Why Atheism/Secular Humanism... Part II

[Mister Agenda]

My much anticipated response - but first...

I really not a troll I believe what I write, I don't have enough time to go around messing with people on the internet. I'd like to have an intellectual discussion about the issues which I actually bring up in my post.

A troll usually is not misrepresenting their position, although someone who does is certainly a troll. The more common troll just presents their position in a way likely to provoke antagonism, out of a desire to provoke antagonism.

On Judaism: You guys seem to be quite versed in the ways of Judaism (sarcasm). Let me explain.

In Judaism there is no hell with fire or brimstone - so all this nonsense of "If I don't believe in your God will I rot" has no merit. We are a religion that not only doesn't proseyltize we actually will try to turn you away if you try to convert.

Next, we do have a heaven but its not the Christian or Muslim heaven of a garden of Eden with infinite physical pleasures - these things are considered very lowly on the Jewish totem pole. Our heaven is much more vague, according to tradition, once we die, our souls leave our body and become one with God.

I don't feel like discussing this - that wasn't the point of my original thread. I'm the first to tell you that religion has very little logical support and must be taken solely on faith.

Agree, all of the above is irrelevant to your proposition.

This is my meat and potatoes: Is religion needed in order for the masses to sustain themselves especially when facing a future where mechanization and 'human evolution' threaten to destroy humanity as we know it?

I suspect agriculture and industry are much more important than religion in regards to sustaining the masses.

Can Secular Humanism (again now abbreviated as SH and synonymous with atheism) build a moral framework is which we can resist our carnal, worldy desires?

SH is not synonymous with atheism. Not all atheists are Secular Humanists and not all theists aren't. Since the main concern of SH is building a sound moral framework for our actions, and among its main goals is a thriving humanity, I don't see why not.

I believe the answer is no.

But are your reasons for believing that sound?

Before we go down the road of speculation, lets look at the present day. Europe to me is a very sad case of what happens when a people lose God. Europe's (and Japan's) biggest problem right now is stablizing and decreasing populations. To you noobs out there this might seem like a 'good' thing (less resource consumption right?) but in reality its devastating economically, not to mention pretty sad. When I toured Europe for 10 days in October I saw very few families, very few children - compared to Israel which has loads of both.

Maybe Europe should do more to encourage immigration and integration. There's no lack of young people amongst its neighbors.

Why don't people want to have kids? Pure selfishness, which brings me to my next point.

Are you sure you're not overgeneralizing? There are many reasons to limit the size of one's family, and not everyone is fortunate enough to find someone with whom they would want to reproduce.

Without religion it seems people are less likely to give to charitable causes or care about their neighbor. There's alot of talk in the SH community of these things, but that seems to be the end of the line. Religious people are much more giving with their time and money to both family and strangers because religion teaches self sacrifice.

This source is very supportive of your contention, and despite the very unsupportable tactic of only counting regular churchgoers as believers finds only a 25% difference in charitable giving:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/polic...ticle/6577

I believe this can be accounted for largely by the social venue for giving that churches provide. There's no reason why humanist institutions can't do the same. And I strongly suspect a real comparison between people who identify as humanists and people who identify as religious theists would reveal a much more even level of giving; the folks who attend church less than weekly may be dragging us down in that study.

Ok - none of these things are that bad, I suppose. And on these alone I suppose I don't have a huge issue with SH, its the future that concerns me.

Disclaimer: In order to play along you need to take my speculation as fact or close to it. If you're going to call me a moron and say none of these things are going to happen, it will be a waste of all of our time. If you'd like to see why I feel this way, I'll gladly direct you to my sources.

The extrapolations of current technology you're suggesting are not that far-fetched, I'm willing to play along for the sake of argument.

As stated in the last thread, within in the next 2-3 decades we will begin fusing with machines slowly but surely until our form will no longer be considered human (at least not as we know it). Compounding this will be the onset of full immersion virtual reality where users will be able to enter virtual worlds in which one can be a hero, villian, actor, porn star or anything else that suits their fancy. This world will in every way be superior to ours.

Well why not just live there - you might say. Much for the same reason why you guys refuse to be religious - "its not real".

Bingo.

However, because SH lacks religion, you guys have cave men priorities in a more technical society with a higher moral code (that is totally based on religion but this is a topic for another day). Happiness to the SH is the end all be all. Without religion I believe you will all become cyborgs, put your brains in tubes so you can live in a virtual world uninterrupted, etc etc.

