Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 25, 2014 at 12:12 pm (This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm by MusicLovingAtheist.)
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You perceive a life form as a bundle of sensory receptors. I agree.
I think that alone sounds very primitive though. I know that human beings are capable of abstract and concrete thinking. Just because we're all a bundle of nerves doesn't mean we don't have the potential to be just as grounded in reality as our biology itself.
Most atheists think that human bodies are no more than living machines. Therefore, for such people I have used that kind of language to make my point clear.
Your argument is that atheists can't be as moral because they don't fear punishment of god. That argument is actually flawed because by nature atheists can't believe in god. I assure you, I am in utter disbelief of such a thing. You seem to be under the notion that atheists can simply start believing in god if they want to, which is false, and shows your ignorance of what an atheist actually is.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You say that morals develop through living with a group of people and learning the virtues of living among others, as well as the dark side of human nature, which is selfishness, rage, exploitation, etc. You assert that although atheists are against religion, they offer no alternative to the "the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life."
I think if religion was successful and reliable then we wouldn't be having this argument.
Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.
Nice strawman. Just because some people break the rules because they're bad doesn't mean everyone wants to do that. It seems clear to me that you think atheists just don't like rules. You don't even understand what atheism is.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: If religion was as useful as everyone says it is, then all we would need is religion and there would be far less problems in the world. However, we have religion. The majority of the world is religious. However, it doesn't do much for solving moral dilemmas and problems.
All problems and dilemmas are the product of people who are obsessed by their personal desires and ready to achieve their moral or immoral objectives at any cost. If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that. It is similar to say that constitutional laws of USA are wrong because there is so much crime in this country. Why to blame legislation?
I'm not blaming religion. I'm saying it doesn't work. Coming onto this forum and trying to convert atheists to theism (lol) will not solve the world's problems.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I, myself, being an atheist, and knowing other atheists, feel strongly that atheists are just as capable of being moral as any theist.
I have many atheist friends and I can bet they are caring and loving people and better than many religious people. In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do. Every person has conscience. Some people obey the voice of their conscience some not.
Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.
Again, you don't know what atheism is. People use those morals because because those morals and ethics are not exclusively religious ethics. They're cultural universals. Whatever lesson someone learns in the bible can be learned outside of the bible too.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: How do you think the theists pick which stories are moral out of their book and which ones aren't? If I recall, the bible condones slavery and rape.
Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.
Again, morality is not exclusively a religious thing. Neither is immorality. A person can be an atheist or religious and be immoral.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I have my own idea for why I'm moral. Whether it be learned, or inherent, I feel guilty when I do something wrong and I feel bad when I see someone else in pain. I was reading about the logical capability of dogs once. It said that dogs will never actually feel remorse for their actions. If they pooped on the floor and you come home to find them with their tail between their legs, it's not because they feel sorry, it's because they're afraid of the consequences because they know that poop on the floor = something bad will happen.
It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.
The laws in the bible are manmade too.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: As shown as this image, humans feel guilt. Obviously there is a difference between feeling guilt and simply fearing punishment. I learned in psychology class once that morality based off of fear of punishment is the lowest form of morality. I really wish that I remembered the source of that hierarchy of morality and who was responsible for the research so I could go into more detail. I think that alone shows that the whole basis for morality, by the religious standard of fear of god, is a very weak one.
On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.
Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers. If a Muslim intentionally do something wrong then he will face the punishment. Along with the faith in Allah, good actions, especially controlling desires, are obligatory. Belief alone is not enough for the salvation in Islam. Islam commands for deeds based on moral values.
Again, you don't know what atheism is. Atheists aren't people who simply choose not to follow religion because we don't like it's rules. We don't believe that god exists. Please don't get that wrong. I see the type of punishment they have in Islamic countries. Chopping off the fingers of criminals, beheadings. It's scary and immensely uncivilized. Here in America we try to separate the Church from the state. All those man made laws that you seem to think are so faulty actually make for much better living conditions than a lot of Muslim countries.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You site authors who say that morality under fear of god is infantile. You say that atheism is only the belief that god doesn't exist. You say that atheism itself eradicates any morals given by religion and does not offer anything to fill in the gaps to replace them. You say atheism gives no grounds for morality. You say atheists practically say atheists are nihilists.
I think in a vacuum everything you say is true. Atheism does not offer alternatives to religious morality. There is no inherent laws of morality. I think if simply denying the belief in god strips away all of these religious morals, then religious morality is not very good in the first place.
How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.
Religious morals are not religious morals. They're universal morals and ethics that religion plagiarizes. You describe Atheists as machine like, unemotional, living cold lives. Fuck off. That's just ethnocentric drivel.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Religious principles are morals that were adopted by religion, they were not created by religion (unless you believe that god literally wrote the bible himself).
Psalms, Torah, Gospel, and Quran are the literal words of God. I have logical reasons to believe that. It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend. In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths. Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.
The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.
The Psalms, Torah, Gospel, and Quran, or any other holy book are not the word of god. They're the word of man. You act like men can't comprehend morality. You're definitely projecting.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: The only thing I can think of that is exclusively a religious moral is not being bad for fear of being sent to hell.
If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”
People behave good because they're good people and they're smart. I said earlier that behaving good because they fear punishment is what dogs do. Just so you know, all human beings are essentially the same, aside from brain capacity. This is so sanctimonious. You think you're better than Atheists because you're afraid of being punished. You're a dog.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Being an atheist myself, I know that I feel more emotions than a dog. I feel empathy and guilt and contempt and a whole range of complex emotions.
Whether or not it's nature or nurture which instills these in me is an entire discussion entirely. I think it's a little of both.
Leaders of atheism do not think like you.
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.
DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Page 133
River out of Eden
Richard Dawkins
He's quoting someone else and you likely just took that quote completely out of context. Atheism doesn't have leaders either. A lot of atheists don't even care about Richard Dawkins.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: Human beings are social creatures. That is a fact, the evidence is that we all live in large groups on planet earth. Albeit the relationship with each other in large groups can be a bit impersonal, for the most part people abide by the law and society functions. It obviously works as proof that we have been sustaining ourselves for a long period of time. What strikes me as ironic is that often the more primitive societies like the ones that live in the woods are the ones who are more spiritual. For instance, a primitive tribe may have witch hunts, try to cure illnesses by praying or casting what they believe to be the "demons" out of host. In our modern society, we rely heavily on science and logic to maintain our existence. I think logic seems to be winning over superstition. It seems that the more sophisticated society becomes, the more we drive out the superstitious ways of thinking of the past.
Roots of our lives are scattered deep inside the essence of nature therefore, nature dictates the rules for our instincts and rules for our survival. We are heavily dependent over nature for the fulfilment of our needs. If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking. Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.
Why human logic works well because universe is stable and predictable. In this intelligible universe human logic, supersede everything, even science. Success of science in fact depends over human logic. Why logic is powerful because natural events are consistent. Think about chaotic universe. That universe will instantly kills the human logic.
