Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
bladeknight

are atheist's going to hell?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I think you need to make a distinction here between empiracal evidence and that which is deduced. There is no problem with a blind person and colour. Colour can be demostrated to exist even though a blind person cannot experience it directly. The requirement of being able to experience something directly on a personal level before being accepted is simply hopeless. It is enough that evidence can be presented. The problem with the belief in God is that it is used to justify actions that directly affect others who do not share the belief, and it is important that just actions are based on reason not belief. For example if blind people had a belief that they could detect the smell of evil and they could convince enough people that this was true, would it be just for them to become judges? Would it be just for parents to deliberately make their children blind in order that they can become great persons serving their country? If blind people told that they could detect much evil coming from cars, would it be just for a non believer to demand empiracal evidence of this alleged ability before accepting decision making based on cars-as-evil position? If believing in God or not was merely a personal matter like a blind person not being able to see colour then there would be no problem and no need for empiracal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If believing in God or not was merely a personal matter like a blind person not being able to see colour then there would be no problem and no need for empiracal evidence.

The problem is with this is that we have to live together and decide (as a society) which behaviors are acceptable (to the society) and which are not. Since atheists do not accept any power higher then themselves, it would not be possible for them to agree (as a large group) on the details of laws of morality because each individual would have their own opinions. That is not to say that they wouldn't agree on some basic principles, but the application of these principles to the real world would become impossibly problematic. This is why a society that abandons religion inevitably descends into chaos.

Of course, there are some societies today which are "officially" atheists (China, North Korea, etc.), however, these states are actually totalitarian and the ruling class enforces laws using fear and intimidation. I don't think these would be "model states" that an atheist would want to emulate. There has never been a democratic atheist state that has existed for long. The Greeks and Romans (for example) were probably atheists in practice but did have pagan religious beliefs which were widely believed in and practiced by the members of the soceity.

Morality is a problem for atheists because empirical evidence does not lend itself to a clear distinction between good and bad, moral and immoral, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to make a distinction here between empiracal evidence and that which is deduced. There is no problem with a blind person and colour. Colour can be demostrated to exist even though a blind person cannot experience it directly. The requirement of being able to experience something directly on a personal level before being accepted is simply hopeless. It is enough that evidence can be presented. The problem with the belief in God is that it is used to justify actions that directly affect others who do not share the belief, and it is important that just actions are based on reason not belief. For example if blind people had a belief that they could detect the smell of evil and they could convince enough people that this was true, would it be just for them to become judges? Would it be just for parents to deliberately make their children blind in order that they can become great persons serving their country? If blind people told that they could detect much evil coming from cars, would it be just for a non believer to demand empiracal evidence of this alleged ability before accepting decision making based on cars-as-evil position? If believing in God or not was merely a personal matter like a blind person not being able to see colour then there would be no problem and no need for empiracal evidence.

Again you're nit picking on analogies... you have to realize that analogies are not perfect representations. You're right, one doesn't have to directly experience something before being accepted, if this were the case, majority of believers would have to let go of their beliefs... from where I'm standing I have enough evidence to confirm my belief.. indirect evidence... however I can't say that they have been realized as they only exist as ideas and concepts. I also believe it is possible to realize these beliefs... and this is what the primary topic has been.

Whatever problems are associated with belief in God are not exclusive... they are part of the natural egoic behavior of all humans. We only have to look at the 2 biggest wars fought by humanity (WW 1 & 2) to see they had very little to do with belief in God... our egoic behavior looks for means to cause destruction, and of course belief in God is used as one of these means. " ...it is important that just actions are based on reason not belief" - how do you define justice? Where do morals come from?

If you've been following the discussion between me and Charles, you'll see that we're trying to keep the discussion on an individual level, because not every single individual suffers the problem of using belief in God for destructive purposes..

Edited by skinee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may i suggest this website: http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/predictions_index.html for atheist

another website:

AS you athesit say quran is false, who could it have a knowledge that was discovered in 20th Century, about chromosomes.