Your misunderstanding of SH is profound...at best, you've got it mixed up with utilitarianism. From Wikipedia, with the caveat that humanists are diverse: The Good Book: A Humanist BibleThe Good Book, compiled by A.C. Grayling, features ten commandments in The Good 8:11:

1.Love well. 2.Seek the good in all things. 3.Harm no others. 4.Think for yourself. 5.Take responsibility. 6.Respect nature. 7.Do your utmost. 8.Be informed. 9.Be kind. 10.Be courageous.

These come with the post-thought that the reader "at least, sincerely try" and an addendum in (The Good 8:12), "Add to these ten injunctions, this: O friends, let us always be true to ourselves and to the best in things, so that we can always be true to one another."

You might at this point respond that it doesn't matter, "who cares if we're happy". And that's exactly what I'm getting at.

I think expecting this response is at the core of your misapprehensions.

Because you've forsaken religion, the great force of human morality, you will eventually forsake your humanity itself effectively letting the world be ruled by machines.

I don't think anyone can claim that religion hasn't been a seriously mixed bag when it comes to human morality. One of the tasks of humanism is to sort the moral wheat from the chaff and keep whatever is good and wise while discarding the rest. And I suspect the bulk of permanent virtual reality inhabitants will represent the in-betweeners: those who are neither devout theists nor devout humanists.

Hope this isn't TLDR.

I hope the same for my reply.

[LastPoet]

Hell, I'll kudos you for quote-by-quote that idiot. Not that will matter much...

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks. If it gave anyone food for thought, I'm quite satisfied.

[Mystic]

Is your view however consistent with Quran. God has promised to be with and paradise for the "good people" (muhsineen). He loves the "good people". Right? But then he states those whom don't believe in Ayatallah (signs of God/guidance of God/revelation of God) will have painful punishment. He also promises disbelievers hell and states he hates them (see Suratal Fatir). The Quran also says "whom is more unjust then whom denies the truth when it comes to him" and other places "whom is more unjust then whom denies Ayatallah..."...and the most repeated thing in Quran is God promising hell for the disbelievers. If disbelievers can be good, then this would be injustice, because God would be punishing good people. Also it would be a contradiction because God says he doesn't love disbelievers but rather hates them in Quran, at the same time stating he loves the doers of good.

God does love the "doers of good" (muhsineen), but He loves them as long as their good deeds have a value or a connection to Him, which can exist only through faith (imaan).

In several verses in the Quran, it says that the good deeds of disbelievers are wiped away because they do not believe in God and hence there is no reward for their deeds. Therefore, atheists are not considered as muhsineen according to the Quranic verses because everyone's goodness is judged from a spiritual perspective. Faith is primary and good actions are secondary. So, if faith is not present in the first place, then all the good deeds will be nullified.

"Those who disbelieve and avert (men) from the way of Allah, He will render their actions fruitless." [47:1]

"And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dust dispersed." [25:23]

"But those who disbelieved - their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing but finds Allah before Him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift in account." [24:39]

I do believe that atheists can be good at heart, by their actions and morality, but just not spiritual-wise.

Also, here's a good overview:
The Quran, the Believers and the Non-Believers (by Ahmad Shafaat)

The point is disbelievers (which includes people whom disbelieve in Islam, not just atheists) can't be considered good people per Quran.

You say you believe Atheists can be good at heart, but if they are good at heart, they are good people. Why would God not love people good at heart? Why nullify all their acts? Why torture them? The Quran doesn't deem disbelievers can be good at heart. It in fact states they have a disease in their hearts. Their hearts are sealed and dark. They are blind and deaf.

They are said to be reduced to the lowest of the low.

This includes people of the book, which suratal bayana says those whom disbelieve from them as well as the polytheists are the worse of creatures.

Again, if you believe disbelievers can be good people, as you should, I would suggest re-thinking if Islam is the right religion.

Also there is verses that state disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind...

Now look at these verses:

إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ {22}
[Shakir 8:22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
وَلَوْ عَلِمَ اللَّهُ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا لَأَسْمَعَهُمْ ۖ وَلَوْ أَسْمَعَهُمْ لَتَوَلَّوْا وَهُمْ مُعْرِضُونَ {23}
[Shakir 8:23] And if Allah had known any good in them He would have made them hear, and if He makes them hear they would turn back while they withdraw.

