in which most of the people are least interested. The easy way is religion, which provide readymade solutions for a moral life.

A simple survey of these forums show how wrong you are. And like I said, religion is the easy way, but you end up with wrong morals like bigotry and sexism.

If Mr. atheist do not have knowledge about something then how comes he can talk on that. He has no other way than to construct a conjecture in a wicked way. For example, how can he disprove the existence of God without going out of the universe? How can he prove that universe has no cause when all natural phenomenon and human logic talks on the contrary?

Becaue going outside the universe is not necessary to disprove something conceived within it and natural phenomenon and human logic agree with his conclusions.

Wo! Wo! Do not jump right over the conclusions.

Taliban were organised by the support of US and Bin Laden was a friend of US before expel of soviet army from Afghanistan. However, the same Taliban were denounced as terrorist right after the drama of twin towers. The interesting point here is that no Afghan neither government of Afghanistan was involved in the plot of that calamity, yet secular governments decided to punish the poorest nation on earth for those technically sophisticated attacks over twin towers.

Therefore, in order to find reality behind ISIS we have to wait at least 10 years before you denunciate any scripture. For me it will not be a surprise if after sometime secular world declare ISIS as friend of secular regimes

For me all politicians in the secular governments are immoral and selfish beings and I hate talking about their deeds. They all follow the policy of hook or crook to achieve their political objectives in foreign lands. What have they achieved by putting Afghan nation in war for more than 100 years? They killed innocent civilians and their own fellow citizens by pushing their army in hell. For them lives of humans are no more than the lives of houseflies and mosquitos.

Please avoid mixing politics in this philosophical discussion. Further, I will ignore any flamboyant comment related to modern politics of secular world.

Yes, let's not mix politics with philosophical discussion. The motives and actions of secular governments are political and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Both Taliban and ISIS use religion to justify their actions, which is why they are relevant. And on that basis, I don't have to wait 10 years to denounce the scripture.

It is a blatant act to give details about your ass in public domain. We all know what kind of ass you have and why you endeavour to decriminalise homosexuality.

Its round and dimpled and enjoys heavy petting and light smacking.

But enough about my ass and let's get back to your shit morals.

Have you ever read Quran? I do not think you have sufficient knowledge about Quran because your arguments are pure speculations.

Don't have to read it - the verses you provide here are sufficient example of how disgusting that book is.

Perhaps, you are one of those who rely on propaganda machine or possibly, you are the one who is deliberately twisting and distorting the facts about religions to bring homosexuality and prostitution (a swine culture) and inhuman ways of living.

I don't need to twist or distort anything - your morals are twisted to begin with.

I do not think many of the decent atheists agree with you in the idea of transforming respectful human society into gay and lesbian culture.

Not only every decent atheist, but every decent human being would agree that gays should have equal rights.

Are gays and prostitutes “wise and virtuous based on rational morality?”

They can be - yes.

You are lucky that you were not born in any those socialist countries. You have no idea how cruel, unempathetic, and prone to a sudden violence atheism is in those countries. Those countries are huge internment camps even today. Their leaders are literally gods for their nations. Stalin was one of their gods.

Glad we agree that they are not atheists.
And I'd still rather be in those countries than in Islamic ones.

You are picking bits from my writing and quoting them out of context to distort their meanings.

No, the meaning got through quite clearly.

You have not Harris Wroted the following is not a surprise for me:

“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.”

Most atheists would agree to the role logic has played in development of science. God, however, is still nowhere to be found.

Let me correct you, they are called Atheists because for them Science is in place of God. They actually worship their own selfish desires and think science is the doorway to fulfilment of all their desires. The difference between atheist and pagan is that atheist do not have idols to symbolise their desires as gods whereas pagans have idols to symbolize their desires.

Except, science is real - your god isn't. But no, atheists don't worship science.

Chattering in the air will not disprove these logical arguments. There is no atheist who have the answer on:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why universe does not has a cause when everything in it is the result of some cause.
3. Why there is life on earth
4. Why genome has one of the most complex and most intelligent code, which is superior in every sense to all manmade codes.

You are saying that these great arguments are fallacies but you do not have courage to prove them fallacious on the logical ground.

Maximum you can say

Chance (Blah)
Chance (Blah)
Chance (Blah)

Not Dawkins, not Harris, not Hitchens, and not Kraus has anything to say logical other than Blah, Blah, and Blah.

1. Nonsensical question
2. Spatio-temporal nature of cause is not applicable to the universe itself.
3. Abiogenesis
4. Because it has had millions and millions of years to develop, refine and be tested whereas human coding isn't even a century old. But not to worry - human coding is catching up at a frightening speed which shows that either no-one designed the genome or that whoever did design it was extremely stupid.

There all you questions answered. Just as they've been answered by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. And the fallacies of those arguments have been proven many, many times over. If you are intentionally blind to them, I see no point in repeating them.

Better, I would be an irrational being rather than rational like you who support prostitution, homosexuality, rape, and incest, an inhuman way of life.

I don't support rape - but the rest are fine.

But atleast we agree on something - you are irrational.

Oh Sorry again! For I have not talked about legalization of prostitution and homosexuality (the most logical and most rational concepts for you)

Simply two of them - not most logical or rational. That honor goes to declaration of human rights.

Oh my God! So, you are struggling to make a free sex culture, the culture where your mother, sister, wife, daughter, son, father, and brother also live. Would not it be a pathetic scenario if you defend your close ones on their acts of prostitution and homosexuality? I think you should take consultation from some good psychiatrist urgently.

Any good psychiatrist would agree with me.

I can bet that you never touched Quran. Your arguments against Quran and against life of prophet Mohammad are coming out of your wishful thinking. Your arguments are extremely speculative and generally, they are based on hoopla and whoopla.

They're coming out of publicly known facts about the pedophile prophet and your own arguments. Getting my hands dirty by touching the quran is unnecessary.

Who told you that Adam was committing incest? Adam had Eve. Again, this piece of information gives indications that you are ignorant person. If you have read this piece of information in Quran then show me those verses.

You are absolutely obsessed by your sexual desires or you have seen too much of illegal sex in your home or in your surroundings!

Oh! Wait I totally forgot that you are fighting hard for the legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution. No, surprise why you think about Adam this way. There is a saying “a thief always see normal people with the eyes of a thief only.”

Who did Adam's kids fuck? The only options they had were their parents or siblings - therefore, incest.

Longer I discuss with you more confident I am to state that atheism is a disease to human conscience.

The longer I listen to you the more confident I am that atheism is the cure to the disease of Islam.

I really feel sorry for you that you have lost your conscience.

Don't be - my conscience is firmly in place.

Whether you are not married and do not have any sense about extreme anxiety that may occur when you get betrayed by your life partner or you are a sick person because you do not care whether your wife share bed with your friends or not.

I never said I wouldn't feel anxiety or that I wouldn't care - but morality based on those feelings is morality based on personal desires.

I think you have a feeling now on how it looks when your wife commit adultery with your friend. For me Adultery (having sex with someone other than your spouse in your married life) is also a crime as serious as if you kill a person for pleasing yourself. I totally favour capital punishments for those who commit sexual crimes.

See? Your morality is based on personal desires and that is why it is irrational, vile and disgusting

Sex is such a potent sense that it may obscure all of your logic and rationality. The only way to stop sexual abuses is the use of force and fear. I am preparing something interesting on this topic and you will have full opportunity to give your critical opinion.

Only where religious people are concerned and that's because of their associated guilt.

Morals, essentially, centred on human conscience and empathy. The concepts of good and evil are the products of universal feelings that all adult human equally share. It is universally accepted that:

saving life of some innocent human,

to look after an orphan,

to help someone to bring him out from his burden of credit,

to help young and alone lady so she can develop a nice family life and avoid life of a prostitute or a mistress,

not to treat animals badly in order to have fun with their lives,

or to give someone any kind of help without thinking of having any benefit out of that help is universally accepted as moral.

None of these things are universally accepted as moral.
If someone is in debt due to his own incompetence, then it is immoral to bring him out of it.
If a girl wants to be a prostitute or mistress to a wealthy man, then you won't be helping her by directing her towards a family.
And giving someone help without considering who the person is and what he does is not only immoral, it is stupid.

[DramaQueen]

Why are Muslims obsessed with sex?

Harris, don't you know that cousin marriage is more common amongst Muslims?

And do you like Zakir Naik?

[MusicLovingAtheist]

OP is probably a jihadist.

[bennyboy]

Why are Muslims obsessed with sex?

Because it gives them an excuse to talk about it, which is probably about as close to it as they are getting.

[Harris]

If there was no change in the inherited characteristics in the children of Adam and Eve there would be no diversity in ethnic groups on earth.

Additionally according to hadiths Adam was 90 ft tall, not only impossible for biological reasons, but again if it was possible mankind would have had to evolve into being smaller to go from being 90ft to around 5 ft 8

Talking about Adam and Eve as if they were real is a joke, when entering a conversation about the possibilities of how mankind began, bring up the topic of Adam and Eve is like going into a business meeting and bringing up the topic of sacrificing chickens as a viable method to bring good luck to the company.