In other words, reliability of human logic is subject to the consistency in natural events. Scientific innovations are dependent over human logic not human logic reliant over science.
Because of the evident achievements of scientific discoveries, many people get deluded about the reality of science. Like many people, who believe in the superstitious phenomenon, modern people measure science as all mighty. They have literally replaced God with science. However, as I said that human logic supersede all scientific marvels therefore the real credit for all human achievements goes to human logic not to the scientific principles.
Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods
Human logic doesn't supersede science. Science is just methods of observing the universe and principles of what to base the measurements off of. Science is logic. Human minds can't supersede logic. Also, our ability to measure and understand the principles of the universe is limited to science. Science is the key to understanding the universe. The only times science and religion cross paths is when religious apologists make up theories about intelligent design. Religion has no place in science. I know that you won't understand this, because you probably don't even listen to scientists, but intelligent design is just a bunch of what ifs. It's unfalsafiable hypothesis. Intelligent design is not convincing.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: To me the arguments of morality seem to be an overtly scholarly practice, reserved for philosophy classes and higher level education. The ideas are still important none the less as they are the groundwork for society. Science and philosophy work hand in hand in building societies. Religion is merely a traditional method of handling morality. Traditional wisdom does not mean absolute wisdom. As I stated earlier, fear of god is not a good base for morals. I think we need to rely more on the capability of human beings to think rationally then to tell them that they are merely animals, incapable of achieving godly wisdom. We should teach people to think for themselves. We should teach people to question themselves. I think that is the fundamental reason why religious morality is wrong.
Religion was running all communities in the pre-scientific era. Religion is controlling many communities even in today’s scientific world. As benchmark values are vital for the success of scientific exploration, similarly, absolute morals are indispensable for the evaluation of moral values for judicial proceedings and the administration of the law.
As for science, it has no concern with the morals. It only deals with the cause and effect of the material events. Science cannot explain how mind and physical body entangled together.
Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.
“Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen…”
Page 469
Crime and punishment
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Translated By Constance Garnett
Science builds civilizations, and morals holds them together. Science is more than just the study of the physical world though. Science also has a very deep study of people in groups and individuals known as psychology and sociology. A big part of sociology is the study of moral behavior. So you're absolutely wrong that science and morality don't mix. In my opinion you can deduct what is the highest moral behavior by looking at what morals and beliefs benefit society and which ones harm society. You know what a society run by fear is called? A dictatorship.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: You site cases in which people acted under their own conviction in a way that they perceived to be moral and killed millions of people. Morality that is justified rationally through ethics allows people to behave immorally. Religion attempts to provide practical morality. Religion gives definite laws. Religion provides a larger context for existence beyond morality (i.e. why we're here) as opposed to the views of atheism, that were's "an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.". You say that atheists have no basis for morality, so they are forced to look into religion for morality. Judgement day and belief in miracles are a good source of motivation to behave according to the morals of scripture which have a "rich narrative". The structure of secular morals is entirely based on religious morals which have been with humans throughout the history of mankind.
I personally would like the truth about reality, instead of anecdote (which is all the stories really are). As opposed to believing god exists and that we all go to heaven if we're good is merely a fairy tail, or to put it more respectfully, an anecdote (or part of one). I think most atheists who have developed emotions are capable of realizing that killing is wrong. You seem to be arguing that without grounds for morality people can do whatever they want. I just don't like your example because I think it leaves out the question of those people's personal character and rather focuses on their trivial lack of biblical morality. I think your assertion that secular morality is based on religious morality is backwards. Religious morality didn't just appear. It's obviously based off of preexisting concepts and ideas that were implemented into scriptures.
Religion may provide practical morality (unless you're me, who was too bored to pay attention in Church). I think that the problem with religious morality, as I said earlier, is that it is absolute, unquestionable. Religious people are literally told that they are sinners and below god. That seems to imply that morality is objective. I think morality is subjective. I know this may seem sad to some people, but in my atheistic viewpoint, I believe that when someone is murdered, the universe does not care. So it is the responsibility of human beings and our innate sense of empathy and compassion (which is something else that has been hijacked and claimed by religion) to determine morality. Since god is not here to tell us how to interpret scripture (nor will he ever be), even the bible itself is morally subjective. Interpretation of the bible varies widely and I think that's common knowledge. Some even use their scripture to make ethical moral justifications to kill other people. The bible literally says to stone homosexuals just to give one example. Some extremists even use their scripture to justify killing other people (i.e. 9/11). So not only is biblical morality subjective, it is unreliable. The scripture is unreliable, subjective, has hijacked moral concepts, and does not give people the tools to think for themselves. It is a very bad system.
Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.
Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.
God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.
By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.
Selfish person whether theist or atheist use anything to his advantage, within or outside moral limits.
God doesn't exist and your condemnation of homosexuals is abhorrent. I'm bisexual and I want to sleep with another guy. I don't really care if you have a problem with it. You have no logic for being against homosexuality either. You're just against it because your book tells you it's wrong. That's servile. Think for yourself and stop being a sheep. When I say sheep I mean you just follow what other people tell you blindly.
(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 14, 2014 at 11:05 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote: I may have simply discredited biblical teachings like any other atheist has at this point. I think that perhaps education and open mindedness has taken use as far as we are today. As I said, logical and science has taken us further than religion has ever taken us. In fact is it responsible for the largest logical explosion mankind has ever seen in history. What has religion been responsible for? Wars? Witch hunts? Bigotry? Destroying the library of Alexandria and setting us back 1000 years? If you want answers to the problems of the world, don't look to religion. Look to the people who are making the world a better place. Look to the atheists who are already living without religion who are living healthy, productive, morally justifiable lives that coincide with the peacefulness of society. Look to the scientists. Look to the forward thinkers. Look to yourself and question your notions of morality.
Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.
For your information, all of the scientific benefits that you are enjoying today, Muslim and Christian scientists were the one who explored and developed that science. Atheists have done very little in the development of science. Most of their activities emerged in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when atheist took readymade principles and laws developed by Muslim and Christian scientists and made some cosmetic modifications in them.
Most scientists today have grown out of the childish notions of religion. Perhaps most scientists used to be religious, they didn't know any better. If you think atheists have done little to develop science, you're ignorant as hell. Look at Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. The advances we have made in the past couple centuries are immeasurable compared to the discoveries of ancient cultures, which is where I wish I could ship you to (in a time machine).
(September 24, 2014 at 6:00 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: LOL. I stopped reading here. What is a religious person? A follower of Yahweh? Of Mohamet?
Religious Person is a person who manifests devotion to a deity. The essential quality of a religious person is to depend on God. The truly religious person does not flee the world but withdraws to attain personal realization and returns to apply the insight thereby gained to better society.
The identity of a religious person is set through the system of rituals defined by particular religious law, which join the community based on same Faith.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: But then, that wouldn't be the first thing you'd looked like an idiot over, eh Harris?
