Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Algebe
yes, i meant Robin Hood. Thanks for pointing it out.
I am saying that it is better to follow your own conscience than to simply blindly follow what someone or something tells you what your conscience should be.
Muhammad founded a religion, but it did not stop him from being one of the most immoral people who has ever lived.
I believe it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. I think Muhammad was wrong to raid caravans and to kill people for not submitting to his religion. Robbing the rich is an undesirable mechanism for helping the poor.
@Sapporo
You said: “I am saying that it is better to follow your own conscience than to simply blindly follow what someone or something tells you what your conscience should be.”
You are just making subjective statements. Why should your own conscience be a better judge? How do you decide whose conscience is more correct?
Secondly, can you provide proofs for the statements you made about Mohammed (PBUH). Moreover, even if what you say is true of Mohammed, how can you say that it is immoral, when all you have with you to judge morality is your own conscience, which is nothing but a product of your time and environment. If you had lived in the time of slavery that would have seemed alright to your conscience.
You said “Robbing the poor is an undesirable mechanism for helping the poor.”
According to whose conscience? It may be so for you, but there are so many people who might feel otherwise. In fact communism is the most patent political expression of that dictum.
@ROYISM: "In fact communism is the most patent political expression of that dictum."
No communism robs everyone and benefits only a tiny clique at the top. It's like religion in that regard.
@ROYISM: "How do you decide whose conscience is more correct?"
How do you decide? How do you know that what's written in your holy book is better guide to rightness than your own conscience? Do you learn nothing just from living in society?
@Algebe
You said: “No communism robs everyone and benefits only a tiny clique at the top. It's like religion in that regard.”
Whatever the details, my point is that going by conscience anything can be justified. There really is no way to tell what’s right and what’s wrong.
You said: “How do you decide? How do you know that what's written in your holy book is better guide to rightness than your own conscience? Do you learn nothing just from living in society?
You have to first of all make sure that the said holy book is indeed from the divine. Once you establish that, then it means that whatever the book says is good and bad should be accepted as is. But the question of how you establish the divineness of a book is a totally different subject. If you are interested we can have a discussion on that.
@ROYISM: "You have to first of all make sure that the said holy book is indeed from the divine."
No. First you have to make sure that the divine exists. Then you have to consider what kind of book a divine entity would write, and whether a divine entity would even communicate solely through printed pages. That's a rather unreliable way to spread such an important message? Books can be altered, lost, corrupted, misinterpreted. Why not just write the story on the sky or on the Moon?
And then there's the language problem. Why would the god of the entire universe communicate solely in the language of one small part of the planet? Why were there no Mohammeds in England, Australia, the Americas?
No. I don't think you can ever establish that any so-called holy book is divine.
@Algebe
You said: “That's a rather unreliable way to spread such an important message? Books can be altered, lost, corrupted, misinterpreted.”
I can show you a book that doesn’t have any of these issues.
You said: “Why not just write the story on the sky or on the Moon?”
How would that still save it from the problem of misinterpretation?
You said: “And then there's the language problem. Why would the god of the entire universe communicate solely in the language of one small part of the planet?”
I am not an Arab but I understand the message of Islam as clearly as any arab would? That’s the power of the human mind. In fact mankind has made all the progress it did because we could translate from one language to another and share concepts.
You said: “Why were there no Mohammeds in England, Australia, the Americas?”
There were prophets sent to every nation on Earth. That’s a fundamental tenet in Islam. Mohammed (PUBH) just happens to be the last one.
@ROYISM: "How would that still save it from the problem of misinterpretation?"
So your all-powerful omniscient god has communication problems and is unable to present its vital message to humanity in a way that would be beyond misinterpretation? Misinterpretations of "god's word" have caused all kinds of evil and misery for millennia. The Bible can be interpreted to justify anything from incest to mass murder. How about the Quran? Is that incapable of misinterpretation?
What prophet was sent to Australia? Is New Zealand mentioned in the Quran? How about Brazil?
@Algebe
You said: “So your all-powerful omniscient god has communication problems and is unable to present its vital message to humanity in a way that would be beyond misinterpretation?”