Study meiosis and mitosis. Try to understand what role both these processes play in the division of cell and building of a tissue and organ. Study how variations in similar population occur. There you will find how a man can be tall or short and why parents have not similar children.


At least Adam and Eve are a solid logical foundation on how human race began on earth. It is not like guessing under the hood of abiogenesis how life began and how first life form looked.

These posts! I shan't read them. Harris always takes about ten thousand words to express what can be condensed into a single sentence: I will always find a reason to believe no matter how epic my arguments fail.

Most of my responses are no more than two or three sentences long. However, how many queries and critiques you guys submit that many responses I am giving.

Person has a choice to believe in the existence of God or not. You have chosen not to believe. You can fashion your own justification to please and satisfy your own self and be happy with all that.

If your belief makes your behaviour aversive and arrogant then there is a defect somewhere in your belief system.

I disagree that morals are a purely human quality. Primates have shown behavior and understanding of fairness. Elephants show empathy. Your claim that other species empathy doesn't match our own is unfounded. Where is your evidence that humans have the greatest empathy here on this planet? Please don't waste your time by giving a specific examples because that ignores all the amoral examples. Your evidence should apply to the human race as a whole.

When you compare animal empathy with human empathy, also take into consideration the quality and diversities of empathetic behaviour of human versus limited animal performances in terms of empathy.

Mental abilities of animals are by far no match to human brainpower.

Again, the morals humans develop doesn't make them absolute or universal. Human morallity has and still is developing i.e. abolishing of slavery, condoning racism, condoning sexism, marriage equlity, etc... The fact that human morality evolves with time and geographically dependent means human morality isn't absolute or universal. If there is an absolute morality, we humans are (hopefully) approching it.

Finally, you assume that absolute morals exist. You haven't showed that.

If someone smack on your face to have fun over your misery, you feel pain, aversion, and humiliation. All humans have more or less similar feelings in analogous circumstances. Therefore, these feelings are universal.


No normal woman in the world love to see her husband sleeping with other woman outside his marital relationship (commit adultery). Therefore, adultery is universally accepted as evil deed that causes pain, anxiety, and frustration in spouse.


Feelings, which are common in human beings, they are universal and morals based on those feelings are absolute.

Any argument that takes that much pure volume to support almost for sure needs a date with Occam's Razor.

Most of my responses are no more than two or three sentences long. However, how many queries and critiques you guys submit that many responses I am obliged to give.

It is not fair to transmute all of my responses into one continuous argument.

Harris Wrote: Without faith in God, there can be no conscience

Have you ever ponder:

Why you exist?
Because my mom and dad had sex and gave birth to me.
Quote:Why you have instincts?
The reptilian part of my brain.
Quote:Why you have a mind?
I'm a human being with a brain.
Quote:Why you are a moral being?
Combination of my parents teachings, empathy, and knowing my actions have consequences.
Quote:Are you a product of chance?
No. My parents decided to give birth to me.
Quote:Can chance produce 7 billion parallel creatures who have similar properties as you have?
Men and women decide to have kids. These kids are still look similiar to the parents. Then the kids grow up and have more kids. This process is repeated until there are 7 billion creatures that look similiar. I'm glossing some details like death, but this sums it up. Chance is not involved in this process.

You should tell this stuff to fifth grade students. I am sure you will get a good bit of appreciation from them.

Funny that you'll fact check the claims that don't line up with what you already believe, but when you make the insane claim that fifty percent of atheists are in jail you do no fact checking at all.

I made my calculations based on the total atheist population of the world. That was not my fault as there was no mention whether 1%, 0.7%, or 0.2% was taken from total atheist population of the world or from one country or from a specific jail.

As to the actual article, did you read it, or just scan for the word "misrepresentation"? Because, you know, if you read even the excerpts you posted...

Do you think I do not know who wrote that article? Writer have put the facts first then gave his justification.

The parts of the articles which attracts my attention are:

“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.”

“For starters the numbers reported are only of the federal prisoners, about 218,000 people, not of all prisons in America, and they only cover a self-reported religious affiliation or lack thereof by the inmates themselves. Keeping all this in mind, the data showed that 0.07% of the inmates were atheists, 28.7% Protestants, 24% Catholics, 5.5% Muslims, and 3.1% American Indians. In addition 3% of the inmates listed “other” as religious affiliation, and 3.44% were “unknown”. We cannot assume that those who listed “other” or “unknown” have no religious affiliation; they might have religious affiliation and didn’t want to declare it, or they might not. Lastly 17% of the inmates reported no religious preference. We cannot make assumptions as to what this means either, they may be either religious but with no particular church affiliation, may be spiritual, non-spiritual, and they may even be “nones” (atheists/non-religious) as defined by some sociologists.

BUT THESE NUMBERS CANNOT MEAN ANYTHING WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. According to Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, atheists make up 1.6% of the population, and according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, 0.7% of the population described themselves as atheists. REGARDLESS OF THE SMALL NUMBER, BASED ON ONE OR THE OTHER RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, ATHEISTS AREN’T PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED IN PRISON, AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY ARE BY FAR MISREPRESENTED, WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF INMATES PER OVERALL ATHEIST POPULATION. BY USING THESE REPORTS IN COMPARISON WITH EACH OTHER, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO CONFUSE THE INMATES WHO DID NOT DECLARE A RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, BY SAYING NO PREFERENCE (17%), OTHER (3%), OR UNKNOWN (3.4), WITH THE GROUP IDENTIFIED BY SOCIOLOGISTS AS “NONES” (COMPRISED OF SELF-DECLARED NON-THEISTS, AND NON-RELIGIOUS) WHO MADE UP 15% OF THE POPULATION IN THE 2008 SURVEY.”

Whatever written under the heading “GIVING MEANING TO THE DATA” is only a justification.

Oh my god. I just went back and read the article again: you really didn't read it beyond skimming for words that confirmed your pre-existi00000000000000ng disagreement with the data I posted, didn't you?

Do you Believe in the existence of God? Your phrase “OH MY GOD” is the evidence that knowledge of God is embeded in the instincts of human beings. No matter how one try to hide that fact but the word God is at the core of human nature. Listen to this small segment from the speech of Abdul Raheem Green which he had given in India.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBRk2nfB9zo

Because, see, not once does that blog call the data a "misrepresentation" like you said it does. In fact, it only uses the word "misrepresented" ONE TIME in the entire post, and that is in reference to, as I bolded above, atheists being misrepresented within prison populations, which is a confirmation of the data, not a disagreement! In your rush to disagree without thinking first, you decided that this source was saying the exact opposite of what it's actually saying. You lied, Harris. You lied again.

I think you should read that article once again with care.

Just in case you're inclined to disagree again, and given the current facts it seems likely that you'll disagree regardless of the content of my post, here's a line from the conclusion of the article that, I have to stress, you selected and posted: "Though the figures can never be perfectly accurate and can be ambiguous, they do provide a strong indication that there is no correlation between atheism and criminal behavior"

Whatever is written under the heading “Giving Meaning To The Data” is only a justification.

Quote:Until the end of nineteenth century, religion was controlling all major cultures in the world. Even today, religion has most potent role and different cultures. You cannot abandon this fact.

Yes, and look at how much better things have gotten since religious influences began to falter.

Sure! Things are getting better by applications of secular laws.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bulletin_of...gster.html

Speaking as an Australian, I would disagree with your bald assertion that America has the best secular laws, partially because we too are a largely secular nation that has better laws, and partly because American culture is steeped in christianity, among which the more fundamentalist sects continue to try and infiltrate the government on behalf of their religion. The picture is not as clear cut as you are, rather simplistically, presenting it to be.

I can see how effective Australian secular laws are.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info...ates/Crime
http://extranosalley.com/?p=37279

Given the utter ineptitude with which you handled your sources last time, I wasn't about to allow you to get away with it again, and lo and behold, when I look at your source here, what do I see? You've only provided data on one single year!

If we look at the data over a longer period of time, say twenty years or so, the picture is very different. If we look at figure one in this US government report- which is a graph depicting the percentages of violent crime since 1993- what we see is a constant, definite and pronounced slope downward, and not the rising crime rate that Harris claims exists, based on a single year's data.

Wrong again.

Before saying “wrong again” you compare these statistics with the statistics of other countries.

Not the same, but developing along the same path. After all, cooperation has always been our survival niche, not that you actually understand anything about that.

Then why do modern monkeys are far behind of humans? Seemingly, human developed out from monkeys! Modern monkeys should logically be like those as shown in the movie planets of the Apes or by definition of evolution they should not exists anymore because they all transformed into human.

Shocker, another source which doesn't provide any real evidence that the person in it even existed. You're terrible at this, Harris.

According to Wikipedia, Plato was born about 2437 years ago. Can you prove Plato even existed?