This verse is so strong, it's stating God doesn't know any good in them.

وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا صُمٌّ وَبُكْمٌ فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ ۗ مَنْ يَشَإِ اللَّهُ يُضْلِلْهُ وَمَنْ يَشَأْ يَجْعَلْهُ عَلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ {39}
[Shakir 6:39] And they who reject Our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and whom He pleases He puts on the right way

[Rayaan]

*Re-thinking*

I think those verses simply mean that atheists are deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth. Likewise, their hearts and minds have also been "sealed" from the truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

So "vilest of animals" and "knowing no good in them" is falling on deaf ears now eh? Since when, by the way, is the Quran open to your interpretation Rayaan? Does it not say what it means and mean what it says?

[Mystic]

*Re-thinking*

I think those verses simply mean that atheists are deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth. Likewise, their hearts and minds have also been "sealed" from the truth.

It's more then that. If you go to the parable of light in Suratal Noor, the heart of the believer is deemed to have the light of God/light of Islam. It sees the light, it understand the wisdom, it hears the voice of God and call of God. On the other hand, disbelievers hearts are hardened by their actions, there is darkness in their hearts, and as Quran says, whom God gives no light, has no light. It's not only Atheists, but all disbelievers. The point Quran paints an image, is that if you have good in your heart, you should see the light of Islam and Quran easily. You should perceive that it's from God, believers can hear, see, and understand what disbelievers are blind, deaf, and dumb to. The reason they are blind, deaf, and dumb to it, is their own darkness. The darkness is a like a disease that God adds too, but is at fault of the person.

This is what I understand of the Quran. So from this perspective, you can't say disbelievers can be good people or good at heart.

[Rayaan]

So "vilest of animals" and "knowing no good in them" is falling on deaf ears now eh?

I think those statements are speaking about a specific group of atheists, not all atheists.

For example, here's one such verse (Surah 8:55):
"Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have rejected Him and disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe."

Some translations use "vilest of living creatures" while others use "worst of living creatures," but either one can be used, I think, because there's not much of a difference between them.

This particular verse is in the past tense and thus it comes under the heading of what is known as al-khaas (the specific) and not al-aam (the general) according to the science of Quranic interpretation. So, the ruling applies to some specific disbelievers (of Islam) of that time and cannot be generalized to include all disbelievers. And then it goes on to say that "they will not (ever) believe" which, again, does not necessarily apply to all disbelievers because there are many of them who do convert to Islam. Then, in the next verse, 8:56, it says that they are "The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time and they do not fear Allah." So, these people may have been a group of pagans or disbelievers in Mecca who made a treaty with Muhammad but they were actually betraying him and later they became hostile to his followers. This implies that the verse is talking about a specific group of disbelievers who lived during that time.

Since when, by the way, is the Quran open to your interpretation Rayaan? Does it not say what it means and mean what it says?

The Quran is always open to interpretation. That's the only way we can understand it. At the same time, we should also try to refer to tafseers (or commentaries) of the Quran written by scholars and those who are knowledgeable about the book because they contain many information that we may not know such as the meaning of certain words, the circumstances in which a verse was revealed, the historical context, etc. Knowing those things will help us to better understand the meanings behind the verses. Indeed, the Quran says what it means and means what it says, but again, the extraction of meaning is always a matter of interpretation.

This is what I understand of the Quran. So from this perspective, you can't say disbelievers can be good people or good at heart.

I agree with most of what you said. Yes, there are many verses which say that the disbelievers hearts are "hardened," that their is a "disease" in them, and that they are "deaf, dumb, and blind" to God's signs and revelations. However, in my opinion, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is something evil about their character or their morality. Rather, I think that such statements are used as a figurative language to describe their inability to perceive the divine. Deaf and dumb does not equal to evil. These qualities are not a reflection of their moral values.

That being said, I'm not going to judge someone at a personal level simply based on what he or she believes in. I like to see people from my own perspective.

[ElDinero]

What does it matter if it's all atheists or a 'specific group' of them? You're performing acrobatics because you don't want to say you agree with what it says, but you can't say you disagree. That much is clear.

[Rayaan]

There's a difference between the two as I mentioned above.
I agree with the statements in the Quran, yes, but not with the opinions of the posters whom I was addressing to.

Also, my "acrobatics" are just interpretations of what I already agree with.