Another video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ifXdTYn5o&feature=related

lastly what is the KEY between human and people, i mean how were they evoloved. Arent there other human out there that were just recently evolved? Where did the monkey comes from? If from dinasour where did the dinsours come form?

anyway its a sign people will lose belfies in god, and imam mehdi (ajtfs) will reappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is with this is that we have to live together and decide (as a society) which behaviors are acceptable (to the society) and which are not. Since atheists do not accept any power higher then themselves, it would not be possible for them to agree (as a large group) on the details of laws of morality because each individual would have their own opinions. That is not to say that they wouldn't agree on some basic principles, but the application of these principles to the real world would become impossibly problematic. This is why a society that abandons religion inevitably descends into chaos.

Of course, there are some societies today which are "officially" atheists (China, North Korea, etc.), however, these states are actually totalitarian and the ruling class enforces laws using fear and intimidation. I don't think these would be "model states" that an atheist would want to emulate. There has never been a democratic atheist state that has existed for long. The Greeks and Romans (for example) were probably atheists in practice but did have pagan religious beliefs which were widely believed in and practiced by the members of the soceity.

Morality is a problem for atheists because empirical evidence does not lend itself to a clear distinction between good and bad, moral and immoral, etc.

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making.

Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but then your position should be of indecision, not that of accepting that God does not exist.

No. A position of indecision would mean I am ignoring the available evidence and I want to give the leeway to something for which there is no evidence.

I won't, but just keep that in the back of your mind that to me they are the one and the same. Because God is the only One that truly exists as well.

Do you mean to say that nothing exists except God? Or that whatever exists is God?

I agree with you partially - if the blind person stopped at refusing to accept colors and didn't do any investigation, then he isn't justified. However if he said I want to see colors for myself, this would be the correct path to take.

The human investigation has caused God to hide in the moment "before big bang occurred" :lol:

Such a God is called "God of the gaps"; I hope you are familiar with this phrase. No valid argument stands today for existence of a creator God.

Well i'm not experiencing God, I include myself in the blind. However I have other evidence to go off of that indirectly implies that a Creator exists. I don't see the logic that all of this came out of nothing without any cause. This isn't the only factor, there are many others that I can't go into detail.

I call what you have experienced a glimpse of reality; and you said we were talking of same thing using other terms. So I thought may be you think you have had a glimpse of God :)

The universe did not come out of "nothing"; something coming out of nothing goes totally against the known laws and evidence. Yes, we don't know all the answers, but to offer God as the answer every time one says he doesn't know is to believe in the God of the gaps. Such a God seems like darkness which always recedes in the face of light.

I find your reasoning inconsistent. Essentially you are doing the exact same thing that believers do, but you're just on the other side of the fence. We take evidence and believe he was moral, you're taking evidence and believing he was immoral, yet you find us to be wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too... the only position that would make sense for you is again indecision.

See, the believers have vested interest in believing that he was moral so they take only that evidence in to account which reinforces their belief. The other evidence is either ignored by them, or the very concept of morality become different for them. It becomes like, "whatever the Prophet did is moral".

I do not have any vested interest in believing that he was immoral. I see the evidence and arrive at conclusions. Each human being is good at sometimes, and bad at others. A thief does not always steal, he may sometimes donate too. A murderer does not simply go on murderin everyone; he spares/saves some lives too. I would call such person a murderer, as even one murder is enough to brand a man. If one commits a crime, he is a criminal irrespective of how many good deeds he does; simple.

One cannot will a state of indecision; it naturally arises either when one doesn't know, or one has conflicting and equally strong evidence for two positions. I do not find myself in such a situation.

Prophet Muhammed's moral character isn't the only thing that I'm going by, it is only one of many factors. I find it amazing that when I mentioned my experience of glimpsing what we think is reality, you told me to hold on to the person who caused it - without knowing a single thing about that person, that person could be a serial killer for all you know.

And I did not mean that that person was a great saint. All I meant was that he was a conduit or means for you to have that experience and you should catch hold of him. Anything can be a cause for such experiences; a bird in flight, the rustling of the leaves of a tree, the sound of a flowing river, anything. It helps to use the initial trigger.

I hold onto the Prophet because I believe his teachings will lead me to knowing Allah.

No teaching can lead to knowing Allah, as the Allah of Quran has no probability of existing. An Allah who sent army of angels to fight on behalf of prophet? An Allah who professes to be the ever best sadist by burning humans forever for mere disbelief? An Allah who did not know that mountains do not act as pegs to stabilize the earth? An Allah who did not know that the sun goes nowhere in the night? An Allah who did not know that bones are not formed BEFORE the muscles? An Allah who did not know that bees do not eat fruits? An Allah who did not know that the sky is not a physical object? An Allah who did not talk of one of the most established scientific theory of evolution? I could go on and on.