Ok but our definitions of what constitutes a sexual abuse might be different, and there's probably several grey areas where I don't know if I could judge what is and isn't a sexual abuse.

You possibly, among with other Muslims, view marriage at the age of 9 years old permissible if the girl shows signs of puberty, which in my opinion would be an abuse no matter what stage of puberty she is at.

I don't see homosexuality as a sexual abuse, you may do.

Also what I would do in a situation where I had a wife and she cheated on me, most likely would not be the right thing to do, it would just be the thing I would do in the heat of the moment.

So if I had a wife and I found her in bed with another man I'd want to beat the man to death (assuming I loved her very much), I'm sure in the history of crimes of passion this has happened quite often.
But I don't think this makes it right to introduce a nation wide law that men who get caught in bed with someones wife should legally be beaten to death.

But I'm looking forward to the question you want to ask.

I will try my best to give satisfactory answers to all your queries in my coming posts.

Harris Wrote: Yes, I can see where I have gone wrong.

http://natskep.com/only-0-07-of-prisoner...ns-report/

Do you? Doesn't sound like it.

You are simply not attentive.

Harris Wrote: So you dance on the music of selfish gene! But genes are not selfish because you are not walking around with one big tail and two long ears (I presume).

I dance to the music of a rational mind.

Wrong! You dance on the music of your desires. Selfish and mean person has no time for empathy.

Harris Wrote: You may agree with the good reasoning but if you are a selfish person then in practice you cannot be a Moral person. By definition, selfishness goes against moral and empathetic behaviour. Whether you are a dolt or you are trying to deceive the world on purpose.

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

Wrong. Read your own article - it says nothing about selfishness being inherently immoral. In practice, I'm bot moral and selfish and you are the dolt for not understanding the significance.

“Selfishness is being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, REGARDLESS OF OTHERS.”

This opening sentence has closed all the doors of moral rights at the very beginning of the article.

Harris Wrote: Aah! So, now Dostoevsky is also a Moron! Without having the afterlife and concept of absolute justice this world is no less than a hell where people are dying without getting justice.

I don't know about Dostoevsky or what his views are, but judging by yours, you are a moron.

If you do not know about Dostoevsky then you are a dolt. Otherwise, you are pretending to be ignorant for whatever reason.

You assess people based on your wishful thoughts and without having particular knowledge on the concerning topic.

And no, people don't die here without getting justice - the judiciary tries to ensure that. And yes, there is no absolute justice.

So you are saying that all those innocent people who were killed by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. in atheistic regimes have got their justice because they were religious and being religious in atheistic regimes is a terrifying crime that only deserves capital punishment.

Harris Wrote: Oh, Yeah! So those ELECTRIC CHAIRS and GAS CHAMBERS are there only for fun!

Your peeps, not ours.

What you mean by “Your Peep.” You mean secular laws are not yours. Your beloved secular government holds all those electric chairs and gas chambers which totally conforms:

“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.”

Harris Wrote:

I wonder why you need so many jails.

http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com...ates-2014/

The article doesn't provide an answer. And if your false dichotomy was correct, there would be many more prisoners.

The large number of prisons, electric chairs, gas chambers, etc. are only testifying the following truth:

“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.”

Atheist regimes are perfect examples of controlling people by means strong arm and bayonet.

Harris Wrote: If you convince people on moral accountability that would make them wise and virtuous without any need of external powers. The brightest example is how Islam transformed Ferocious Arabs into leaders of civilized world in the age of only one generation. That is not anything less than a miracle.

Miracle? Hardly. It simply gave a direction to their barbarism. Not the same as becoming world leaders. And while we are at it, it also plunged them to their current state. All in all, an extremely poor example.

First, read history and philosophy books then talk. I already told you that your knowledge is exceptionally poor not only on Islam but literally on any topic. Your wishful thoughts are self-deceiving.

Right premises. Wrong conclusion. Yes, we don't have any moral accountability to imaginary things like god. Yes, we develop a man-centered perspective and accountability to ourselves and the society. And when done well, it leaves us stronger and happier than ever.

Man-centred perspective is known as relativism and naturalism, which leads to the thought that human beings are just natural random products of biological evolution. God or any supernatural being of that sort did not designed them. The outcome of naturalism and relativism is Eugenics and the obvious example of Eugenics is the Nazi Germany. Naturalism underlay the worldview of Nazi scientists that lead to a sort of moral relativism that made the holocaust possible. During that time, horrible medical experiments were piloted on living people (mostly Jews) to build a master race.

Nazism and Atheism equally shares Arrogance and superiority complex and they both lacks humbleness and empathy.

Harris Wrote: Prove Solzhenitsyn is wrong by giving logical reasoning instead of throwing one word in empty air.

What is asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason. There is no reason to give logical reasoning to disprove it beacuse there is none proving it.

Without reason! Millions of people were murdered in atheistic Soviet Union simply because they refused to reject God on the demand of maniac atheist regime.

Solzhenitsyn was a critic of Soviet totalitarianism a Nobel prize winner who was expelled from Soviet Union simply because he said:

“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible 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 have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”
Ericson, Edward E. Jr. (October 1985) "Solzhenitsyn – Voice from the Gulag," Eternity, pp. 23–4

A precise code of conduct should be based on individual facts of life and based on general principles derived from philosophy. That is the better way to do it- unlike religion that dictates an arbitrary code of conduct. And yes, individual moral codes work for individuals - which is selfish.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. had given precise code of conduct based on individual facts of life and based on general principles derived from socialist and Marxist philosophy. They and all their supporters killed everyone who stood against their precise code of conduct.

Within 100 years, how brutally atheist regimes have killed people in the name of atheism, monotheistic religions have not killed that many people within 3,000 years in the name of religion.

This is how nasty an atheist can be if he get hold power.

Harris Wrote: “God does not exist,” is a belief. However, belief has nothing to do with morals. Once there are no morals disease of morality become irrelevant. You have already cut a stem on which you were sitting. You are now in a state of falling but you cannot feel that because your eyes are unable to see anything else other than your dear desires.

Ignorant blather. I stand firmly on the ground of rationality - not up the imaginary tree of god.

Your meanness is your rationality.

Harris Wrote: Go and teach Plato and show him there is no design and the idea of designer is patently illogical. Secondly, today’s science exhaustively talks about design however, your incapacity to see design only points to a dolt or wicked personality.

Plato could learn a lot from modern science - sadly he's been dead too long. And no, science does not talk about design - it talks about patterns.

Oh! Genkaus! Genkaus! You are stubborn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9eB_i-hK94

Harris Wrote: Then why you persistently reject all logical evidences provided by cosmological argument, fine-tuning, and intelligent design? Epistemology is not the base of your rejections.

Because they are not logical. All the logical fallacies inherent in those arguments have been exposed multiple times.

You are kidding genkaus. So far, you have not been able to give any compelling argument. Until now, you took shelter behind provocative and speculative contents. If you think, you have proper knowledge then come and talk with me and disprove cosmological argument, Fine Tuning, and Intelligent Design instead of giving references to some imprudent discussions out there.

By the way, what logic have you found in homosexuality which is against the inherent features of human design?

Mathematics is a descriptive abstrction of how the physical world works. That is it. There is not supernatural book of maths and there is no book writer.

Alright if for you mathematics is a description of how physical world works then that description tells us that there is a rhythm, flow, harmony, order, regularities, etc. in nature which are precise and cyclic. What you say about that? Chance? Blah!

Harris Wrote: Ah Reality! I will tell you what it is. It is legal sex workers (prostitutes), legal homosexuality, incest, fornication, hardcore pornography, and serial killings of young children after raping them. Atheism is pushing people to this reality.

We'll get everything other than the last one. And that is good. Those things should be legalized.

As being atheists Stalin, Lenin, Mao … got everything what they had craved for. No surprise if you will get everything according to your desires. A person who lacks conscience never mind what way he is going to achieve his objective. By Hook or by Crook. Atheism has the ability to kill human conscience make a person a crook, cruel, or both.

Harris Wrote: Pleasure seeker never think about God, morals, and rationality. How intensely one follows his desires for pleasures that far he would be from reality and rationality. Pleasure seeker may give million reasons to disprove God, morals, and rationality for the justification of his pleasure seeking behaviour. Atheism supports pleasure seekers.

Wrong - atheism does not support pleasure seekers.

You are a good example of pleasure seeker because you support the ideas of homosexuality, prostitution, incest, adultery, fornication … and you are an atheist.

Firstly, any concept of absolute goodness is unnecessary to develop a moral code of conduct. Secondly, non-existence of god doesn't need rationalization because his existence isn't rational to begin with. The rest is ignorant blubbering.

Without benchmark values, the results of scientific experiments will become vulnerable and challenging for the human cognition. Likewise, without customary conventions juridical laws become impulsive. Without having absolute goodness relativism flourish where every person has his own moral standards and the dominant person has the opportunity to dictate his doctrines over others. The good example is Stalin.

