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.
A newborn child is an individual in their own right - and not a property of the mother.
@ Royism (ex Valiya)
Apologies for late reply ... I think there is a conflation between morality/immorality and what is "bad" or "good"...
I tend not to think in those terms..... my sole concern is always what is right and what is wrong....
In any given situation there will be a range of possible actions / responses / choices ....
Some will be "right" while others will be "wrong" ..... it is my decision which I will apply in each case....
Generally the criterion I use to decide which way to go is The most good for the most people or conversely the least harm to the fewest people.
With regard to your example of the woman deciding on her termination...... my opinion may well be considered by others to be incorrect ....... but that is no concern of mine ..... no more than if they consider it to be correct.
If asked I can justify my decisions ..... right or wrong ..... but I try not to be overly influenced by what other people think / say..
@ Watchman
You said: “Apologies for late reply ... “
No worries. It’s always a pleasure to engage you.
You said: “Generally the criterion I use to decide which way to go is The most good for the most people or conversely the least harm to the fewest people.”
You would have to first of all define ‘most good’. I am NOT trying to be difficult, these are real issues. Here is an example: Is saving the life of a fetus ‘most good’ or allowing the mother the right to abort it ‘most good’? Either ways, you will have to make an a priori judgement of value – as in whether you value a ‘potential life’ more or a ‘career’ more… Here is another example, let’s say a dictator is coming to invade your country. You can either choose to go to war with him or submit. By fighting a war, you may lose many lives but save your freedom. By submitting you will lose your freedom but save many lives. Which of the two is most good? There is really no way you can say one is better than the other, except based on your subjective understanding of value, which is quite baseless.
You said: “With regard to your example of the woman deciding on her termination...... my opinion may well be considered by others to be incorrect ....... but that is no concern of mine ..... no more than if they consider it to be correct.”
If you were critiquing a painting of Van Gogh, you would be right in saying that you don’t care what others think. But in mattes of right and wrong, you have to substantiate your claim (I agree you can’t make everyone agree with you) but you must be able to explain why you are right and they are wrong. Because what we believe to be right we have to endorse and what we think is wrong we must denounce. That’s the reason you are debating me, isn’t it? It is to show me that I am wrong, right?
You said: “If asked I can justify my decisions ..... right or wrong ..... but I try not to be overly influenced by what other people think / say..”
I would like to hear you justify your position on abortion.
@ROYISM...
"I would like to hear you justify your position on abortion."
OK...... Well ,you understand that differing circumstances will result in differing out comes for the same question....
IE. Circumstance 1.
Woman needs termination for medical reasons..... her own health/life would be threatened by delivering a full term child.
In this scenario medical expertise & advice trumps all else EXCEPT the woman's own wishes in the event she wishes to take the risk.
Circumstance 2.
Woman requests a termination on the grounds she does not want the child.
Now here I would normally consider a termination to be wrong ..... abortion should not be undertaken as a form of birth control .....
however I would also consider the merits of leaving a child to be raised by an unwilling mother..... condemning both mother and child to miserable lives.
indeed the needs of the mother too should be considered..... how would she cope with the permanent presence of an unwanted offspring both mentally and financially ....
plus the circumstances of the conception must also be taken into account is the child the product of incest or rapine
In these three instances I could consider a termination to be the right course.
So you see circumstances alter "morals"....
Consider.....you walk down a city street in any western city...... there on the pavement sits a down and out..... with his tin cup and card board sign.... " Please spare some change I need help"...... being the good Muslim you are.... you reach into your pocket and drop a few coins..... "thanks mate" says the derelict. You pass by.... knowing you've done right..... you gave alms.
The following day ,in the same place on the same street you see a different beggar ..... you ask him about your protégé of the previous day..... "oh him"...he says.... "He got hold of some money yesterday ,bought a bottle of vodka and drank all night until his liver gave out.... he died in the early hours this morning".
So it appears that your "good deed" was wrong.
This new beggar now asks for spare change what do you do ...?
@Watchman
All the circumstances you have explained are actually to do with the right course of action to undertake given a particular ‘moral value’ is upheld. The action follows the value, and not the other way round. Therefore, my question is not about the right action, but rather about the value. Where did you get that value from? Let me explain using Circumstance 2:
Circumstance 2.