Oh, and also, the bolded number? Seems to have come directly out of your ass. The real numbers are actually lower: the atheist population of prisons is something like 0.7 percent according to official documentation, and it's actually lower than it should be relative to the atheist population at large, too. Meanwhile, religious people dominate prison populations, and are also in prison at higher rates than one would statistically expect, relative to their actual populations. And I did provide a source there, Harris, since I know you'll forget if I don't point it out. You're just wrong, yet again.
Frankly speaking figures 1% or 0.7% or 0.2% of atheist prison population kept me in surprise until I have not read the real facts.
I tried to find some government link for the verification on these figures but failed. However, I found an interesting article on one sceptic blog, which criticizes such statistics as misrepresentation.
Here are some excerpts from this article:
Reliability of Previous Statistic
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.
Deciphering The Data
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.
Yes, that check and balance is called the rest of the culture. Haven't you been paying attention?
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.
Statistics, our modern understanding of psychology, and a number of other sciences, say otherwise. But then, I'm sure your fatuous and unsupported assertion is more convincing than all that evidence based research.
USA has the best secular laws in the world. Statistics of crime in USA shows that law is not helping people to become virtuous and wise. Crime rate is rising not declining.
Atheist love evidence but when evidence is presented to him, he simply ignore that. To every compelling fact, you say “assertion.” Here is the evidence.
How far man will go away from God that much he will become slave of his own desires. Desires for pleasure and enjoyment never bring wisdom and virtue rather pushe the person to selfishness and arrogance.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?
There are plenty of early human cultures, as I pointed out, that left governing documents that were both secular and held a lot of the positive tenets that religious documents hold to, while predating them all the same. The Code of Hammurabi being one of the earliest: it predates the Abrahamic religions by quite a while.
Hammurabi existed only yesterday! They are categorised as modern humans compare to your real evolutionary ancestors. Question remain unanswered, what were the morals in the culture of your real ancestors billions of years ago.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.
And why the fuck should I take this assertion of yours seriously when you won't back it up? This is just you desperately inventing fairytales to retrofit your desired conclusion over the fact that anthropology contradicts you, and has actual evidence to support it.
Unsurprisingly, I find your little fantasies entirely unconvincing.
Religious scriptures are leading different cultures since the time of Prophet David, more than 3,000 years. Do not try to undermine this fact by declaring these scripture as fairy tales.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Incest or torturing a baby is not absolutely immoral. There is not such thing as "absolutely" immoral.
Don't confuse absolute morality with objective morality. Your god's morality is absolute and subjective. Human morality is often contingent and objective.
Historically, absolute morality leads to totalitarian states.
Obligations of the nature you just described are almost never ethical.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: 1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000 - WRONG
Case two:
If you are saying, Atheist prisoners are 1% of the total atheist population then point to some authentic source that justify your claim.
Case 3: 1% of the total prison population is atheist.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: I say that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved and that we develop our own morals irrespective of whether or not there is a god. God's non-existence is incidental.
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).
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Selfish person do not care for morals and good or bad reasoning. If he loves incest or rape, he will go after it to satisfy himself.
Says who? I'm extremely selfish and yet I care a great deal about morals based on good reasoning.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life?” All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?”
Nonsense. Laws are required for life here - they have nothing to do with afterlife.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The only way to stop selfishness and brutality is by the use of force.
Not the only way - just religion's way.
Oh, Yeah! So those ELECTRIC CHAIRS and GAS CHAMBERS are there only for fun!
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Sounds as moronic as you.
False dichotomy, btw.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Only remove the idea of accountability from the minds of people and see how quickly they transform from rational beings into nasty beings. That is exactly what happened with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler kill, Chiang Kaikillshek kill, Vladimir Lenin, Hideki Tojo and Pol Pot.
Putting in imaginary accountability isn't much better.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Atheism only helps removing the idea of moral accountability and pushes people to selfishness. However, this idea of moral accountability is crucial because it provides the power within people to control their egos without enforcement of any threat of external powers.
Nonsense - atheism simply removes imaginary accountability.
Moral accountability to oneself is a sign of a truly selfish person.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible what was the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.”
Wrong.
Prove Solzhenitsyn is wrong by giving logical reasoning instead of throwing one word in empty air.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Yes! People are capable to study philosophy of morals but think about how many people are there who bother to dig heap of those philosophy books in order to learn how to live a moral life. On top of that, philosophy of morality only tackles with the muddled hitches of morality and it does not gives any agenda on how to live a moral life. The evident example is the secular world, which lacks institute that is capable to provide precise guidance to a pure moral life. Secondly, think about people who are mean and selfish and do not care about morality.
Wrong. Philosophy does teach how to live a moral life. But an institute dictating morality would be immoral itself - a person has to judge that for himself. Secondly, it is impossible to be truly selfish without being moral.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, conscience get diseased or get deceased.
On the contrary - faith in anything whether god or an ideology - is the disease of morality.
“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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You see the designs around and within your being but not the Designer. You reject the existence of the designer (God) simply because you cannot perceive Him with your physical senses.
I see no design. And I reject your god because the idea is patently illogical.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: When you do scientific research, you use logic concerning indiscernible phenomenon. However, if you cannot identify God with your physical senses then you are not interested to use the same logic because if you get convinced in the existence of God then you may give up some of your favourite habits, which you do not want to give up.
You err in your assumptions.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If we can believe in the idea of ten dimensions, which is outside the capacity of our minds to perceive, then what is the problem in believing the existence of the world that, perhaps, exists in those perplexing 9+1 dimensions and parallel to our 3+1 dimensional world? Perhaps, all monotheistic religions have talked about that same invisible world which string theory is trying to explicate in the language of science.
When your god has the same logical support for it that string theory has, then you can talk.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.
Imaginary constructs like god or heaven are not a proper system of checks and balance. We prefer things based on reality.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.
On the contrary, being wise and virtuous is possible only through rational thinking and understanding the nature of things - faith in god is antithetical to that and therefore a disease upon one's conscience.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Keep in mind that atheism had never produced any atheistic religion.
Yes, do keep that in mind.
The next time some moron says that atheism is a religion or a worldview or talks about "atheistic morals" - keep this in mind.
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.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Now my question to you is as being an atheist which religion(s) are you following to maintain your moral views because I am unsure that there is any atheist who studies philosophy of moral to build a perfect moral code for his/her life.
Allow me to correct your unsurity - I am an atheist and I study philosophy to build a moral code for my life and no, I do not follow any religion.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Morals can be develop on the rational grounds but where is the guarantee that FREETHINKERS are the angles from whom we do not expect anything immoral in the name of morality?
If it is developed on rational grounds then it doesn't rely on freethinkers themselves. Their being free from personal desires is irrelevant - any influence of personal desires can be pointed out as irrational and thus removed.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Bible is the Word of God
Prove it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: After looking at the prevailing influences of Bible over people, FREETHINKERS have corrupted it’s verses for the sake of gaining power and possession. Today’s Bible is a corrupted version of the original Bible because scriptures cannot be Divine
I agree.