Harris Wrote: History is evident that 99% of people in all times believed in the existence of God or deity. Only handful of atheists deny existence of God who rebel against religious laws because they were against their wishful activities. One of the most fundamental cause of atheism is the demand of illegal sex and eradication of any limitation over sexual activities.

No, those are the perks. The cause of atheism is critical thinking.

The cause of atheism is critical thinking on how to seek more pleasure, for example how to spread prostitution and homosexuality and how to transform human beings into pigs. If anyone comes on the way, simply crush him under the feet like cockroach. Atheism works in this way. This is how Stalin, Mao … achieved their objectives.

Harris Wrote: You are a lucky person who cares about morality. I have spent some time among hardcore atheists and found non-who was interested in reading boring philosophy books to find boring morals ethics in them. Every one of them was more concern about personal comfort and enjoyment.

Luck has nothing to do with it - rational thinking does.

In atheism, rationality starts with selfishness and ends on malice. Conscience and morality has no place in atheism.

Harris Wrote: So why Stalin and his men (who were hardcore atheists) were so successful in killing millions and millions of people if irrationality was so easy to be removed from rational grounds? Irrationality of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. is in fact the product of atheism.

It isn't easy. And no it wasn't.

Your statements are self-contradicting.

Harris Wrote: Because of the concocted verses in Bible, I will not take any chance to establish my proof for today’s Bible to be the world of God. However, I am not reluctant to prove Quran to be the word of God because corruption has not yet touched it.

Prove it.

I am planning to write a new article “Quran is the word of God.” I will not touch Bible for the reason that I mentioned earlier.

Again - prove that the original bible is the word of god.

You bring me the original Bible and I will prove it “the Word of God.”

Harris Wrote: “Therefore, living in an Ethical and rationally governed society would afford everyone the best chance of achieving any rational plan of life, including immoral ones. Transgressors are often actually socially and legally rather morally, prim apart from their own immoral behaviours. In effect, they are civil freeloaders, happy to endorse morality and law for others while selectively exempting themselves from them.

People can and do have rational plan of life that include desires to achieve things that they morally ought to refrain from doing. For example,

Joseph Stalin kill 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong kill 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler kill 20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek kill 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin kill 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo kill 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot kill 2,397,0003 people

Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end. So, insofar as Ethical Rational justification uses the motivation to realize rational plan of life, any rational plan of life, Ethical Rationalism would, at least in some instances, legitimize immoral rational plan of life”

Those plans aren't rational nor are they moral. You can keep repeating it, that won't make it so.

Prostitution and homosexuality is your rational plan, the same way the genocide was the rational plan for Hitler.

Harris Wrote: Atheist regimes have killed 143,637,003 people within the span of 300 years only. Go and try to beat this figure.

To start with - Hitler, Chiang and Hideki were not atheists. So let's move their killings to the religion side of the figures.

Hitler was fighting for Nazism not for Christianity. Nazism held racial theories based upon the belief of the existence of an Aryan master race that was believed to be superior to all other races.

Hitler was following Darwinian Theory in the attempt to create supreme German race. He wrote:

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development."
Mein Kampf
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html

In fact, Nazis were on the path of Naturalism in their struggle to make a supreme race.

Both Nazi and atheist count themselves as supreme beings and this superiority complex leads them to arrogant behaviour. They treat other people as if they are bitches. Their rational objective was to get rid of bitches from the community. Even today, secular governments are treating Muslims as bitches, which is a perfect example of what superiority complex and arrogance.

Harris Wrote: … “there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That’s not all. He ended by saying that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.’”

Page 45 The Brothers Karamazov
Part 1, Book 2, Chapter 6 ("Why Is Such a Man Alive? ")
Fyodor Dostoevsky

More nonsense from dead authors.

Now Fyodor Dostoevsky is nonsense. By the way, he had told a great truth.

“who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.”

You have totally abolished God and moral accountability from your life and this has automatically focused all your rationality to the loci of your pleasures seeking behaviour. You are blindly promoting prostitution, homosexuality, incest, fornication, and all other forms of illegal sex in the name of consensus. You have made homosexuality not only lawful but also inevitable, most rational, even honourable by superseding all health issues such as:

Anal cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types b & c
Syphilis25
Hemorrhoids
Anal fissures
Anorectal trauma
Retained foreign bodies.

Harris Wrote: Fortunately, Quran has not yet corrupted. Although people are trying to corrupt it day and night but they are failing miserably. Read Quran and Tradition of Prophet Mohammad before you criticise them based on false propaganda against Islam.

It is corrupted at the conception.

Corrupted at the Conception! Actually, Universe without God is the corrupted conception.

Harris Wrote: I am with you on that however; think logically whether it is possible for you and me to help even a single person in developing scholarly skill in him? What about millions of other mundane people in our communities who are spending their lives like living machines? Religion is the only and easily approachable place to look for moral code.

Yes, it is possible to help them develop the scholarly skills - its called education.

Ha! Education! I can see how effectively Secular Education System transforming common people into scholars of homosexuality and prostitution.

Harris Wrote: They have already produced a culture where “Father of my daughter is my father.”

That's logically impossible.

Without moral accountability, that is logically very possible. The children are getting birth as the outcome of Rape and Incest. Watch this documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrYgClmhzWY

Harris Wrote: It will not be a surprise if tomorrow these far superior laws make anal sex compulsory for everyone.

I would - since these laws are about freedom, not making things compulsory.

Freedom for Homosexuality and prostitution has the power to transform any human culture into a culture of oblivious low life forms. That is what you are craving for human beings.

Harris Wrote: Here is law of the scripture:

“Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”

An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 23-

Disgusting. A fine example of how the quran is corrupted at conception.

What is disgusting if Quran is calling people to a respectful family life and command to maintain respect to each other? On the contrary, you are trying to transform normal human beings into animal beings for your selfish desires to have more pleasures by going on harmful ways. This is sickening.

Harris Wrote: If for you it is an imaginary vision, so let it be such. Main thing is, this imaginary vision works well and gives very practical results. The evidence is, out of 7 billion people, Atheist have not yet reached even 200 million mark. It is because atheism is irrational, illogical, and goes against the nature of man.

The practical result like ISIS and 9/11. Those are the results we can do without.

When secular governments killed Saddam, they had proudly revealed his dead body to the world.

When the same authorities killed Bin Laden, they have refused to show his body to the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_L...y_theories

The same authorities failed to provide official evidence to the world showing Bin Laden was the real culprit behind the calamity of 9/11. The maximum what they said is “FBI Most Wanted Terrorist”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibil...11_attacks

So 9/11 is a controversial issue due to lack of proper evidences.

Now try this shit that came out from the ass of atheist regimes:

The execution of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners without trial, and the murder of hundreds of thousands or rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922

The famine of 1922, which caused the deaths of 5 million people

The extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920

The murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps from 1918 to 1930

The liquidation of almost 690,000 people in the Great Purge of 1937-38

The deportation of 2 million kulaks (and so-called kulaks) in 1930-1932

The destruction of 4 million Ukrainians and 2 million others by means of an artificial and systematically perpetuated famine in 1932-33

The deportation of hundreds of thousands of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Moldovans, and Bessarabians from 1939 to 1941, and again in 1944-45

The deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941

The wholesale deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943

The wholesale deportation of the Chechens in 1944

The wholesale deportation of the lngush in 1944

The deportation and extermination of the urban population in Cambodia from 1975 to 1978

The slow destruction of the Tibetans by the Chinese since 1950

U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths by the hands of atheists

China: 65 million deaths by the hands of atheists

Vietnam: 1 million deaths by the hands of atheists

North Korea: 2 million deaths by the hands of atheists

Cambodia: 2 million deaths by the hands of atheists

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths by the hands of atheists

Latin America: 150,000 deaths by the hands of atheists

Africa: 1.7 million deaths by the hands of atheists

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths by the hands of atheists

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths by the hands of atheists

The total approaches 100 million people killed by atheist regimes in the span of only 100 years.

Harris Wrote: Have you ever seen anyone caught by those imaginary forces and punished by them? Have you seen God running after you for your disbelief? On the contrary, we see those so-called rational manmade laws practically catching and punishing people every single day.

God has given us the opportunity to believe or not. Within this lifetime, God will not interfere any person’s deeds so at the day of judgement no person will have any excuse.

Yes, man-made justice is swift and decisive while allowing opportunity for future rehabilitation. Much better than your god's.

Yeah! Atheists in communist regimes gave swift and decisive justice to 100+ million people by giving them swift and decisive deaths. Good job!

Harris Wrote: “But your Lord is Most forgiving, full of Mercy. If He were to call them (at once) to account for what they have earned, then surely He would have hastened their punishment, but they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no refuge.”

Al Kahfi (18)
-Verse 58-

More corrupted morality from quran.

This is not a joke. On which you are laughing today on the same you will be asking your own death and that death would not be granted to you. The death in this world is not the end of the game. It is only the beginning.