Woman requests a termination on the grounds she does not want the child.
You said: “Now here I would normally consider a termination to be wrong ..... abortion should not be undertaken as a form of birth control .....”
Here you value the life of the fetus above the right of the woman to decide. Based on what did you make that value judgement? There are so many who think otherwise and would value the woman’s decision to do what she likes with her body above everything else. People in this very forum think so. Why should that value be wrong? I hope you understand my point.
You said: “This new beggar now asks for spare change what do you do ...?”
I would help him. In fact there is a ‘Hadith’ that explains a similar situation, where you help out of good intentions but it turns out to be unfruitful. The prophet said your intention is what matters in such circumstances and that we are not to judge someone unless we know that the person has bad motives.
@ROYISM...
(All the circumstances you have explained are actually to do with the right course of action to undertake given a particular ‘moral value’ is upheld. The action follows the value, and not the other way round. Therefore, my question is not about the right action, but rather about the value. Where did you get that value from? Let me explain using Circumstance 2)
No .... In my opinion , there is no "particular moral value " to be upheld .....or denied....
In reality there are only courses of action to be weighed ,steps to be taken , paths to be chosen.
Circumstance 2.
(Woman requests a termination on the grounds she does not want the child.
You said: “Now here I would normally consider a termination to be wrong ..... abortion should not be undertaken as a form of birth control .....”
Here you value the life of the fetus above the right of the woman to decide. )
No I do not so value the possible life of the embryo ...... remember the mantra ..... the greatest good for the greatest number, the least harm for the least number.
In an ideal world there would be no termination on such a weak pretext ......"not wanting a child" is not a good enough reason , we should each be accountable for our own actions .... the "no termination" choice is good for both mother and child ,for although it allows the child life ....it also removes the possibility of harm to the mother being caused by the termination process itself.
If the reason for the termination request is "not wanting a child because X,Y,Z, then that is a different question and must be judged on the merits or otherwise of X,Y,Z.
( There are so many who think otherwise and would value the woman’s decision to do what she likes with her body above everything else. People in this very forum think so. Why should that value be wrong? )
Indeed there are and there are circumstances where I would agree with them .... but that choice is not necessarily wrong ..... it is only wrong in my opinion in the given circumstance ..... but the opinions of others are not my concern.
(You said: “This new beggar now asks for spare change what do you do ...?”
I would help him. )
I'm glad to hear it..... although I sort of knew you would ....... What is right is right ...... and you cannot be held accountable for the beggars demise.... his choices were his and his alone.
@Watchman
You said: “No .... In my opinion , there is no "particular moral value " to be upheld .....or denied....
In reality there are only courses of action to be weighed ,steps to be taken , paths to be chosen.”
Well, that’s like you have no moral values! If there are no values, then how do you decide which course of action to take? You have to first make a value judgement – such as life of a fetus is more valuable than the career of a woman / or the right of woman to decide is more valuable than the life of potential fetus etc… it is based on this value judgement you decide the right course of action.
You said “No I do not so value the possible life of the embryo ...... remember the mantra ..... the greatest good for the greatest number, the least harm for the least number.”
Where did you get that mantra from? Why should that mantra be followed? What if someone believes in the Greatest Good for the Whites Alone or the Greatest Good for Rich Alone etc… after all that seems be the mantra that the elites of the modern world seem to be following.
You said: “In an ideal world there would be no termination on such a weak pretext ......"not wanting a child" is not a good enough reason”
I know so many couples who go for termination because they want to enjoy life without the responsibility of a child for a few more years! Why should their value for ‘enjoyment’ over the life of a ‘fetus’ be wrong?
@ROYISM ....
You said: “No .... In my opinion , there is no "particular moral value " to be upheld .....or denied....
In reality there are only courses of action to be weighed ,steps to be taken , paths to be chosen.”
Correct ....
Well, that’s like you have no moral values!
Again..correct ....
If there are no values, then how do you decide which course of action to take? You have to first make a value judgement – such as life of a fetus is more valuable than the career of a woman / or the right of woman to decide is more valuable than the life of potential fetus etc… it is based on this value judgement you decide the right course of action.
"Correct..... as I believe I illustrated "... and of course you have to go through the decision process for each new circumstance that you encounter."
You said “No I do not so value the possible life of the embryo ...... remember the mantra ..... the greatest good for the greatest number, the least harm for the least number.”