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
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In the contemporary world, the same FREETHINKERS have wiped out the name of God from their dictionaries for the sake of seeking pleasures within and outside of moral limits. These FREETHINKERS are cunning enough, as they have done so within the scope of rationality to convince people on their immoral acts. But this gives rise to a question for those who are convinced at legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution that, have we accomplished ample knowledge of all troughs and crests of rationality?
Yes. And if it is within the scope of rationality, then it is not immoral.
“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”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Within 400 hundred years, atheists have killed people insanely. The number is astronomical that cannot be defeated by the combined number of killed people in the entire human history. Check out the history books.
Do you even realize how nonsensical this argument is? Moron.
And religion has killed many, many more.
Atheist regimes have killed 143,637,003 people within the span of 300 years only. Go and try to beat this figure.
… “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
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It does exist but it has not given any established code of conduct. You have to assemble your own code by taking guidance from that philosophy. In such exhaustive drills, only few people are interested. Secondly, you cannot build up your own code until you have scholarly skills. Look around you and tell how many people have the scholarly skills. The easy way is to look into religious teachings for the guidance to live a moral life.
I agree - looking to religion for a moral code is the easy way out. But that''s not the right way. Especially given the corrupt morals of religion.
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.
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: The right way would be to help people develop the necessary scholarly skills.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Manmade laws cannot equate the laws given in the scriptures. Manmade laws are the Mumbo Jumbo of men’s desires and desirable religious contents.
Equate??
They are far superior to your scriptural mumbo-jumbo.
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. They have already produced a culture where “Father of my daughter is my father.” It will not be a surprise if tomorrow these far superior laws make anal sex compulsory for everyone.
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-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: A person, whether theist or atheist, cannot regard importance, worth, or usefulness of morals without the sense of moral accountability. Sense of accountability is crucial for a self-critique. Without the quality of self-critique, a person is a FREETHINKER like a beast in the wild where only powerful has the right to live and enjoy life. Religion gives the vision of self-critique to every believer, control his wild desires, and develop insight into fellowmen’s emotional states.
An imaginary vision.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In contrast to morality based on religious teachings, manmade rational laws are only workable at the cost of using force. In contrast to religious morality, manmade laws can control people but they cannot make them virtuous and wise.
On the contrary - man-made rational laws work for most rational people without any use for force. Force is required only for irrational people - like religious zealots. Religion, on the other hand, works exclusively on the threat of imaginary force.
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.
“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-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islam is a religion based on logic. Therefore, all its laws are logical.
Wait, not done.
Go on. Tell another one.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Humanist may say this law is barbarism. However, if you dig some interviews of the victims, those victims will give you understanding about what disgusting humiliation they had gone through. I personally know cases where victims of rape committed suicide.
People may give their right or wrong opinions about punishment to a rapist but interestingly, whenever I posed questions to my atheist friends about their actions if someone rape their wives or daughters, believe me or not but 100% answers were in favour of the capital punishment.
A perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.
Correct! Rapist is truly “a perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: USA is one of those unfortunate countries that faces highest rate of rapes in the world. USA has the finest secular laws in the world but those laws are helpless to control the sexual crimes in the country.
Highest reported rapes.
Islamic countries, on the other hand, redefine rape and have laws to make them harder to report. At least the laws in US don't promote sexual atrocities.
Assertion. Bring the facts in your argument. Do not talk abstractly.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Now think about implementing Sharia Law in USA at least to stop rapes. Only after two or three culprits get capital punishment in public do you think sex crimes will increases, remain same or decline radically? My answer is it will decline radically.
If we impose Sharia law? They'll definitely increase, they just won't be called crimes anymore.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: I am with Genkaus.
“The law of the land governs only our public life and that to a limited extent. It is not sufficient as a guide for the whole life.”
Just to be clear - only on this question. Also, I'd say that that is all the law of the land should govern. It should not reach into my personal life.
Which is why the idea of imposing of Sharia law is disgusting.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islamic teachings give most logical reasoning for the segregation of sexes in communities. This topic I will discuss in my next post.
If by 'logic' you mean based on bigoted presuppositions, I agree.
In logic there is nothing like “Bigoted presuppositions.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: As for the poverty, Islam has provided most effective laws in the world. Abundance of literature available regarding Islamic laws to minimise poverty however, here I will Harris Wrote only one verse from Quran in this context.
Is that why Islamic nations are so poor?
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: So what kind of punishment you prefer for someone if he has sexual relations with your wife? How will you treat your wife if you learn she is in sexual affairs with another man behind your back? What are your suggestions to stop sexual abuses in a society?
Consensual relations? No legal punishments for either the wife or the other guy. Whether or not this results in a divorce would depend on facts on the ground.
And to stop sexual abuses - let's start with getting rid of religion.
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!
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You think all those believers are stupid and only 2% atheists are genius.
Not stupid - just mistaken.
You, on the other hand, are stupid.
Yeah! Around four billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews are mistaken and handful of atheists are not.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.
And we've finally succeeded and changed those nonsensical rules and regulations. Not completely, but to a great extent. And we shall not stop.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that.
We don't blame religion for that - not at all. We blame it for people going against their personal desire to fulfill religious laws.
Like the part about stoning your wife to death if she commits adultery.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do.
I doubt that.
You doubt because logically atheism is a big hole in the middle of morality.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.
it is the only thing that can liberate it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.
Unlike religion - which maintains all the wrong standards.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.
Unlike religious laws that are based on use of imaginary force.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.
Thus, it is applied through fear and threat of force.
Correct! Through fear and threat of losing infinite love and infinite mercy of God.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers.
In that regard, it is exactly the same as other religions - the whole "justice after death" is a false hope.
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? According to the data on near death experiences collected by Dr. Peter Fenwick
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.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.
Atheists don't have religious morals, but most of us do study philosophy and develop our morals based on that.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend.
Ofcourse it is. Just listen to you talk about atheism and morals.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths.
You telling me that whoever wrote those scriptures foresaw the rise of ISIS and still wrote it the way he did? What kind of dumbfuck retard would do such a thing? Oh, wait....
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.
They were not suitable then and they are not suitable now. Universal, my ass.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.
So, the NT bible is the corrupted version? Atleast it is better than the quran.
Have you ever read Quran? I do not think you have sufficient knowledge about Quran because your arguments are pure speculations.
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 do not think many of the decent atheists agree with you in the idea of transforming respectful human society into gay and lesbian culture.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”
Only those who are not wise or virtuous based on rational morality.
Are gays and prostitutes “wise and virtuous based on rational morality?”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Leaders of atheism do not think like you.
What leaders of atheism? Who are these leader? I don't remember casting any vote.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking.
Exactly. One of those superstitious beings would be your god.
