Where are the Morals?

[Mister Agenda]

The only difference is the only salient difference: one is a theist while the other is an atheist. It's not very honest to redefine theists who don't meet your standards as 'pretty much the same as atheists'.

A person who belongs to some religious group but does not care whether god exists or not is in fact an atheist.

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

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.

This is word salad.

Religion gives specific knowledge about good and bad therefore it is not like atheism that faces dilemma of distinguishing between what is good and what is bad.

Theism isn't a synonym for religion. If you'd like to say 'religion' instead of 'theism' going forward, that is fine with me.

Even the belief that God is the creator of everything is sufficient to give a distinction between good and bad.

Not all religions define God as good, and mere theism is silent on the matter.

You say you do not believe in the existence of God or you believe that there is no god in both cases, the meaning is same and that is “NO GOD.”

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

If you say God does not exist, therefore, the term “belief” is irrelevant then that is the obvious evidence of your lack of consideration by all epistemological definitions. That shows your intellectual level is narrowed to the level of your primal senses.

I don't say God does not exist. That's what you say I say, but you are clearly a liar. The rest of your post is mere mouthings.

The logical structure of our mind is:

Sense
Experience
Memory
Knowledge
Logic
True or false
Reason
Belief

If you keep yourself up to the level of primal senses, simply because you think you do not need knowledge, logic, and reason more than the fulfilment of your primal needs for joy, pleasure, and satisfaction then that would hold you back from reaching the level of universal truth and belief. To reach the level of universal truth, sacrifice of materialistic desires is mandatory.

I've already sacrificed my materialistic desires. You don't know me at all, although you could if humility wasn't foreign to your nature.

Atheism provokes relativism. Yesterday, homosexuality was an immoral and abnormal act but today it is a permissible act on consensus and perhaps tomorrow it would be inescapable.

I'm not a relativist. Q.E.D.

Whereas Islam offers consistent universal laws. These laws never change with the changing trends of cultures.

Yet most Muslim-majority countries do not carry the death penalty for apostacy or adultery and still claim to be following Islam. Muslims are little better at following their 'universal laws' as the times change than Christians are. Thank goodness.

If homosexuality was abandoned yesterday, it is abandon today and it will be abandoned tomorrow as an unnatural, immoral and sinful act. There are no gaps in Islam because commandments of Quran are unfailing.

Mere assertion--and preaching, dismissed as such. And the Q'uran does not contain a legal prescription specifically against homosexuality. Modern Muslims seem much more focused on it than Mohammed was.

“Because Allah will never change the grace which He hath bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls: and verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).”
Al Anfaal (8)
-Verse 53-

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

“The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.”
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 115-

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

“If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change. For Allah hears and knows (All things).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 181-

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

Atheists throwing these and other similar phrases on the faces of religious people quiet often. I am not the one who is inventing these phrases.

You're the one who thinks you can tell 'what atheists think' by what some say on the internet.

Some similar expressions:

“THE BRAIN with which you are UNDERSTANDING my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurones.”
Page XIII
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins

So? Richard Dawkins isn't the pope of atheism. We don't have one.

“Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of PHYSICAL ENTITIES within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles”
Page 14
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins

It does not follow from thinking our brains are what we think with and that nature is naturalistic that we should:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. That we have instincts, brain chemistry, and mental wirings doesn't mean that they justify anything. Evidence and reason is needed in addition.

“The human brain runs first-class SIMULATION SOFTWARE.”
Page 88
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins

The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for, is materialism: there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter — the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology — and the MIND IS SOMEHOW NOTHING BUT A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON. In short, the mind is THE BRAIN. According to the materialists, we can (in principle!) account for EVERY MENTAL PHENOMENON using the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift, photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition, and growth.
Chapter: Why Dualism Is Forlorn
Consciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett

And none of that supports your claim that atheism brings us to 'commandments' to:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

And apparently you couldn't find a single quote to support your lie that it does. Plus, not all atheists are materialists, and Dawkins and Harris and Dennett have no power to change that fact. No one is the boss of atheism. No one has any authority to dictate atheism.

Actually, you are trying to distort my words. In my articles and responses, I usually use word religion in place of word theism. I am precisely upholding ISLAM.

That comparing atheism and Islam is fallacious is precisely my point. If you want to compare humanism and Islam, go right ahead, but comparing a specific and complex religion to a a single opinion on a single topic is ludicrous.

Address this question to Dawkins.