I haven't even gone into the spiritual experiences I've had through Islam, and I'm not about to because they are personal and I don't want to discuss them on a public forum. I have enough evidence to know Islam is the right path, my only problem is that I'm haven't really started treading the path i.e. the analogy I can use is like when I started going to University... I knew I wanted to study business, but the goal was yet to be realized.

I can only wish you best of luck :)

Yep I agree. Mystics will tell you the real "I" is God... the false I is your ego. You agreed with me when I said I am the obstacle... essentially we have to give up the egoic I... this is one interpretation of the concept in Islam of surrendering to Allah. Because if we look at the egoic I, we see that it has desires and wants, Islam requires one talign the desires with those of Allah swt - this is the same as letting your own desires die.

Like fulfilling the Allah's command to fight disbelievers till all the religion is for Allah only? Like believing in him only because Quran said so?

What you say about letting the desires die and aligning them with those of Allah is only partially correct. Desires do not die; they simply drop off. How can an all powerful and all knowing creator have desires when we know that desires are root cause of all the misery? If he did not desire that humans should worship him and believe in him (what a narcissist) he wouldn't have to torture majority of humans. Knowing full well that most of the humans will not believe in him and worship him, he still goes on and creates them anyway, just for the fun of burning them?

Yes, and those questions should be raised, however they are premature to this discussion. We have to work in steps to avoid the circular argument that you pointed out.

The very basic question that arises is the merit of belief. Any fool can believe anything, but it takes intelligence and great courage to question, doubt and ask for evidence.

I find it slightly arrogant on your part to tell me to keep the Quran out of the discussion, specially since it was mentioned for the benefit of other Muslim readers, not for you.

We started off with an understanding that we will not discuss as Muslim VS non-Muslim. But perhaps you saw an opportunity to impress others by showing them that I was agreeing with you. Whatever your reasons, it was not proper to introduce Islam in our discussion; and I felt compelled to remind you and request you to keep Islam out of it.

I am starting to get a feeling that we will finally leave this discussion on the point of Islam, Quran, Allah and your prophet.

The idea behind punishment is a gross misinterpretation that Muslims and people alike make, we have no idea what heaven and hell are, and we're pretty much told this as well... but as I said, heaven and hell are premature to discuss at this point. I personally believe if someone dies as a seeker, he might make it through... not easily.. just like many people who never go to school make it through life... but that is only because they try to succeed. I think it is essential to keep seeking the Truth, which it appears that you are.

Well we do know that there would a great fire in Allah's hell where he would roast the disbelievers forever while renewing their skins every time the skins are burned off. We do know what the fuel for this hellfire will be. We know what would disbelievers have to drink there. We also know what sort of goodies Muslims would enjoy in heaven. I think this much information about hell and heaven as per Quran should be sufficient to have a general idea, no?

Unfortunately there are many things I can't express in writing due to my lack of being able to express them and also due to time constraints, I'm sure you feel the same way, but I think this has been a valuable discussion.

The ship of our discussion is floundering on the rocks of Islam :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. A position of indecision would mean I am ignoring the available evidence and I want to give the leeway to something for which there is no evidence.

It is impossible for any person to have examined all the evidence out there.

Do you mean to say that nothing exists except God? Or that whatever exists is God?

The first statement - this isn't something I necessarily accept - I was just telling you what many mystics say.

The human investigation has caused God to hide in the moment "before big bang occurred" :lol:

Such a God is called "God of the gaps"; I hope you are familiar with this phrase. No valid argument stands today for existence of a creator God.

Yes I'm familiar with argument. I can't convince you that I'm not filling the gap with God - there are far more arguments that can be made, but I don't want to turn this into an atheist vs. God debate. In fact the only reason I'm even discussing this with you is because you have some notion that there is Reality - most of the atheists I've come across only accept the physical world and that is it, and I don't find it useful to get into these discussions with them - you won't find me posting in the atheist subsection of this forum.