You are picking bits from my writing and quoting them out of context to distort their meanings.
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.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.
Yes - they are called "religious".
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods.
Between the three of them they employ almost every logical fallacy known to us. Those three arguments not only conflict with, they openly flout the rules of rational thinking - as has been proven in this forum many, many times over. If those three arguments are the best you got, then you got nothin'.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.
Only as far as irrational beings are concerned.
Better, I would be an irrational being rather than rational like you who support prostitution, homosexuality, rape, and incest, an inhuman way of life.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.
Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.
God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.
Blah, blah, blah, god, god, blah....
Nothing interesting or logical here.
Oh Sorry again! For I have not talked about legalization of prostitution and homosexuality (the most logical and most rational concepts for you)
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.
Get your facts right - we're still working on prostitution and we've not won the battle for homosexuality just yet. We can't call it an achievement until we've achieved it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.
If the life of your pedophile and war-mongering prophet is an "ideal" example, then we are well rid of that morality.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?
According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.
Adam wasn't my "evolutionary" ancestor - and I object to the idea of being a product of incest.
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.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: First, politicians (no matter they are believers or not) who adopted secular laws like legalization of homosexuality and prostitution are all egocentric beings.
Wish they'd be as egocentric as that.
Longer I discuss with you more confident I am to state that atheism is a disease to human conscience.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Second, God has given us the free will to live our lives in what way we like. He has also given us the guidance through scriptures and prophets on how to control our wild desires and how to live moral lives in pursuit of Divine bounty. God will not come to interfere any person’s deeds because free will then loose its meaning. The rewards and punishments are secured for the day of judgement.
Balderdash.
I really feel sorry for you that you have lost your conscience.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: My only comment for now is I 100% favour all those punishments that you have presented as barbaric by concealing some real facts.
I do not think that your love and compassion for your wife will increase drastically if (God forbid) you learn that she is sharing bed with your friends.
Again - example of morality based on personal desires.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: This is about as low and disgusting as religious morality gets.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 8:12 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I find it rather amusing that Harris' religious views are "logical", but in his last post he says
Harris Wrote: Without faith in God, there can be no conscience
Have you ever ponder:
Why you exist?
Why you have instincts?
Why you have a mind?
Why you are a moral being?
Are you a product of chance?
Can chance produce 7 billion parallel creatures who have similar properties as you have?
Try to answer these questions for your own clarifications.
(September 24, 2014 at 8:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Harris Wrote: Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?
I think so. As a Christian however, you should be fine with them. Both of those things appear to be fine by Yahweh. He's fine with can marrying his sister, lot banging his daughters, Abraham marrying his niece etc. And the bible tells us that Yahweh used to be a bloodthirsty c**t who told his followers to rip babies out of mothers and dash them against rocks.
So those are really quite bad examples
I am a Muslim who follow teachings of Quran for a moral life. If you find such examples in Quran then please let me have a look at them. I would be obliged for that.
(September 24, 2014 at 8:40 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't have a wife so I don't know how to answer the question, I'd say that for people who are married and have affairs there's no solution in anyone facing violent punishment for having an affair.
I definitely think that throwing rocks at someone until they die as a punishment for anything sexual between to consenting adults is a bad idea.
I don't have any suggestions on how to stop sexual abuses in society.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 8:47 am)Endo Wrote: Yeah, incest isn't exactly a moral absolute, either.
First off, look Adam and Eve's offspring. They probably did some incestey things in order to get the human race to exist. But, you'll probably pull some shit out of your ass and say that they were more genetically pure than people today or something completely stupid. Assuming, of course, that you take the A&E creation story as the story of creation.
Then there's ALL THE OTHER TIMES God told someone to fuck a family member. I'll let you find those for yourself.
So, by your own religion-based "morals", even your ABSOLUTES aren't so ABSOLUTE.
I have an idea about what you had in mind when you wrote this argument. Nevertheless, your point is very logical and true.
Indeed, children of Adam and Eve were getting married together to get the human race flourish. There was no other way round. No miracles and no evolution.
However, how big the population became the rules of the game modified accordingly. What was legal before became prohibited with the increase in population.
So there is nothing immoral when son of Adam got married with his daughter, as that was the necessity but with the increase of population such relations became dangerous.
Today in China and India, legal married couples can have one or two children only. This law is for the welfare of society as a whole. Allow incest officially and within only few years, you will see people dying on the streets like dirty low life forms. According to Quran, you can have sex only with your wife and there is no other exception. Who can be your wife is clearly shown in the following verse of Quran:
“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-
(September 24, 2014 at 11:13 am)LostLocke Wrote: Jesus H Christ, did you get past 3rd grade math class?
(September 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: First off, an absolute moral law is moral always for everyone.
Agreed
(September 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Giving examples of possible absolute moral laws doesn't prove they're absolute.
Inanimate objects do not have morals. Moral is purely a human quality. Several studies show that animals also have sense of empathy. However, empathy in animals is not a match with the human empathy.
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.
October 12, 2014 at 2:30 am (This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 2:49 am by paulpablo.)
Quote:Indeed, children of Adam and Eve were getting married together to get the human race flourish. There was no other way round. No miracles and no evolution.
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.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
October 12, 2014 at 2:45 am (This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 2:57 am by Mudhammam.)
hock: 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.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
October 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm (This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm by Surgenator.)
(October 12, 2014 at 12:28 am)Harris Wrote:
(September 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: First off, an absolute moral law is moral always for everyone.
Agreed
(September 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Giving examples of possible absolute moral laws doesn't prove they're absolute.
Inanimate objects do not have morals. Moral is purely a human quality. Several studies show that animals also have sense of empathy. However, empathy in animals is not a match with the human empathy.
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.
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.
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.
October 12, 2014 at 9:45 pm (This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 10:02 pm by Losty.)
(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote:
In the article I will discuss, why an atheist who adopted a moral way of living is more vulnerable to immorality compared to a religious person. But, before I go further, two points I want to make here. For me there is no difference between any religious person who does not follow his religious laws and rituals and an atheist. Secondly, I would keep myself refrain from going into intricate details of morality and keep my focus purely on the reasons why a person can be moral or immoral.
I perceive human body as an interface comprises of different sensory receptors. The job of these receptors is to collect and process data from the outside world into meaningful information and provide sensibility to a person. Life is intelligent as it can receive data, read data, understand data, and issue commands based on data. This interpretation of data is in fact the cause of feelings of pleasure and pain in people.
Pleasure and pain is the core of all human activities, in general. Every person desires pleasure, joy, and comfort in his life and everyone put the utmost efforts to escape pain, anxiety, and discomfort. Here the exception goes to the concept of sacrifice where embracement of pain is premeditated.
MORALS
Now the question is why rational beings (humans) should live a moral life. Short answer to that is because humans are dependent beings. A person cannot be tailor, engineer, doctor, teacher, etc., at the same time. Man finds his personal fulfilment only in relations with other people. Why be good? Because being good--living virtuously--is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life.