Misinterpretation of text is part of the free will god has given to man. Just as god has allowed man the freedom to kill, lie, steal etc… He has given man the freedom to misinterpret as well. However, a sincere man can easily disprove the misinterpretations and understand the truth clearly. To be able to appreciate that you will have acquaint yourself with the interpretive rules in islam.
You said: “Misinterpretations of "god's word" have caused all kinds of evil and misery for millennia.”
It’s not only misinterpretation… it’s man’s exploitative/wicked tendencies that has caused all problems. Misinterpretation is part of that problem.
You said: “What prophet was sent to Australia? Is New Zealand mentioned in the Quran? How about Brazil?”
Quran does not mention the names of all the prophets or their places. Only 25 have been named. But it categorically states that no nation has gone by without a prophet being sent to it.
Royism, is your interpretation the correct one?
@ROYISM: "It’s not only misinterpretation… it’s man’s exploitative/wicked tendencies that has caused all problems. Misinterpretation is part of that problem."
That brings us back to the linguistic question that I raised before. If god is all-powerful and all-knowing, why didn't it disseminate its message in language that cannot be misinterpreted, even by a child? Did you understand the Quran fully and easily as a child, or did you need to rely on your teachers to explain it to you? Why do you need Islamic scholars to decide points of doctrine? Why don't they all agree? Why are there different sects with different views about god's will, all based on the same book?
I'm a translator, so I know how hard it is to write clearly and unambiguously. Few people do it well. But surely a god could?
"Quran does not mention the names of all the prophets or their places."
That's because Mohammed (or god) didn't know about the Americas or the Southern Hemisphere. What other reason can there be for limiting the list to 25?
@Algebe
You said: “That brings us back to the linguistic question that I raised before. If god is all-powerful and all-knowing, why didn't it disseminate its message in language that cannot be misinterpreted, even by a child?”
This is like asking why didn’t god create us in a manner that we would not sin. From an Islamic theological POV, God created man with free will, as in he can choose to do good or evil. Misinterpreting a text is part of that free will. To ask for a text that cannot be misinterpreted is like asking for a humanity that cannot be corrupted. It goes against the basic scheme of things.
You said: “Did you understand the Quran fully and easily as a child, or did you need to rely on your teachers to explain it to you?”
Yes, I had to be taught. But so is the case with normal education. Just because it had to be taught, would you question the epistemic value of the subject – such as biology or physics? The same holds true to religion.
You said: "That's because Mohammed (or god) didn't know about the Americas or the Southern Hemisphere. What other reason can there be for limiting the list to 25?”
That’s a theory that’s unsubstantiated. Quran did not speak of India too… though India was well known to Arabs of that time. Same with China.
I didn't say my conscience was a better judge. My point is that it is better to act according to your own conscience than to follow something you find immoral simply because you are told to. Your tone suggests that you would follow anything your god told you to do, even if you thought it was immoral. In the Abrahamic religions, god told Abraham to murder his own son (Isaac in the earliest version of the tale), and Abraham was willing to do it. If you are willing to kill a child simply because you were told to, even when it is contrary to your conscience, you cannot claim to be a moral person.
Muhammad raided the caravans of peaceful merchants coming from and going to Medina, and murdered them, simply because the Medinans threw him out for causing political unrest. Islamic dogma says that that Muslims are to fight until the whole world submits to Allah. This is religious persecution and murder.
I have previously said that if there is an objective moral, it is the prevention of unnecessary pain. I am well aware that each person has a different conscience. Each individual must be informed by society and their own sense of justice when determining whether an act causes unnecessary pain. Islam claims to be an objective morality, but it doesn't even meet the minimum standards expected of it by international law.
A society that prioritises robbery does not value the creation and maintaining of a prosperous society. It is very easy to demonstrate that societies that value robbery are not prosperous. If a moral is not practical, I fail to see how it can be considered moral.
@ Sapporo
You said: “I didn't say my conscience was a better judge. My point is that it is better to act according to your own conscience than to follow something you find immoral simply because you are told to.”
