Where are the Morals?

[genkaus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historically, absolute morality leads to totalitarian states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us do a simple math:

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

Atheist = 2.01% of the total world population

Total world population = 7 billion

2.01% Atheist population = 140,700,000

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

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


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

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

Do you see where you went wrong? Moron.

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

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

Not the only way - just religion's way.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bible is the Word of God

Prove it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Islam is a religion based on logic. Therefore, all its laws are logical.

.

Wait, not done.



Go on. Tell another one.

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.

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

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

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.

I intentionally kept this post short.

Ha.

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.

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.

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

Is that why Islamic nations are so poor?

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.

You think all those believers are stupid and only 2% atheists are genius.

Not stupid - just mistaken.

You, on the other hand, are stupid.

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.

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.

In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do.

I doubt that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Leaders of atheism do not think like you.

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

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.

Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.

Yes - they are called "religious".

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Again - example of morality based on personal desires.

This is about as low and disgusting as religious morality gets.