Let me give you an example:

If someone is sleeping near to you, do you have any way to find out whether that sleeping person is dreaming or not? You know about his/her dream only if that person reveal that to you. That is how you do not know what is happening to a dead man. The only difference is that dead man has no way to reveal his death experiences to you.

“They said: "When we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we be resurrected indeed?”
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 82-

“It is Allah Who sends forth the Winds, so that they raise up the Clouds, and We drive them to a land that is dead, and revive the earth therewith after its death: even so (will be) the Resurrection!”
Faathir (35)
-Verse 9-

“And ye certainly know already the first form of creation: why then do ye not celebrate His praises?”
Al Waaqi'ah (56)
-Verse 62-

“How can you disbelieve in Allah? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 28-

“They thought there would be no trial (or punishment); so they became blind and deaf; yet Allah (in mercy) turned to them; yet again many of them became blind and deaf. But Allah sees well all that they do.”
Al Maidah (5)
-Verse 71-

Harris Wrote: My pleasure! I will tell another one but first use your logic.

If A = B and B = C then A = C to disprove Cosmological argument and intelligent design.

You crack me up.

You are cracking up because you have no logical answer.

Harris Wrote: Correct! Rapist is truly “a perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.”

Which is why religious people - who don't follow morality based on logic and rationale - rape more.

Religious person commit rape and act of illegal sex because he does not follow his religious teachings. In his struggle of getting more pleasure, he ignore God and all His commandments. A person who ignore existence of God is in fact an atheist. Sexual atheism is a great description of the essence of rebellion against God.

Harris Wrote: Assertion. Bring the facts in your argument. Do not talk abstractly.

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

Pay specific attention to the rape laws in Islamic countries.

I disregard the whole article in the sturdiest manner as it is trying to convey most illogical and absurd term “MARITAL RAPE” to the public. It is the obnoxious and most sickening law that secular world had ever concocted. This law is not for the welfare of a family life rather it directly targets to harm relationship between husband and wife. By inventing such shocking laws, the target of policy makers is to annihilate systematically strong family bonds to enforce a free sex society in which, by law, people would have right to live like mere dogs and cats without differentiating between their close relations. Marital rape, homosexual rights, prostitution rights, support to incest based on consensus, support to adultery based on consensus, and respect to prostitutes by changing their label from Prostitutes to Sex-workers are the steps forward on how to treat humans as animals. If human behaviour transformed into instinctive animal behaviour then it would be easy to exploit them to achieve inhuman and nasty objectives.

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

Harris Wrote: As I mentioned earlier, Saudi Arabia is the country that goes according to Sharia Laws. Can you give statistics of increased sexual violence in Saudi Arabia?

When did it turn from secular laws to sharia law?

Do you always construct your arguments on your wishful thinking?

Harris Wrote: Indeed! Which rapist would like the bondage of any law no matter Sharia Law or Law of the land. Have you ever seen any burglar or rapist who loved public laws that threaten him for his actions? Is not it that constitutional laws directly affect your personal life and therefore they are disgusting for you? You love Double Standards.

Any laws that would punish the victim - as Sharia law does - is vile and disgusting.

That means secular laws are vile and disgusting because secular laws punish victims more than any religious law do. For example, world is evident how brutal punishments atheist regimes had given to the victims. No religious community can ever come even nearer to the tyranny of atheist regimes. Your statements are self-contradicting.

Harris Wrote: I can write many frightening facts how wickedly secular world intervene in the matters of Muslim countries specially those countries which are rich in natural resources or have strategic importance. Secular governments use banking system and powerful culprits in the Muslim countries for the achievement of their purposes. Here I will point out only one logical fact that why Muslims are suffering in the Muslim world today.

Take example of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, and Bosnia. Do you think all those killed Muslim died because of poverty, starvation, and lack of medical care? NO! The bombs of secular world and culprits who have support of the secular world have killed all those Muslims.

This documentary gives you some insight on how secular world commits crimes in foreign countries.

Well, the simple fact is this: If your religion provided effective laws to combat poverty, then, given the Islamic countries natural resources and strategic importance, they'd be prosperous. And if they were prosperous, the secular world wouldn't be able to treat you like a little bitch. The fact that you are being treated like a little bitch shows how ineffective your laws are.

If a robber enters your house and treats you like a bitch on the gunpoint, what would you do at that moment to save your ass? If he fucks and kill all of your family members in front of your eyes which law of the world protect you then and there?

This is exactly how secular world is behaving with the Muslim world.

In Muslim countries, people prefer to die than to allow savage rapist to rape their family members. The great example is Afghanistan.

By the way, I pay my humble gratitude to you for affirming that secular world is committing crime in the Muslim world. Thank you for confirming that atheists look at human beings not as human beings but as little bitches.

Thank you for supporting my views over atheism. Atheism indeed kills human conscience, human logic, human rationality, and human empathy.

Harris Wrote: Great! I was not expecting anything intelligible from the atheist mind. Yes, get rid of religion that opposes Homosexuality, Adultery, and fornication and implement atheism that supports a culture of swine in which gays walk with pride in public, Adultery and fornication is a modern way of life, where incest is common, and rapists walk with freedom. Bravo!

Did you miss the part about consensual relations? Let me say it loudly - CONSENSUAL. Which means gays can walk with pride in public, adultery and fornication are permitted, incest is judged on consent and rapists are jailed. So, by all means - let's get rid of religion.

Having CONSENSUAL RELATIONS, can you FUCK YOUR MOTHER, SISTER, and DAUGHTER.

Harris Wrote: Yeah! Around four billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews are mistaken and handful of atheists are not.

Finally, you understand.

Number is against you. You are living in a self-deceiving hallucination.

Harris Wrote: I can see the results of your success in from of sexual crimes where no female and no young lad is safe from sexual abuses.

That would be the result of Islam's success - a religion with a pedophile prophet.

Knowledge, knowledge, and knowledge. Your knowledge is worse than what I was thinking. Your arguments force me to suspect your philosophical knowhow as well. You love to babble on your wishful desires. The only thing that you have in hands is the age of Aisha nothing else.

Harris Wrote: If you like to have a swine’s culture and wants to live like a pig, “you take my wife and I’ll take yours,” then good luck with that. For myself, I prefer to live in fundamentalist Muslim country than to live in a swine’s culture.

Pigs have open marriages? Wow, they are better than fundamentalist Muslims.

More drivelling!

Harris Wrote: You doubt because logically atheism is a big hole in the middle of morality.

Nope. That's just your blind spot.

That means, Atheism teaches you morality! That is something new for me.

Harris Wrote: For example, atheism liberates your conscience from the sense of guilt for being a gay by pushing you away from regret and inspire you to be proud on that.

Exactly.

Thanks again for supporting my ideas. You are a great guy.

Harris Wrote: As atheism is not a religion, therefore it is not a standard as well. There is no standard in atheism, no matter right or wrong. As being an atheist, do you even know what the meaning of STANDARD is?

Sure, my standards come from philosophy.

Is not it funny that first you kill morality by removing moral accountability and then try to construct it through philosophy whose roots goes back to the religious teachings and scriptures?

Harris Wrote: This is the power of monotheistic religions that today there are about 4 billion believers. It is the power of (so-called imaginary force) that believer can live good ethical life without any need of police because every good follower is a police on his own actions.

Except, when there is no police, you guys turn into terrorists. Not a very good example.

Who can be bigger terrorist than atheist regimes who killed more than 100 million peoples within 100 years?

All terrorists are atheists because while doing the act of terror they ignore the existence of God.

The common features that terrorist and atheist share are:
They both run after their wishful desires blindly,
They both are arrogant,
They both have superiority complex, and
They both lack empathy.

Harris Wrote: Correct! Through fear and threat of losing infinite love and infinite mercy of God.

Yup, fear of imaginary loss.

Do not underestimate your birth. You literally appeared from nowhere and there is no guarantee that your death abolish you forever. If you are unaware, that does not mean whatever conventions you postulate those are real.
One of the attributes of fire is burning and your assumptions will not change that. What you think imaginary today that might become agony after your death.
You still have time to ponder over logical connotations of nature. Nothing in nature exists as a matter of chance. Nothing in the nature is without a purpose.

Harris Wrote: You do not know how life starts on earth and you cannot prove there is no life after death. On what basis can you confirm “justice after death” is a false hope?

Because you don't exist after death.

Can you prove death is the end of intelligent mind?

Harris Wrote: According to the data on near death experiences collected by Dr. Peter Fenwick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwi...chologist)

consciousness and mind are two different entities. Body rely on mind where mind is independent. The new movie “Lucy” by Universal Pictures, try to demonstrate how this concept can be true.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

That the best you got - a hack and a movie?

Factual scientific data is not a hack and the plot of movie is taken from the scientific data.

Harris Wrote: Concept of justice is different in Islam. Transgressor will receive punishment no matter whether he proclaim loudly or in heart the existence of God. God will not let go any transgressor because that person believed in the existence of God but harmed other people as well.

Except, none of that really happens.