Where did you get that mantra from?
" I was reading about "Utilitarianism" ..... and Jeremy Bentham .... when I first came across the concept ...... and although I subsequently disregarded Utilitarianism I still think there is some merit in the mantra".
Why should that mantra be followed?
"It shouldn't necessarily be followed.... we must each find our own path".
What if someone believes in the Greatest Good for the Whites Alone or the Greatest Good for Rich Alone etc… after all that seems be the mantra that the elites of the modern world seem to be following.
"Then we must meet it as we meet all other wrongs in the world ..... oppose , research and speak out."
You said: “In an ideal world there would be no termination on such a weak pretext ......"not wanting a child" is not a good enough reason”
I know so many couples who go for termination because they want to enjoy life without the responsibility of a child for a few more years! Why should their value for ‘enjoyment’ over the life of a ‘fetus’ be wrong?
What. ? When contraceptive devices and medications are so readily available ..... then ,although I don't like to pass judgement , I would sugest that there is the exact reason their "enjoyment". .... is wrong.
@Watchman
I think you are missing my point. I want to know on what basis you are deriving your first principle. As in ‘greatest good for the greatest number.” I understand that you read it from some book. But that’s not what I mean. Why do you say it’s got any value? Moreover, what is good in ‘greatest good’?
@ROYISM ......
"Why do you say it’s got any value?"
Well it comes ,not from just "some book" ...... it comes from the " Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," by Jeremy Bentham ..... one of the early giants of the "Enlightenment" ..... It is true that even Bentham abandoned many of its tenets but the Greatest Good Mantra .... still in my opinion makes a good "rule of thumb" for most of what you theists refer to as "questions of morality"....
Why do you say it’s got any value ? ..... in general it works......
It does have a down side.... it is what decided Bentham to recant his support .....
In his day one of the biggest issues was slavery.... and yet under the terms of the mantra it could be represented that slavery was good in that all the slave owners ,their investors ,the producers and their workers who utilised the fruits of the slaves labours etc. all benefited from slavery. Obviously this is wrong .....
"what is good in ‘greatest good" ...
Now that IS a good question ..... Bentham used various words at various stages of the development of his line of thought ........ Originally it was "greatest happiness" .... then greatest pleasure .... he even tried greatest welfare in his attempts to encapsulate the principle .....
but greatest good was the one that stuck ...... and in general ,on an individuals choices it works well enough ..... and certainly (in my opinion) better than "What does Allah / Yahweh / Jesus / Buddha /Quran /Bible /Tanakh say...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham
"Someone else can argue that he robs the rich and gives them to the poor because he knows it to be right. I mean, why should he be wrong? If your standard is “I set my own standards and I alone enforce them…” anyone can say so."
You said that, no one else claimed it was moral, and that is another of your straw man arguments as no one has claimed they set "their own standards and I alone enforce them". You're simply making up lies now.
@Sheldon
"I set my own standard and I alone enforce them" was stated by Sopporo. I was answering him.
If "God" tells a theist to do acts they consider immoral, such as murdering a child...how do you know that "god" is in fact "god" considering it tells you to do things you consider immoral (or alternatively, how do you know that "god" is objectively moral in such instances?)?
To do acts you consider immoral because of some "voice" again highlights why it is better to act according to your informed conscience, rather than blindly following the conscience of someone/something else. When I act, I act according to my subjective senses, which I acknowledge to not be perfect. The theist in all cases where they follow "the voice" does so not only through their own subjective interpretation, but according to the subjectivity of someone/something that claims to be objective.
I may be a sand castle, but at least I don't compound on my flaws by rooting myself to sand.
@ Sapporo
You said: “To do acts you consider immoral because of some "voice" again highlights why it is better to act according to your informed conscience, rather than blindly following the conscience of someone/something else.”
Even the notion of an informed conscience is baseless. You can only be informed in matters of facts, not in matters of value. For example: you can make an informed decision on how to treat malaria in a given population. However, your decision to help the sick comes from a value for human life… and that is not an informed decision in any way. A highly qualified medical doctor can decide not to treat the poor because he would not be able to make profits out of them. Although highly informed in ‘saving lives’ that information was of little use to him in making a value judgement.