Why on earth is a question directed at Dawkins relevant?

“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

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

No power mad and paranoid dictator, like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. was a sensible person (I agree) however, those power mad and paranoid dictators and all their supporters were atheists.

More to the point, they were communists. All the power mad and paranoid dictators that preceded them seem to have been theists of various stripes.

The blame goes on to atheism for making them immoral and irrational beasts.

I have as much in common with a Stalinist or a Maoist because I'm an atheist as you have with Shaitan-worshipper because you are a theist. If atheism made people immoral and irrational beasts, we would make a higher percentage of prison inmates, wouldn't we? Though it isn't atheism that keeps us out of jail, most modern Western atheists are humanists, a moral philosophy that emphasized compassion. It's almost as if it's what one DOES believe that influences their actions rather than what one doesn't believe.

I have already expressed my views that out of 7 billion people, Atheist have not yet reached even 200 million mark. This fact is enough to state that atheism is irrational, illogical, and goes against the nature of man.

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

Manmade laws lead humanity to relativism.

Ethical rationalism isn't relativistic. You don't even understand your own examples.

There are no universal values in atheism which in fact leads humanity to dictatorship where the powerful has right to impose his desired laws over the feeble.

There are no universal values in theism, either. You're still trying to compare apples and oranges. I think you're avoiding comparing humanism and Islam purposely because you know Islam would come up short.

Atheism pushes people to the law of jungle where the feeble should suffer for the enjoyment of the powerful.

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

I am not worried about Polytheism, Buddhism (atheistic religion), Paganism, Animism, Pantheism, totalitarianism and of course Atheism. In Quran, I find logical answers to every concern relevant to human life.

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

Quran teaches that fornication, adultery, incest (based on consensus or not), homosexuality, alcoholism, gambling, disrespect to elder parents, disrespect to neighbours, meanness ... are the acts which are illogical, irrational, and against nature of man and therefore sins. I committedly agree with all that.

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

Islam is based on standards set by God, which are not conditional to cultural customs. Therefore, if homosexuality and adultery were sins yesterday, they are sins today and they will be sins tomorrow regardless of changing trends of influential cultures.

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

In today’s world, other than Quran, all scriptures are corrupted versions of their originals. Therefore, any religion that is based on corrupted scripture classified as UNRELIABLE.

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

I believe every religion in today’s world evolved from one single religion by means of concoctions and corruptions. According to Quran that first religion was:

“Submission of self to the will of God.”

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

Today, we call that religion Islam. Why Islam is authentic religion because Quran is not a corrupted and concocted scripture, which is a miracle in itself.

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

Quran is all about accountability in the afterlife.

Accountability in this life is more effective.

Study life of Prophet Mohammad, life of his close companions, and spouses. That study would give you sufficient examples on how these pioneers had demolished unethical norms in different societies with the help of universal commandments of Quran.

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

As I said earlier, I never talked about atheism vs. theism. You can target Islam, if you wish, instead of chasing theism. It would be precise and to the point.

When you target humanism instead of chasing atheism, I think that would be wonderful. But you seem to only get my point when you're on the receiving end of having someone drone on about a postiion that hasn't much to do with what your really think.

An atheist, thinks that Humanism is nothing more than an empty figure of speech – a secular version of theism in which atheists have replaced the idea of God’s providence with a conviction about the nature of progress.

On the Nature of Progress, he said:

“The core of the belief in progress is that human values and goals converge in parallel with our increasing knowledge. The twentieth century shows the contrary. Human beings use the power of scientific knowledge to assert and defend the values and goals they already have. New technologies can be used to alleviate suffering and enhance freedom. They can, and will, also be used to wage war and strengthen tyranny. Science made possible the technologies that powered the industrial revolution. In the twentieth century, these technologies were used to implement state terror and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge not even in the long run.”

John N. Gray: "Joseph Conrad, Our Contemporary," from Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions (2004)

What is it with you and quoting random people? Are you afraid to engage with what the people you are talking to you actually think? Are you unable to express your own opinions. I can't even tell if that's what you think or what you think I think. Context matters.

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

And?

Study Quran and Hadith in any renowned Madrassa.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

And, all those Secular Greeks were riding on the backs of deities just like secular governments in contemporary world are riding on the backs of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

How so? On what religious moral precept of Apollo did Aristotle depend? Do you believe Hera was real?

“No atheist has the authority to speak for all of us,” because there are no universal standards in atheism. Every atheist has his own fabricated morals independent of others so why to listen other.

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

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