Do you have experience of death? Can you prove after death nothing will happen to you?

Harris Wrote: Not most of you but only few of you study philosophy and even a small fraction of you try to develop morals. Developing morals based on philosophy is a very tedious work in which most of the people are least interested. The easy way is religion, which provide readymade solutions for a moral life.

A simple survey of these forums show how wrong you are. And like I said, religion is the easy way, but you end up with wrong morals like bigotry and sexism.

You can count participants of these forums on your figure tips. I am talking about general atheists who are in millions. You are talking about developing the morals through philosophy; majority of atheists are not even interested in participating in any of these forums or in any activity related to ethics or morals. Mostly, atheists (like Nazis) talk about their superiority and intelligence. Mostly, they think religious people are stupid ignorant bitches and disease for their culture. They never let go any chance of discrimination based on their atheistic ideology. You never see them being tolerant or empathetic especially when they compare themselves to other.

On the contrary, compare general religious people and see how frequently they talk about morals, ethics, empathy, love, mercy, and tolerance based on their religious knowledge.

Harris Wrote: If Mr. atheist do not have knowledge about something then how comes he can talk on that. He has no other way than to construct a conjecture in a wicked way. For example, how can he disprove the existence of God without going out of the universe? How can he prove that universe has no cause when all natural phenomenon and human logic talks on the contrary?

Becaue going outside the universe is not necessary to disprove something conceived within it and natural phenomenon and human logic agree with his conclusions.

This is known as self-deception. Whatever you conceive within this universe is a logical proof of the existence of a super natural being who is alive and intelligent (I say God). God is the cause of this Spatio-temporal universe.

To give logical reasoning on the existence of universe maximum you can bring arguments like:

Universe came out from nothingness
Universe created its own self
Universe came into being by chance
Existence of Universe has eternal past
Gravity created this Universe or
There is an eternal Multiverse etc.

Where do you see logic in any of these assumptions? All these assumptions are the backdoor exit that gives refuge from real logical facts.

Harris Wrote: Have you ever read Quran? I do not think you have sufficient knowledge about Quran because your arguments are pure speculations.

Don't have to read it - the verses you provide here are sufficient example of how disgusting that book is.

Is that the way you build your arguments? Are you arguing with me on philosophy of morals based on few quotes by David Hume or Immanuel Kant? Are few verses from Quran sufficient for you to make your logical point? Or, perhaps, your arguments are the outcome of your wishful desires only! No surprise if I will find that you are not a competent person for a conversant dialog.

Harris Wrote: Perhaps, you are one of those who rely on propaganda machine or possibly, you are the one who is deliberately twisting and distorting the facts about religions to bring homosexuality and prostitution (a swine culture) and inhuman ways of living.

I don't need to twist or distort anything - your morals are twisted to begin with.

Yeah! Morals that teach how to live like a decent and respectful family are distorted to begin with.

Harris Wrote: I do not think many of the decent atheists agree with you in the idea of transforming respectful human society into gay and lesbian culture.

Not only every decent atheist, but every decent human being would agree that gays should have equal rights.

Equal rights on what? To spread sodomy and disease! To corrupt men so they won’t have respectful families and live as physically and mentally sick person!

The natural design of our bodies tells us what is healthy. In any area of life, if an item is not used according to its design, the item can be broken or hurt.

If we think logically about this, it is obvious. Would we put sensitive parts of our body in a pile of poop? NO—but that is essentially what homosexuals do when participating in anal sex. Would we intentionally drink urine? NO – but people put their tongues and mouths on the area we pee from. It does not make sense to put ourselves intentionally in harm’s way. These areas are full of bacteria and waste that our bodies get rid of. Homosexual activity is equal to putting sensitive parts of our body in someone else’s unflushed toilet.

Research tells us that most people who participate in homosexual activity have sex with multiple partners over time. The more people a person has sex with, the greater chances are of the person contracting diseases and infections.

Homosexuality cannot lay claim to its biological purpose, i.e. procreation, the way heterosexuality can. It’s biological origin and hence, rights, is also unproven. In this, heterosexuality has a legitimacy which homosexuality cannot lay claim to, and the law is obliged to distinguish this fundamental difference. Otherwise, the unproven rights of a group will be pushed at the expense of proven rights of the other group. This includes the rights of our children, which will be compromised.

In 1533, England enacted the first secular law criminalizing "the abominable vice of buggery" and making it punishable by hanging. The English colonies in America adopted English law against sodomy or, as in case of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island colonies.

Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal throughout America. Same sex sexual activity was referred to in Anglo-American texts under the terms "unnatural acts," "crimes against nature," "sodomy," or "buggery." Most commonly, it referred to anal sex between men.

Harris Wrote: Are gays and prostitutes “wise and virtuous based on rational morality?”

They can be - yes.

No rational person can go against nature for seeking pleasure. Gays cannot be rational.

Harris Wrote: You are lucky that you were not born in any those socialist countries. You have no idea how cruel, unempathetic, and prone to a sudden violence atheism is in those countries. Those countries are huge internment camps even today. Their leaders are literally gods for their nations. Stalin was one of their gods.

Glad we agree that they are not atheists.

We are not playing a word game here. All socialist and communist regimes are hard-core atheists.

And I'd still rather be in those countries than in Islamic ones.

You can say that because seemingly you are living in a secular democratic country. In atheistic regimes you even do not have right to criticise the deeds of atheist lords. There is no freedom of speech in atheist regimes, saying something against atheist lords is a crime that deserve death penalty even today.

Harris Wrote: You are picking bits from my writing and quoting them out of context to distort their meanings.

No, the meaning got through quite clearly.

You are not hurting me by deceiving your own being.

Harris Wrote: You have not Harris Wroted the following is not a surprise for me:

“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.”

Most atheists would agree to the role logic has played in development of science. God, however, is still nowhere to be found.

Yes dear yes! Use that very same logic to understand this universe. Do not underestimate this marvellous universe and your own miraculous being by putting both of them behind the veil of illogical terms like CHANCE, etc. This logic will show you the God.

[quote='genkaus' pid='773068' dateline='1413200219']
Harris Wrote: Let me correct you, they are called Atheists because for them Science is in place of God. They actually worship their own selfish desires and think science is the doorway to fulfilment of all their desires. The difference between atheist and pagan is that atheist do not have idol

[Mudhammam]

Most of my responses are no more than two or three sentences long. However, how many queries and critiques you guys submit that many responses I am giving.

Person has a choice to believe in the existence of God or not. You have chosen not to believe. You can fashion your own justification to please and satisfy your own self and be happy with all that.

If your belief makes your behaviour aversive and arrogant then there is a defect somewhere in your belief system.

I admire your childlike simplicity. However, I'm truly confounded by your notion that a person chooses his or her beliefs about the reality that is fostered upon them. I didn't chose to disbelieve in God. I chose to consider the evidence pro and con and as a consequence, was forced to doubt the credibility of those arguments in favor of Its existence.

Harris Wrote: … “there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That’s not all. He ended by saying that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.’”

Page 45 The Brothers Karamazov
Part 1, Book 2, Chapter 6 ("Why Is Such a Man Alive? ")
Fyodor Dostoevsky

More nonsense from dead authors.

Now Fyodor Dostoevsky is nonsense. By the way, he had told a great truth.

“who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.”

You have totally abolished God and moral accountability from your life and this has automatically focused all your rationality to the loci of your pleasures seeking behaviour. You are blindly promoting prostitution, homosexuality, incest, fornication, and all other forms of illegal sex in the name of consensus. You have made homosexuality not only lawful but also inevitable, most rational, even honourable by superseding all health issues such as:

Fyodor Dostoevsky indeed spoke many great truths ("Rebellion" is one of the finest statements on the Problem of Evil that I've ever read) but again, you're simplistic understanding shines through when you confuse the views expressed by his fictional characters with a) his own views (which one can still rightly disagree with) and b) facts and/or generalizations about one person's POV as it relates to all of society. Then, of course, you falsely equate homosexuality with "pleasure seeking behavior," including, as you describe it, incest (Oh yeah? Care to tell us more?) and "all other forms of illegal sex," demonstrating that not only are you a dunce but also a douchebag.

[Esquilax]

I made my calculations based on the total atheist population of the world. That was not my fault as there was no mention whether 1%, 0.7%, or 0.2% was taken from total atheist population of the world or from one country or from a specific jail.

... Except that it was clearly mentioned. Repeatedly.

Do you think I do not know who wrote that article? Writer have put the facts first then gave his justification.

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

The parts of the articles which attracts my attention are:

“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.”

I am now completely convinced that you haven't read the article at all, beyond specifically searching for individual words or phrases that seem to express disagreement, devoid of context.

Do you know why? Well, it's because- if you'd actually bothered to read the article that you yourself posted- that paragraph, which is the first one in the piece, by the way, refers to an older set of data and not the one actually being discussed. In fact, if you'd gone on to, you know, read the very next paragraph, you would have seen that the writer goes on to discuss the new set of data that we were actually talking about, which comes from last year.