Morals develop through the needs and the fulfilment of those necessities, in human life. I can say moral is the innate quality of each person. However, there is a black side to this scenario.
Human nature, in favourable circumstances, is also clearly constructed for icy selfishness cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage and a range of other less desirable traits. So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts?
Although atheism fails to answer this dilemma, it sternly criticise morals based on religion by undermining the fact that religion is the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life.
Some have argued that a morality based on obedience to a divine will is ‘infantile’ (Patrick Nowell-Smith 1966); others see it as ‘prehuman’ (Erich Fromm) or ‘bad faith’ (Simone de Beauvoir), or as promoting a ‘loss of self’ (Karl Marx).
However, these condemnations do not have any validation because atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God, which instinctively eradicate any moral rules given by God. Conversely, atheism has nothing to offer to fill this moral gap. Maximum it says:
"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"
By Logic Atheism gives no ground for morality. In atheism when you look at the bottom of the universe there is no good there is no evil there is no justice and DNA is just is and we dance to its music. By definition, this undermines all morality.
The message one may draw from this knowledge is this: You have a limited number of days, hours, and minutes. Therefore, you should strive to fill each of those days, hours, and minutes with meaning. You should strive to fill them with learning and gaining comfort, joy, and pleasure as much as you can.
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.
In contrast to atheism, religion give definite laws for a moral life. The relationship between religion and morality is important for questions of practical moral decision. Religious ethicists have a long record of attempting to relate theory to practice in moral discussion. The ability of a moral system to provide practical guidance is especially important during times of extensive moral confusion.
Religious activity extends, of course, well beyond the range of specifically moral concerns. Religious scholars have typically insisted, however, that religious teachings provide the larger context in which the claims of morality find their proper place.
Compare religious teachings to the infinite stretch of time, and think that person will cease to exist, that he will be no more but an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.
Critics of religiously based moral perspectives undermine the fact that Religious teachings are narratively rich. These narratives provide the believer with an expanded sense of what is morally possible: the belief in miracles and a Final Judgment, and a sense of access to divine sources of strength and blessing, can have an important impact on moral motivation.
Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance. There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.
On the other hand, I believe that whole structure of morals in secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that had given knowledge on human values in a systematic manner and people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.
Please listen to this inspiring talk by Alain De Botton (an atheist) on how religion is important for Atheism.
[quote='Pickup_shonuff' pid='757506' dateline='1411552853']
LOL. I stopped reading here. What is a religious person? A follower of Yahweh? Of Mohamet?
Religious Person is a person who manifests devotion to a deity. The essential quality of a religious person is to depend on God. The truly religious person does not flee the world but withdraws to attain personal realization and returns to apply the insight thereby gained to better society.
The identity of a religious person is set through the system of rituals defined by particular religious law, which join the community based on same Faith.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: But then, that wouldn't be the first thing you'd looked like an idiot over, eh Harris?
Oh, and also, the bolded number? Seems to have come directly out of your ass. The real numbers are actually lower: the atheist population of prisons is something like 0.7 percent according to official documentation, and it's actually lower than it should be relative to the atheist population at large, too. Meanwhile, religious people dominate prison populations, and are also in prison at higher rates than one would statistically expect, relative to their actual populations. And I did provide a source there, Harris, since I know you'll forget if I don't point it out. You're just wrong, yet again.
Frankly speaking figures 1% or 0.7% or 0.2% of atheist prison population kept me in surprise until I have not read the real facts.
I tried to find some government link for the verification on these figures but failed. However, I found an interesting article on one sceptic blog, which criticizes such statistics as misrepresentation.
Here are some excerpts from this article:
Reliability of Previous Statistic
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.
Deciphering The Data
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.
Yes, that check and balance is called the rest of the culture. Haven't you been paying attention?
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.
Statistics, our modern understanding of psychology, and a number of other sciences, say otherwise. But then, I'm sure your fatuous and unsupported assertion is more convincing than all that evidence based research.
USA has the best secular laws in the world. Statistics of crime in USA shows that law is not helping people to become virtuous and wise. Crime rate is rising not declining.
Atheist love evidence but when evidence is presented to him, he simply ignore that. To every compelling fact, you say “assertion.” Here is the evidence.
How far man will go away from God that much he will become slave of his own desires. Desires for pleasure and enjoyment never bring wisdom and virtue rather pushe the person to selfishness and arrogance.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?
There are plenty of early human cultures, as I pointed out, that left governing documents that were both secular and held a lot of the positive tenets that religious documents hold to, while predating them all the same. The Code of Hammurabi being one of the earliest: it predates the Abrahamic religions by quite a while.
Hammurabi existed only yesterday! They are categorised as modern humans compare to your real evolutionary ancestors. Question remain unanswered, what were the morals in the culture of your real ancestors billions of years ago.
(September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris Wrote:According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.
And why the fuck should I take this assertion of yours seriously when you won't back it up? This is just you desperately inventing fairytales to retrofit your desired conclusion over the fact that anthropology contradicts you, and has actual evidence to support it.
Unsurprisingly, I find your little fantasies entirely unconvincing.
Religious scriptures are leading different cultures since the time of Prophet David, more than 3,000 years. Do not try to undermine this fact by declaring these scripture as fairy tales.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Incest or torturing a baby is not absolutely immoral. There is not such thing as "absolutely" immoral.
Don't confuse absolute morality with objective morality. Your god's morality is absolute and subjective. Human morality is often contingent and objective.
Historically, absolute morality leads to totalitarian states.
Obligations of the nature you just described are almost never ethical.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: 1% atheist prisoners of total world population = 70,000,000 - WRONG
Case two:
If you are saying, Atheist prisoners are 1% of the total atheist population then point to some authentic source that justify your claim.
Case 3: 1% of the total prison population is atheist.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: I say that we determine our own purpose, that we evolved and that we develop our own morals irrespective of whether or not there is a god. God's non-existence is incidental.
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).
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Selfish person do not care for morals and good or bad reasoning. If he loves incest or rape, he will go after it to satisfy himself.
Says who? I'm extremely selfish and yet I care a great deal about morals based on good reasoning.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life?” All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?”
Nonsense. Laws are required for life here - they have nothing to do with afterlife.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The only way to stop selfishness and brutality is by the use of force.
Not the only way - just religion's way.
Oh, Yeah! So those ELECTRIC CHAIRS and GAS CHAMBERS are there only for fun!
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Sounds as moronic as you.
False dichotomy, btw.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Only remove the idea of accountability from the minds of people and see how quickly they transform from rational beings into nasty beings. That is exactly what happened with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler kill, Chiang Kaikillshek kill, Vladimir Lenin, Hideki Tojo and Pol Pot.
Putting in imaginary accountability isn't much better.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Atheism only helps removing the idea of moral accountability and pushes people to selfishness. However, this idea of moral accountability is crucial because it provides the power within people to control their egos without enforcement of any threat of external powers.