You seem to be saying that I base my morals in terms of matters of fact, whereas you do things such as killing children simply because you believe "god" told you to. I think your criticism is only true if you see life as not something which inherently valuable, worth living free from pain and persecution. I understand that in Islam, Muslims are expected to give up their whole lives in the pursuit of some reward after they are dead, and are told to shun pleasure and persecute others until there is worship only for Allah.
@Sapporo
You said: “I think your criticism is only true if you see life as not something which inherently valuable, worth living free from pain and persecution.”
Inherently valuable? But who said so? Why isn’t an animal’s life valuable?
YOU said: “I understand that in Islam, Muslims are expected to give up their whole lives in the pursuit of some reward after they are dead, and are told to shun pleasure and persecute others until there is worship only for Allah.”
Please provide your proofs.
All life is valuable.
In regards what I said about Islamic dogma:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." - quran (2:216)
"And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." - quran (4:104) -
"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." - quran (4:74)
"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward" - quran (4:95)
"And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" - quran (8:39)
"And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." - quran (8:59-60)
"Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." - quran (9:20)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - quran (9:29)
"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." - quran (9:38-39)
"Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew. If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them." - quran (9:41-42)
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." - quran (9:73)
"But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." - quran (9:88)
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." - quran (9:111)
"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." - quran (17:16)
"Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." - quran (47:3-4)
"There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." - quran (48:17)
'A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."' - Sahih Bukhari (52:44)
@Sapporo Re: Islamic Dogma
Damn, that is some disturbing shit.
Re: Islamic Dogma (follow-up)
Here's something that disturbs me the most about that....
Why would anybody even WANT to follow that type of belief system??? I swear, it baffles my brain. I mean, what type of sadistic personality must a person have to believe that is a good way for people to live? And, sadly (disturbingly) it isn't limited to Islam. The Christian bible pretty much teaches the same type of militant mentality in much of its scripture. I'm sorry, but that is just fucking insane. *shaking head sadly*
@Sapporo
I thought you would bring proofs to show that Islam asks us to shun pleasures and persecute others. But all you have brought are verses related to war – all the verses you have brought come under two broad categories – one is war in self defense, and the other is war of conquest. I don’t think self defense needs any explanation. The wars of conquest are not meant for the forcible conversion of people into Islam. They are meant only in the manner of empire building like Alexander’s or Napoleon’s conquests. If you read all the verses you produced including verses that come before and after them, this would become clear. This is the reason that there was the concept of Jizya (non-Muslim tax) – if people have no option but to accept the faith or die, then how can there be a non-muslim tax, because (according to you) there would be no non-Muslims in a place conquered by Islam. And if you thought, non-Muslim tax is an oppression, I would like to tell you that if you were a Muslim, you would have to give Zakat (which is a Muslim tax). That’s the short answer for all the proofs you brought. But if you think there is any particular verse that doesn’t fit my response, please bring it up and we will discuss it further.
But Muhammad said the goal of Islam is to convert everyone to Islam...he didn't say "Only kill all those in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century who do not submit to Allah". Muhammad also said there would be a time when the Muslims would have to kill all the Jews, and he considered the Christians to be following a heresy. So aside from the polytheists, pagans, atheists, and heretical Muslims, he called for the killing of all Jews and Christians who did not recognise Allah as the one god.
Imperialism is wrong regardless of who did it and for what motive. That is contrary to international law.
@Sapporo
You said: “But Muhammad said the goal of Islam is to convert everyone to Islam...
No the prophet did not say that. In fact he had given a long list of instructions on how to treat Dhimmis with fairness. Dhimmis if you know are non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state. But yes, Islam is a proselytizing faith… and so it does strive to reach the message to others… but never through forcible conversions.
You said: “he didn't say "Only kill all those in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century who do not submit to Allah".”
He never said kill those who do not submit – whether it’s in arabia or outside. All verses related to violence is about battlefields, and once the conflict ends – there is to be no more violence against anyone. In fact most verses of violence ends with a warning note to Muslims saying “God does not like transgressors’ hinting at muslims who might like to continue violence after the battle.
You said: “Muhammad also said there would be a time when the Muslims would have to kill all the Jews, and he considered the Christians to be following a heresy.”