It doesn’t make any difference, because your judgement is as subjective as mine (given your statements about my blind following is true)
You said: “Your tone suggests that you would follow anything your god told you to do, even if you thought it was immoral.”
You are repeating the fallacy unintentionally. Your morality being subjective your statement “even if you thought moral” is meaningless.
You said: “you are willing to kill a child simply because you were told to, even when it is contrary to your conscience, you cannot claim to be a moral person.”
I am arguing that conscience is not a reliable standard to judge morality. Therefore, you can’t say that what goes against your conscience is immoral.
You said: “I have previously said that if there is an objective moral, it is the prevention of unnecessary pain.”
Prevention of unnecessary pain for who? Going back to my Robin Hood example; the poor are robbing the rich because the poor are suffering, and the rich don’t seem to be too concerned. Does that justify robbing because it is alleviating pain.
You said: “Each individual must be informed by society and their own sense of justice when determining whether an act causes unnecessary pain.”
Society and own sense of justice? Then you would have to say that slavery was moral, because once upon a time the society felt it was the right thing to do.
You said: “Islam claims to be an objective morality, but it doesn't even meet the minimum standards expected of it by international law.”
And may I ask why international law should be any standard to follow?
You said: “A society that prioritises robbery does not value the creation and maintaining of a prosperous society.”
Why should I as an individual care for the society as long as I am prosperous and well off?
You said: “It is very easy to demonstrate that societies that value robbery are not prosperous. If a moral is not practical, I fail to see how it can be considered moral.”
I see the US as one of the most prosperous countries in the world, yet it is the country that has directly or indirectly indulged in the most number of wars – most of them based on lies. Yet, I see the society is doing well compared to other countries which have caused far less harm to the world. Similarly, I also see the most wicked individuals living off far better than many honest and decent humans. I don’t think I have to produce examples to prove my point.
Royism, you wrote, “I see the US...it is the country that has directly or indirectly indulged in the most number of wars...”
You see incorrectly then.
@ROYISM
But your conscience is not as good as mine. You have already revealed that:
1) you act only out of fear of punishment, and not because you regard an act as "good".
2) if "god" told you to kill a child, you would do it, even if it was against your conscience.
So what good is your conscience if you don't use it?
All unnecessary pain/harm/suffering is bad, regardless of "who".
Robbery is a harmful act. Some may say it justified to prevent greater wrongs. That is not my call to make, as I am not in a directly relevant situation. I can only telling you that I believe robbery is a harmful act, and if followed as a matter of routine, it would cause more harm than good.
Following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be a good place to start.
You should care for the welfare of others because it is good in itself, and because it is beneficial to your own welfare.
If you are opposed to war, you should not be part of a religion that calls for its adherents to fight until there is worship only for Allah.
@Sapporo
You said: 1) you act only out of fear of punishment, and not because you regard an act as "good".
You are begging the question. I am still trying to understand what you mean by ‘good’ and your standard to judge it?
You said: 2) if "god" told you to kill a child, you would do it, even if it was against your conscience.
Conscious kicks in only after you have made your value judgement. Once I know killing a human being is wrong, then my conscious kicks in when faced with a situation where I have to kill a human. Why don’t you have any guilt while enjoying a chicken, because your ‘subjective’ value judgement tells you that killing a chicken is not wrong (for whatever reason). And so your conscious doesn’t kick in there. Hope the point is clear.
You said: “All unnecessary pain/harm/suffering is bad, regardless of "who".
What is ‘unnecessary’. Nobody commits a murder for no reason, unless you are a psycho. There is necessity behind every crime.
You said: “I can only telling you that I believe robbery is a harmful act, and if followed as a matter of routine, it would cause more harm than good.”
Did I see you use the word ‘BELIEVE’… that’s exactly what I mean. It’s just a belief at the end of the day.
You said: “You should care for the welfare of others because it is good in itself, and because it is beneficial to your own welfare.”
Good in itself??? What do you mean? Secondly, how is taking care of other beneficial to my welfare? By helping the poor I only lose money.
You said: “If you are opposed to war, you should not be part of a religion that calls for its adherents to fight until there is worship only for Allah.”