Nonsense - atheism simply removes imaginary accountability.
Moral accountability to oneself is a sign of a truly selfish person.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: “If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible what was the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.”
Wrong.
Prove Solzhenitsyn is wrong by giving logical reasoning instead of throwing one word in empty air.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Yes! People are capable to study philosophy of morals but think about how many people are there who bother to dig heap of those philosophy books in order to learn how to live a moral life. On top of that, philosophy of morality only tackles with the muddled hitches of morality and it does not gives any agenda on how to live a moral life. The evident example is the secular world, which lacks institute that is capable to provide precise guidance to a pure moral life. Secondly, think about people who are mean and selfish and do not care about morality.
Wrong. Philosophy does teach how to live a moral life. But an institute dictating morality would be immoral itself - a person has to judge that for himself. Secondly, it is impossible to be truly selfish without being moral.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, conscience get diseased or get deceased.
On the contrary - faith in anything whether god or an ideology - is the disease of morality.
“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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You see the designs around and within your being but not the Designer. You reject the existence of the designer (God) simply because you cannot perceive Him with your physical senses.
I see no design. And I reject your god because the idea is patently illogical.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: When you do scientific research, you use logic concerning indiscernible phenomenon. However, if you cannot identify God with your physical senses then you are not interested to use the same logic because if you get convinced in the existence of God then you may give up some of your favourite habits, which you do not want to give up.
You err in your assumptions.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If we can believe in the idea of ten dimensions, which is outside the capacity of our minds to perceive, then what is the problem in believing the existence of the world that, perhaps, exists in those perplexing 9+1 dimensions and parallel to our 3+1 dimensional world? Perhaps, all monotheistic religions have talked about that same invisible world which string theory is trying to explicate in the language of science.
When your god has the same logical support for it that string theory has, then you can talk.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Similar to Genkaus you have also passed over the fact that alongside morality, immorality is also the part of human construct and it needs proper system of check and balance.
Imaginary constructs like god or heaven are not a proper system of checks and balance. We prefer things based on reality.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The laws of man may bind a pleasure seeker in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise and virtuous if he disbelieves in God. Without faith in God, there can be no conscience.
On the contrary, being wise and virtuous is possible only through rational thinking and understanding the nature of things - faith in god is antithetical to that and therefore a disease upon one's conscience.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Keep in mind that atheism had never produced any atheistic religion.
Yes, do keep that in mind.
The next time some moron says that atheism is a religion or a worldview or talks about "atheistic morals" - keep this in mind.
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.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Now my question to you is as being an atheist which religion(s) are you following to maintain your moral views because I am unsure that there is any atheist who studies philosophy of moral to build a perfect moral code for his/her life.
Allow me to correct your unsurity - I am an atheist and I study philosophy to build a moral code for my life and no, I do not follow any religion.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Morals can be develop on the rational grounds but where is the guarantee that FREETHINKERS are the angles from whom we do not expect anything immoral in the name of morality?
If it is developed on rational grounds then it doesn't rely on freethinkers themselves. Their being free from personal desires is irrelevant - any influence of personal desires can be pointed out as irrational and thus removed.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Bible is the Word of God
Prove it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: After looking at the prevailing influences of Bible over people, FREETHINKERS have corrupted it’s verses for the sake of gaining power and possession. Today’s Bible is a corrupted version of the original Bible because scriptures cannot be Divine
I agree.
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
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In the contemporary world, the same FREETHINKERS have wiped out the name of God from their dictionaries for the sake of seeking pleasures within and outside of moral limits. These FREETHINKERS are cunning enough, as they have done so within the scope of rationality to convince people on their immoral acts. But this gives rise to a question for those who are convinced at legalisation of homosexuality and prostitution that, have we accomplished ample knowledge of all troughs and crests of rationality?
Yes. And if it is within the scope of rationality, then it is not immoral.
“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”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Within 400 hundred years, atheists have killed people insanely. The number is astronomical that cannot be defeated by the combined number of killed people in the entire human history. Check out the history books.
Do you even realize how nonsensical this argument is? Moron.
And religion has killed many, many more.
Atheist regimes have killed 143,637,003 people within the span of 300 years only. Go and try to beat this figure.
… “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
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It does exist but it has not given any established code of conduct. You have to assemble your own code by taking guidance from that philosophy. In such exhaustive drills, only few people are interested. Secondly, you cannot build up your own code until you have scholarly skills. Look around you and tell how many people have the scholarly skills. The easy way is to look into religious teachings for the guidance to live a moral life.
I agree - looking to religion for a moral code is the easy way out. But that''s not the right way. Especially given the corrupt morals of religion.
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.
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: The right way would be to help people develop the necessary scholarly skills.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Manmade laws cannot equate the laws given in the scriptures. Manmade laws are the Mumbo Jumbo of men’s desires and desirable religious contents.
Equate??
They are far superior to your scriptural mumbo-jumbo.
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. They have already produced a culture where “Father of my daughter is my father.” It will not be a surprise if tomorrow these far superior laws make anal sex compulsory for everyone.
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-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: A person, whether theist or atheist, cannot regard importance, worth, or usefulness of morals without the sense of moral accountability. Sense of accountability is crucial for a self-critique. Without the quality of self-critique, a person is a FREETHINKER like a beast in the wild where only powerful has the right to live and enjoy life. Religion gives the vision of self-critique to every believer, control his wild desires, and develop insight into fellowmen’s emotional states.
An imaginary vision.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In contrast to morality based on religious teachings, manmade rational laws are only workable at the cost of using force. In contrast to religious morality, manmade laws can control people but they cannot make them virtuous and wise.
On the contrary - man-made rational laws work for most rational people without any use for force. Force is required only for irrational people - like religious zealots. Religion, on the other hand, works exclusively on the threat of imaginary force.
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.
“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-
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islam is a religion based on logic. Therefore, all its laws are logical.
Wait, not done.
Go on. Tell another one.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Humanist may say this law is barbarism. However, if you dig some interviews of the victims, those victims will give you understanding about what disgusting humiliation they had gone through. I personally know cases where victims of rape committed suicide.
People may give their right or wrong opinions about punishment to a rapist but interestingly, whenever I posed questions to my atheist friends about their actions if someone rape their wives or daughters, believe me or not but 100% answers were in favour of the capital punishment.
A perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.
Correct! Rapist is truly “a perfect example of morals based on personal desires and not on any kind of logic or rationale.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: USA is one of those unfortunate countries that faces highest rate of rapes in the world. USA has the finest secular laws in the world but those laws are helpless to control the sexual crimes in the country.
Highest reported rapes.
Islamic countries, on the other hand, redefine rape and have laws to make them harder to report. At least the laws in US don't promote sexual atrocities.