Congratulations: your cherry picking displayed just how little you actually care about the facts. You were talking about an old set of data and not what we were discussing, you moron. Read it again, in full, before you open your mouth.

In fact, just in case anybody wants to do that and see just how bad Harris has fucked up here, here is a repeat of the link we're talking about.

“For starters the numbers reported are only of the federal prisoners, about 218,000 people, not of all prisons in America, and they only cover a self-reported religious affiliation or lack thereof by the inmates themselves. Keeping all this in mind, the data showed that 0.07% of the inmates were atheists, 28.7% Protestants, 24% Catholics, 5.5% Muslims, and 3.1% American Indians. In addition 3% of the inmates listed “other” as religious affiliation, and 3.44% were “unknown”. We cannot assume that those who listed “other” or “unknown” have no religious affiliation; they might have religious affiliation and didn’t want to declare it, or they might not. Lastly 17% of the inmates reported no religious preference. We cannot make assumptions as to what this means either, they may be either religious but with no particular church affiliation, may be spiritual, non-spiritual, and they may even be “nones” (atheists/non-religious) as defined by some sociologists.

Did you actually think about this part before you posted it? What it's saying is that some of the "nones" or unknowns or what have you may, in fact, be religious. Which means that potentially the number of atheists in prison might be smaller and the religious larger. If this is a point of dispute in the data, it still only benefits the atheist point, not the religious one.

BUT THESE NUMBERS CANNOT MEAN ANYTHING WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. According to Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, atheists make up 1.6% of the population, and according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, 0.7% of the population described themselves as atheists.

Um, you highlight this part but it literally goes on to actually make the comparison you're trying to highlight as nonexistent, and shows that the atheist point is right; atheists are not represented in the prison population relative to their population in general. In fact, if we take the first number of general population atheists, the prison population is lower than it should be by about fifty percent. You're wrong again, genius.

REGARDLESS OF THE SMALL NUMBER, BASED ON ONE OR THE OTHER RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, ATHEISTS AREN’T PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED IN PRISON, AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY ARE BY FAR MISREPRESENTED, WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF INMATES PER OVERALL ATHEIST POPULATION. BY USING THESE REPORTS IN COMPARISON WITH EACH OTHER, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO CONFUSE THE INMATES WHO DID NOT DECLARE A RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, BY SAYING NO PREFERENCE (17%), OTHER (3%), OR UNKNOWN (3.4), WITH THE GROUP IDENTIFIED BY SOCIOLOGISTS AS “NONES” (COMPRISED OF SELF-DECLARED NON-THEISTS, AND NON-RELIGIOUS) WHO MADE UP 15% OF THE POPULATION IN THE 2008 SURVEY.”

And though you highlighted this part, I have to think that you only did it, as you did the first time, because it contains the word "misrepresentation," without taking into account the context. But I trust that the rest of you can read this part: it says that atheists are not proportionally represented in prisons, that there are lower numbers of atheists in prison than there should be, according to their numbers in the general population. That was the point that we said the data was making from the beginning.

Harris, you just highlighted the conclusion of the article, which agrees with my position, while claiming that it agrees with yours.

Just admit it: you didn't read the whole thing, did you? You just scanned for individual words that you thought might agree with you, right? You didn't even read the complete sentences seemingly, because everything you highlighted that you say says one thing, says literally the opposite.

Whatever written under the heading “GIVING MEANING TO THE DATA” is only a justification.

But you initially posted this article while claiming that it shows the data we gave you is wrong. The article, all throughout, says that the data we gave you does say what we said it did. You were wrong, and now you're continuing to be wrong.

Do you Believe in the existence of God? Your phrase “OH MY GOD” is the evidence that knowledge of God is embeded in the instincts of human beings. No matter how one try to hide that fact but the word God is at the core of human nature. Listen to this small segment from the speech of Abdul Raheem Green which he had given in India.

I said it because it conveys an expletive in Western english. Don't think you get to tell me what I believe, you fatuous imbecile.

I think you should read that article once again with care.

I think you should read it at all.

I'd remind you that the last sentence in the article, the conclusion, says that "people’s assumption that atheists lack morals, are mostly unsubstantiated. "

Does that sound like the conclusion of an article that disagrees with literally that sentiment, when we gave it to you earlier in the thread?

Whatever is written under the heading “Giving Meaning To The Data” is only a justification.

How would you know? You haven't read the article.

Sure! Things are getting better by applications of secular laws.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bulletin_of...gster.html

Um... you linked me to a four year old abstract to a medical article about incest, which has nothing to do with secular laws, and whose conclusions don't even mention secular laws or behavior as a cause for that, so... irrelevant.

I can see how effective Australian secular laws are.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info...ates/Crime
http://extranosalley.com/?p=37279

Actually, you can if you read your own damn links: the first one was a side by side comparison of various things between Australia and the US. I suspect you stopped at the very first comparison, because it said Australia had 67% more of it than the US and that number fits into your predrawn conclusions if you don't think about it at all, but that comparison was over the age of criminal responsibility, not anything to do with actual crime rates. What it means is that Australia holds youths responsible for their crimes at a higher rate than the US. If we go to the "crime level" comparison, what do we see? Oh, we see that the US has "21% more" than Australia. Drug use? "29% more" than Australia. Violent crime? "6 times more" than Australia. Violent crime, specifically murder? "57 times more" than Australia. In fact, if you go down the list- and I recommend you do so!- you'll see that every single crime type is statistically higher in the US than in Australia. In your own link that you decided says the opposite.

As for your second link, it's some guy's blog. Not just any guy; some random gun advocate trying to spin Australia's lack of guns as being bad for law. It's biased.

Before saying “wrong again” you compare these statistics with the statistics of other countries.

Why? You were making an argument about the rise in crime correlating with increasingly secular laws in a specifically secular country. Your claim was wrong, but more importantly it wasn't about comparing countries. Stop all these distraction tactics, or maybe actually remember what your own damn arguments are next time.

Then why do modern monkeys are far behind of humans? Seemingly, human developed out from monkeys! Modern monkeys should logically be like those as shown in the movie planets of the Apes or by definition of evolution they should not exists anymore because they all transformed into human.

Humans didn't come from monkeys, humans and apes have a common ancestor. They evolved along separate pathways, and there's no one-way climb to intelligence. If you think that's what evolution describes you are sorely misinformed, but that's hardly shocking anymore.

According to Wikipedia, Plato was born about 2437 years ago. Can you prove Plato even existed?

More distraction tactics.

Guys, I think it's pretty clear by now: Harris has no idea what he's talking about, and he doesn't have any interest in honest discussion. He's not even reading his own links, he's just including them on the basis of individual words rather than content. He's a liar, a conman, and aside from the amusement one gets from shooting fish in a barrel, I doubt he's worth seriously engaging. I think I've pretty conclusively proved he's not paying attention even to the things coming out of his own mouth, in his mad rush to disagree with the atheists.

[Harris]

Harris Wrote: Let me correct you, they are called Atheists because for them Science is in place of God. They actually worship their own selfish desires and think science is the doorway to fulfilment of all their desires. The difference between atheist and pagan is that atheist do not have idols to symbolise their desires as gods whereas pagans have idols to symbolize their desires.

Except, science is real - your god isn't. But no, atheists don't worship science.

Can you disprove existence of God by using your REAL SCIENCE?

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
1. Nonsen sical question

The question “Why things at all exist when their nonexistence is perfectly possible?” that philosophers have struggled with for millennia.

You cannot denigrate this fundamental philosophical metaphysical question by characterising it as nonsensical.

Your response gives prudent signals that you do not know who Leibnitz is and how inappropriate your knowledge is for a philosophical discussions.

2. Why universe does not has a cause when everything in it is the result of some cause.
2. Spatio-temporal nature of cause is not applicable to the universe itself.

Correct! Bravo! Thank you again.

However, if Spatio-temporal nature of cause is not applicable to the origin of universe then how you explain the origin of universe. Let me give you a little assistance to help you in making your assumptions.

Universe is the product of Chance!
Universe caused without a cause! (Came out from nothingness!)
Universe created its own being!
Law of gravity produced this universe!
Universe or multiverse has eternal past but has finite future!
Universe or multiverse are eternal

Do you see any logic in the above statements?
If there is no God what else can justify existence of this Spatiotemporal Universe.

3. Why there is life on earth
3. Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis has proven nothing. This response again provided an evidence of your illiteracy.

4. Why genome has one of the most complex and most intelligent code, which is superior in every sense to all manmade codes.

4. Because it has had millions and millions of years to develop, refine and be tested whereas human coding isn't even a century old. But not to worry - human coding is catching up at a frightening speed which shows that either no-one designed the genome or that whoever did design it was extremely stupid.

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”
Page 356, volume 2
A Guided Tour of the Living Cell
Christian De Duve.

“…no-one designed the genome or that whoever did design it was extremely stupid.”
LOL! Genkaus, you are a clown.