I am not opposed to war, I am only opposed to unjust wars. When the US attacked Vietnam, that was unjust. But what the Vietnamese were doing (fighting back) was not unjust. But yes, both were basically engaging in war.
By "good", I mean something which minimises pain and maximises pleasure. If I find something contrary to this, I tend to find it "wrong" or "bad", to varying degrees depending on what it is.
You have made it clear that killing children is not wrong, at least not when "god" tells you to do it. So you cannot claim that killing humans is wrong. When Abraham was told by "god" to kill his son, this was an intent to commit murder...for no reason except that he was told to.
It was necessary to include "unnecessary" in "All unnecessary pain/harm/suffering is bad", because billions of people seem to think that eternal torture for a lifetime of "sin" is justified. I consider all torture to be unnecessary, nevermind eternal torture, ergo All unnecessary pain/harm/suffering is bad, regardless of "who".
If you cannot see how the suffering of others is damaging to your emotional well-being, as well as damaging to the fabric of the society you live in, then I'm afraid that you will never be able to grasp this. I don't think this necessarily makes you a "bad" person - I'm not sure if anyone can meaningfully "choose" to be "good".
If you cannot see why minimising pain and maximising pleasure are "good", and are thus "good in themselves", then I don't think I can get you to appreciate what I mean by saying that "Good is innately good, and needs no additional justification". I understand that the concept of maximising pleasure while minimising pain may be anathema to you, given that Islam actually sees pleasure as a "bad" thing. I consider this stance to be immoral.
Islamic doctrine tells Muslims to fight until everyone submits to Allah: this is a war crime, never just. Muhammad also said that jihad is better when it is violent rather than peaceful, which is utterly immoral.
"Why shouldn't you cheat?"
For the same reason any decent person should be appalled at the idea that a 9 year old girl can consent to marriage and sex, but then you claimed that was ok as well. If you don't see the connection between immorality and pernicious behaviours then you will never understand human morality. Doggedly and blindly following archaic doctrine is not remotely moral.
And you can bang this drum forever, but your claims that a deity exists, and you know what it wants, and that what it wants is moral, are all SUBJECTIVE claims, so your idea of morality is completely subjective, and not at all moral.
@ Royism
"...you are a believer who has to fear a day of reckoning when you will be made to account for your deeds." Is that the only reason you are moral?
I refer you to the plentiful discussions about objective and subjective morality on this forum. The idea of an objective deity given morality has been comprehensively debunked by much better minds than mine.
None of the Abramaic religions can possibly claim moral high ground; from the sayings and deeds of their prophets to the reported actions of their deity, immorality, cruelty, murder, rape and genocide haunt every act.
@Old man shouts
I have had several discussions on morality myself in this forum. I am yet to find someone explain to me an objective way of making moral judgments. Do you have any method?
Royism: Why this silly focus on "objective way of making moral judgements". There is no such method and humans have made moral progress without it. "Objective morality" is a red herring.
@ Chimp3
You said: Why this silly focus on "objective way of making moral judgements". There is no such method and humans have made moral progress without it. "Objective morality" is a red herring.
If morality is subjective how can you call someone’s idea of morality wrong? As John rightly pointed out in this thread, why should your liking for color green be any better than my liking for red? There is no such thing as right or wrong judgement in issues of subjectivity.
@Royism: How can I say what is wrong? It is my right and who are you to deny me that? Are you a petty tyrant? This is the worst aspect of theism. Denying humans their basic moral thought and imposing a master plan.
"If morality is subjective how can you call someone’s idea of morality wrong?"
Subjectively obviously. What a particularly stupid question.
"f morality is subjective how can you call someone’s idea of morality wrong? "
Again, subjectively, but to me the rape and murder of a child is morally wrong independent of the existence of a deity, and again your moral claims are entirely subjective.
"why should your liking for color green be any better than my liking for red? "
It shouldn't, but again this a particularly stupid analogy even for religious apologetics, as liking one colour over another affects no one.
"There is no such thing as right or wrong judgement in issues of subjectivity."
That's an entirely subjective claim, and you're wrong.
Pages