Assertion. Bring the facts in your argument. Do not talk abstractly.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Now think about implementing Sharia Law in USA at least to stop rapes. Only after two or three culprits get capital punishment in public do you think sex crimes will increases, remain same or decline radically? My answer is it will decline radically.
If we impose Sharia law? They'll definitely increase, they just won't be called crimes anymore.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: I am with Genkaus.
“The law of the land governs only our public life and that to a limited extent. It is not sufficient as a guide for the whole life.”
Just to be clear - only on this question. Also, I'd say that that is all the law of the land should govern. It should not reach into my personal life.
Which is why the idea of imposing of Sharia law is disgusting.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islamic teachings give most logical reasoning for the segregation of sexes in communities. This topic I will discuss in my next post.
If by 'logic' you mean based on bigoted presuppositions, I agree.
In logic there is nothing like “Bigoted presuppositions.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: As for the poverty, Islam has provided most effective laws in the world. Abundance of literature available regarding Islamic laws to minimise poverty however, here I will Harris Wrote only one verse from Quran in this context.
Is that why Islamic nations are so poor?
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: So what kind of punishment you prefer for someone if he has sexual relations with your wife? How will you treat your wife if you learn she is in sexual affairs with another man behind your back? What are your suggestions to stop sexual abuses in a society?
Consensual relations? No legal punishments for either the wife or the other guy. Whether or not this results in a divorce would depend on facts on the ground.
And to stop sexual abuses - let's start with getting rid of religion.
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!
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You think all those believers are stupid and only 2% atheists are genius.
Not stupid - just mistaken.
You, on the other hand, are stupid.
Yeah! Around four billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews are mistaken and handful of atheists are not.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.
And we've finally succeeded and changed those nonsensical rules and regulations. Not completely, but to a great extent. And we shall not stop.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that.
We don't blame religion for that - not at all. We blame it for people going against their personal desire to fulfill religious laws.
Like the part about stoning your wife to death if she commits adultery.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do.
I doubt that.
You doubt because logically atheism is a big hole in the middle of morality.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.
it is the only thing that can liberate it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.
Unlike religion - which maintains all the wrong standards.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.
Unlike religious laws that are based on use of imaginary force.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.
Thus, it is applied through fear and threat of force.
Correct! Through fear and threat of losing infinite love and infinite mercy of God.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers.
In that regard, it is exactly the same as other religions - the whole "justice after death" is a false hope.
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? According to the data on near death experiences collected by Dr. Peter Fenwick
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.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.
Atheists don't have religious morals, but most of us do study philosophy and develop our morals based on that.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend.
Ofcourse it is. Just listen to you talk about atheism and morals.
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?
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths.
You telling me that whoever wrote those scriptures foresaw the rise of ISIS and still wrote it the way he did? What kind of dumbfuck retard would do such a thing? Oh, wait....
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.
They were not suitable then and they are not suitable now. Universal, my ass.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.
So, the NT bible is the corrupted version? Atleast it is better than the quran.
Have you ever read Quran? I do not think you have sufficient knowledge about Quran because your arguments are pure speculations.
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 do not think many of the decent atheists agree with you in the idea of transforming respectful human society into gay and lesbian culture.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”
Only those who are not wise or virtuous based on rational morality.
Are gays and prostitutes “wise and virtuous based on rational morality?”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Leaders of atheism do not think like you.
What leaders of atheism? Who are these leader? I don't remember casting any vote.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking.
Exactly. One of those superstitious beings would be your god.
You are picking bits from my writing and quoting them out of context to distort their meanings.
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.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.
Yes - they are called "religious".
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods.
Between the three of them they employ almost every logical fallacy known to us. Those three arguments not only conflict with, they openly flout the rules of rational thinking - as has been proven in this forum many, many times over. If those three arguments are the best you got, then you got nothin'.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.
Only as far as irrational beings are concerned.
Better, I would be an irrational being rather than rational like you who support prostitution, homosexuality, rape, and incest, an inhuman way of life.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.
Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.
God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.
Blah, blah, blah, god, god, blah....
Nothing interesting or logical here.
Oh Sorry again! For I have not talked about legalization of prostitution and homosexuality (the most logical and most rational concepts for you)
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.
Get your facts right - we're still working on prostitution and we've not won the battle for homosexuality just yet. We can't call it an achievement until we've achieved it.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.
If the life of your pedophile and war-mongering prophet is an "ideal" example, then we are well rid of that morality.
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.
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: You have plentiful of information about your evolutionary ancestors. Do not you like to share some of your acquired information with us about the morals which your evolutionary ancestors were living with?
According to the teachings of all monotheistic religions, God had given complete moral knowhow to the very first man He created, The Adam. Therefore, people never lived without the concept of moral accountability. They, perhaps, rejected the idea for whatsoever reason or they perceived it differently than we do today but everyone was aware of it in all times in the entire known human history.
Adam wasn't my "evolutionary" ancestor - and I object to the idea of being a product of incest.
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.”
(September 24, 2014 at 7:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Harris Wrote: First, politicians (no matter they are believers or not) who adopted secular laws like legalization of homosexuality and prostitution are all egocentric beings.
Wish they'd be as egocentric as that.
Longer I discuss with you more confident I am to state that atheism is a disease to human conscience.
[quote='genkaus' pid='757528' dateline='1411558488']
Harris Wrote: Second, God has given us the free will to live our lives in what way we like. He has also given us the guidance through scriptures and prophets on how to control our wild desires and how to live moral lives in....
Holy Jesus cakes!!
This is the post that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends, some people started reading it not knowing what it was,
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
(September 24, 2014 at 8:12 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I find it rather amusing that Harris' religious views are "logical", but in his last post he says
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.
(October 12, 2014 at 12:28 am)Harris Wrote: Frankly speaking figures 1% or 0.7% or 0.2% of atheist prison population kept me in surprise until I have not read the real facts.
I tried to find some government link for the verification on these figures but failed. However, I found an interesting article on one sceptic blog, which criticizes such statistics as misrepresentation.
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.
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...
Natskep Wrote: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.
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-existing disagreement with the data I posted, didn't you? hock:
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.
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"
Think, next time.
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.
Quote:USA has the best secular laws in the world. Statistics of crime in USA shows that law is not helping people to become virtuous and wise. Crime rate is rising not declining.
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.
Quote:Atheist love evidence but when evidence is presented to him, he simply ignore that. To every compelling fact, you say “assertion.” Here is the evidence.
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!
Quote:Hammurabi existed only yesterday! They are categorised as modern humans compare to your real evolutionary ancestors. Question remain unanswered, what were the morals in the culture of your real ancestors billions of years ago.
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.
Quote:Religious scriptures are leading different cultures since the time of Prophet David, more than 3,000 years. Do not try to undermine this fact by declaring these scripture as fairy tales.
Good Job telling him where he went wrong, by the way.
hock: 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.
![[Image: tl-dr-o.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=stream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview6%2F2510141%2Ftl-dr-o.gif)