There all you questions answered. Just as they've been answered by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. And the fallacies of those arguments have been proven many, many times over. If you are intentionally blind to them, I see no point in repeating them.

Can you see now, how atheism kills conscience, rationality, and logic? You, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are totally got blinded in your envy against God!

Harris Wrote: Better, I would be an irrational being rather than rational like you who support prostitution, homosexuality, rape, and incest, an inhuman way of life.

I don't support rape - but the rest are fine.

But atleast we agree on something - you are irrational.

If instinctive style of living (like low life forms) is rational for you then I am ok with human way of living, which is irrational for you.

Harris Wrote: Oh Sorry again! For I have not talked about legalization of prostitution and homosexuality (the most logical and most rational concepts for you)

Simply two of them - not most logical or rational. That honor goes to declaration of human rights.

Human Rights! Declaration of human rights that was formulated by secular governments that talks about marital rape, sex workers, homosexual rights, consensual incest and other similar shit!

I would not be surprised if tomorrow I will see something on rapist’s rights.

Harris Wrote: Oh my God! So, you are struggling to make a free sex culture, the culture where your mother, sister, wife, daughter, son, father, and brother also live. Would not it be a pathetic scenario if you defend your close ones on their acts of prostitution and homosexuality? I think you should take consultation from some good psychiatrist urgently.

Any good psychiatrist would agree with me.

Had you been to any good psychiatrist or again shooting in air characteristically?

Harris Wrote: I can bet that you never touched Quran. Your arguments against Quran and against life of prophet Mohammad are coming out of your wishful thinking. Your arguments are extremely speculative and generally, they are based on hoopla and whoopla.

They're coming out of publicly known facts about the pedophile prophet and your own arguments. Getting my hands dirty by touching the quran is unnecessary.

Publically known facts! Like:

Bill Gates Wants to Give You Money
The Five-Billion Dollar Steve Jobs
Adolf Hitler Fakes Death
Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction
Watergate Scandal
Bermuda Triangle
Aryan Master Race
Jesus Never Existed
Atlantis
American Civil War Started By Britain
Princess Diana Murdered by British Royal Family
Zionism
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Moon Landing Was Faked
9/11 Was A False Flag
Piltdown Man
Columbus Discovered the Earth is Round

If you are afraid of touching hard copy of Quran then you have the option to download a soft copy of Quran. Go and get it from the following link.

http://www.qurantranslations.org/english/index.html

Harris Wrote: Who told you that Adam was committing incest? Adam had Eve. Again, this piece of information gives indications that you are ignorant person. If you have read this piece of information in Quran then show me those verses.

You are absolutely obsessed by your sexual desires or you have seen too much of illegal sex in your home or in your surroundings!

Oh! Wait I totally forgot that you are fighting hard for the legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution. No, surprise why you think about Adam this way. There is a saying “a thief always see normal people with the eyes of a thief only.”

Who did Adam's kids fuck? The only options they had were their parents or siblings - therefore, incest.

Correct! Adam’s children were getting married together in order to spread human race on earth. There was no miracle and there was no evolution. That was the requirement then. However, neither Adam nor Eve were touching their off springs in obedience of God’s commandments.

Harris Wrote: Longer I discuss with you more confident I am to state that atheism is a disease to human conscience.

The longer I listen to you the more confident I am that atheism is the cure to the disease of Islam.

I know atheism better than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and you. On the other side, you do not know Islam more than what BBC and CNN is telling you.

Harris Wrote: I really feel sorry for you that you have lost your conscience.

Don't be - my conscience is firmly in place.

The nature of your arguments saying otherwise.

Harris Wrote: Whether you are not married and do not have any sense about extreme anxiety that may occur when you get betrayed by your life partner or you are a sick person because you do not care whether your wife share bed with your friends or not.

I never said I wouldn't feel anxiety or that I wouldn't care - but morality based on those feelings is morality based on personal desires.

I do not think there is any normal person on earth who felt no anxiety after finding his/her spouse has committed adultery. That anxiety is universally common just like killing a person for pleasure is universally accepted as immoral. For that reason, adultery is a crime and immoral act.

Harris Wrote: I think you have a feeling now on how it looks when your wife commit adultery with your friend. For me Adultery (having sex with someone other than your spouse in your married life) is also a crime as serious as if you kill a person for pleasing yourself. I totally favour capital punishments for those who commit sexual crimes.

See? Your morality is based on personal desires and that is why it is irrational, vile and disgusting

I repeat that anxiety arising out from adultery is a universal feeling and every normal person hate such feelings. For that reason, adultery is a crime and immoral act.

Harris Wrote: Sex is such a potent sense that it may obscure all of your logic and rationality. The only way to stop sexual abuses is the use of force and fear. I am preparing something interesting on this topic and you will have full opportunity to give your critical opinion.

Only where religious people are concerned and that's because of their associated guilt.

Rapist is a rapist because he has no guilt and threat of moral accountability. Rapist do not care about the existence of God at least at the time when he commits the rape. Therefore, rapist is atheist. I had never heard any case that someone raped in the name of Jesus.

Harris Wrote: Morals, essentially, centred on human conscience and empathy. The concepts of good and evil are the products of universal feelings that all adult human equally share. It is universally accepted that:

saving life of some innocent human,

to look after an orphan,

to help someone to bring him out from his burden of credit,

to help young and alone lady so she can develop a nice family life and avoid life of a prostitute or a mistress,

not to treat animals badly in order to have fun with their lives,

or to give someone any kind of help without thinking of having any benefit out of that help is universally accepted as moral.

None of these things are universally accepted as moral.


If someone is in debt due to his own incompetence, then it is immoral to bring him out of it.

Incompetence is not the only cause of debt. After the fall of Soviet Union, half of atheist Russia was in debt to other half and brutality was a norm at least after 1990 to 2010 in atheist Russia.

If a girl wants to be a prostitute or mistress to a wealthy man, then you won't be helping her by directing her towards a family.

You are a pleasure seeker for that reason your mind is incapable of thinking about human trafficking and kidnapping of young children to use them in prostitution industry to make filthy money and pleasures.

And giving someone help without considering who the person is and what he does is not only immoral, it is stupid.

To help any starving person or give medicine to some sick person who cannot afford medicine for his cure due to whatsoever reason is not stupidity. Atheism kills conscience and pushes people to arrogance and barbarism.
You have no idea about empathy.

Why are Muslims obsessed with sex?

Harris, don't you know that cousin marriage is more common amongst Muslims?

And do you like Zakir Naik?

You have exposed yourself as ex-Muslim but based on how you have formulated your question about cousin marriage, I think you were never a Muslim. Islam permits cousin marriage.

Zakir Naik is one of the best orator of comparative religions. His knowledge of different scriptures is monstrous and his scientific knowledge is up to date as he is a medical doctor. However, he is not a philosopher.

OP is probably a jihadist.

Do you know the meaning of Jihad and Jihadist?

DramaQueen Wrote: Why are Muslims obsessed with sex?

Because it gives them an excuse to talk about it, which is probably about as close to it as they are getting.

One of the most common cause why a person rejects commandments of God is the lust and desire of free sex. Genkaus is exhibiting that perfectly well.

[Aoi Magi]

Wow, this thread has some really long posts. Anyway

Can you disprove existence of God by using your REAL SCIENCE?

We don't disprove something which hasn't been proven in the first place.

If there is no God what else can justify existence of this Spatiotemporal Universe.

You can believe in an eternal god, but not an eternal universe?

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”

Quote mine? really? did you even bother to read the entire page where you copied that from?

Correct! Adam’s children were getting married together in order to spread human race on earth. There was no miracle and there was no evolution. That was the requirement then. However, neither Adam nor Eve were touching their off springs in obedience of God’s commandments.

You do know what 'incest' is right? And why it is bad to produce offsprings via incest let alone populate the entire world?

I repeat that anxiety arising out from adultery is a universal feeling and every normal person hate such feelings. For that reason, adultery is a crime and immoral act.

You do know that there are several tribes in Africa, who willingly exchange wives and husbands, and even some where the wife can belong to multiple husbands? So no, it is not a 'universal' feeling, rather it is how our modern societies have come to feel.

You also do know that quran and other religious texts support the idea of concubines and sex-slaves, right?

Rapist is a rapist because he has no guilt and threat of moral accountability. Rapist do not care about the existence of God at least at the time when he commits the rape. Therefore, rapist is atheist. I had never heard any case that someone raped in the name of Jesus.

Ah I didn't know you were a psychic able to read a rapists mind during a rape. Also raping in the name of jesus? You should really follow the news sometimes.

To help any starving person or give medicine to some sick person who cannot afford medicine for his cure due to whatsoever reason is not stupidity. Atheism kills conscience and pushes people to arrogance and barbarism.
You have no idea about empathy.

Helping the needy is not dependent on religion. People all over the world help those who are in need, irrespective of their faith or lack thereof.

On the other hand forcefully 'helping' those who don't want or need it, is one of the most prominent feature of abrahamic faith systems.