This is a reference to the end of times when there would be an apocalyptic war, led by the Jesus (after his second coming). Therefore, no muslims understands it as an exhortation for us to kill jews now. This is the reason that when Christian Europe persecuted jews blaming them for the black plague, it was the Islamic spain that gave them sanctuary.
You said: “he called for the killing of all Jews and Christians who did not recognise Allah as the one god.”
And yet his own aide was a jew. Yet he welcomed Christians from Najran and afforded them hospitality. Yet even today, centuries after Islam’s dominion, we have millions of Coptic Christians in places like Egypt and Palestine. Do I need to say that you have got your facts wrong.
Can you clarify how Muhammad and Allah would treat atheists, for example, when he said "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah", "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain.", "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."?
In regards the Jews:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." - Sahih Bukhari (52:177)
When he welcomed an enemy, he generally did it out of militarial convenience, because he was not strong enough to defeat everybody. That is why he later broke treaties he made with non-Muslims: it was more convenient.
Sounds like crimes against humanity to me.
@Sapporo
You said: “Can you clarify how Muhammad and Allah would treat atheists, for example, when he said "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah",
It would be just as how he practiced this verse in the case of polytheists of Mecca. When they were causing trouble by provoking wars, the prophet fought them until they were no longer in a position to cause problems. But he did not annihilate them or force to into Islam or anything of that sort once they were defeated.
You said: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain.",
This is talking about the glory of martyrdom in a just war… nothing about persecution or forceful conversion.
You said "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."?
How the prophet strove against them is clear from history. They were not killed or forced to convert… they were dealt with when they came for war, and once they desisted, violence stopped. And about their fate in hell… that’s a theological issue. You can choose to believe it or disbelieve it. It’s up to you.
You said: In regards the Jews:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." - Sahih Bukhari (52:177)”
Yes, as already explained, this is talking of the end times, when an apocalyptic war will begin led by Jesus. So, it’s got no bearing on how a muslim conducts himself with a jew or Christian now.
You said: “When he welcomed an enemy, he generally did it out of militarial convenience, because he was not strong enough to defeat everybody.”
When he entered Mecca as a victor, had he wished, he could have conducted a bloodbath… but he showed mercy to those very people who had persecuted him and driven him out of that place. And in the case of the Najran Christians, they did not represent any powerful empire or anything of that sort. They were just mere travelers, who were at the mercy of the prophet during the visit. He treated them with respect.
You said: “That is why he later broke treaties he made with non-Muslims: it was more convenient.”
Give me one instance where he broke the treaty.
"However the feelings I got were more along the lines of uncomfortable, dishonor, deceptive, untrustworthy. So now I'm wondering, did these 4 people not feel any of this?"
Exactly! The feelings you got indicate healthy degree of intellect and empathy for others.
I agree with Myckob but attribute their behavior more specifically to two things: lack of intellect and lack of empathy.
So this thread has been HIJACKED by Royism and is now about morality being objective or subjective. Since Royism is a believer in a god and believes that morality is objective then he/she needs to explain why every muslim or every christian, whomever he/she thinks is correct, why they all don't share the same morality! It is ironic that not all muslims agree on a singular morality, and it is the same with all christians. In fact, it is the same with all religious sects. There is not one universal moral code that they all strictly adhere to. They say that they do, but they don't. They can't agree on what that moral code would be. Therefore the fact that there are all these different versions of each religion and they all profess a moral code it proves that morality is SUBJECTIVE and that there has NEVER been an objective morality!
Boom!
@Mykcob4
You said: “Since Royism is a believer in a god and believes that morality is objective then he/she needs to explain why every muslim or every christian, whomever he/she thinks is correct, why they all don't share the same morality!”
Sorry. I don’t have to answer for why different people understand religion differently. I can explain why my interpretation is right. If there are logical holes in my explanation you can question that. I am not asking you to explain why different atheists have different opinions on issues of morality. I am just asking you to explain to me your standard.
@ Royism
"Sorry. I don’t have to answer for why different people understand religion differently. I can explain why my interpretation is right."
That is subjective reasoning, Your religious code and its moral (and not so moral) strictures are subjective if you subject it to your interpretation.
There, its not that hard.
@Old man shouts
Before you jump to that conclusion, you will have to know my interpretive methods. For that, you will have to have a basic knowledge about Islamic interpretive traditions. If you are interested, i can explain it to you.
Pages