I call what you have experienced a glimpse of reality; and you said we were talking of same thing using other terms. So I thought may be you think you have had a glimpse of God :)

Good point, it's a probably a good idea to diffentiate between the two. The person who caused this to happen said I had glimpsed the "void". Although he didn't believe in the traditional description of God, he did say he knows that there is a higher power, an he referred to it as the Absolute, always using paradoxes.

The universe did not come out of "nothing"; something coming out of nothing goes totally against the known laws and evidence. Yes, we don't know all the answers, but to offer God as the answer every time one says he doesn't know is to believe in the God of the gaps. Such a God seems like darkness which always recedes in the face of light.

I don't want to repeat arguments, but we're in the darkness (not physically), and God is the Light. I don't find the gap argument to be valid.

See, the believers have vested interest in believing that he was moral so they take only that evidence in to account which reinforces their belief. The other evidence is either ignored by them, or the very concept of morality become different for them. It becomes like, "whatever the Prophet did is moral".

I personally don't have any issues with this.

I do not have any vested interest in believing that he was immoral. I see the evidence and arrive at conclusions. Each human being is good at sometimes, and bad at others. A thief does not always steal, he may sometimes donate too. A murderer does not simply go on murderin everyone; he spares/saves some lives too. I would call such person a murderer, as even one murder is enough to brand a man. If one commits a crime, he is a criminal irrespective of how many good deeds he does; simple.

Um ok.

One cannot will a state of indecision; it naturally arises either when one doesn't know, or one has conflicting and equally strong evidence for two positions. I do not find myself in such a situation.

Yep, neither do I :)

And I did not mean that that person was a great saint. All I meant was that he was a conduit or means for you to have that experience and you should catch hold of him. Anything can be a cause for such experiences; a bird in flight, the rustling of the leaves of a tree, the sound of a flowing river, anything. It helps to use the initial trigger.

Yes, and the Prophet of Islam is also a conduit for me... I find it unfortunate when others don't find this, even Muslims aren't able to use him as a conduit. However I have no desire to convince others that I'm right... this isn't what this discussion is about.

N

o teaching can lead to knowing Allah, as the Allah of Quran has no probability of existing. An Allah who sent army of angels to fight on behalf of prophet? An Allah who professes to be the ever best sadist by burning humans forever for mere disbelief? An Allah who did not know that mountains do not act as pegs to stabilize the earth? An Allah who did not know that the sun goes nowhere in the night? An Allah who did not know that bones are not formed BEFORE the muscles? An Allah who did not know that bees do not eat fruits? An Allah who did not know that the sky is not a physical object? An Allah who did not talk of one of the most established scientific theory of evolution? I could go on and on.

Ah, my friend these are gross misinterpretations that unfortunately I don't have the ability to correct and/or change your mind about.

I can only wish you best of luck :)

Thanks, same to you.

Like fulfilling the Allah's command to fight disbelievers till all the religion is for Allah only? Like believing in him only because Quran said so?

What you say about letting the desires die and aligning them with those of Allah is only partially correct. Desires do not die; they simply drop off. How can an all powerful and all knowing creator have desires when we know that desires are root cause of all the misery? If he did not desire that humans should worship him and believe in him (what a narcissist) he wouldn't have to torture majority of humans. Knowing full well that most of the humans will not believe in him and worship him, he still goes on and creates them anyway, just for the fun of burning them?

This isn't how I view "punishment", to me is more natural consequences of our actions. I'll use the same analogy I used in a recent thread of a pregnant woman smoking and drinking - one will not blame the doctor if the woman did not heed advice and there are problems with the baby. Allah swt guides and protects us from these natural consequences. Yes I realize that the Quran says that He will punish us, but I don't know how to demonstrate the reconciliation between what I've said and the words of the Quran.

We started off with an understanding that we will not discuss as Muslim VS non-Muslim. But perhaps you saw an opportunity to impress others by showing them that I was agreeing with you. Whatever your reasons, it was not proper to introduce Islam in our discussion; and I felt compelled to remind you and request you to keep Islam out of it.

The only reason this was stated was because I was mentioning the topic of achieving peace... many people don't realize there is a difference between relative and absolute peace, and I thought someone may raise the question this question... the Quran reference was made to help Muslims reading this thead explain what I meant by absolute peace... it had nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing with me... I find your agreement with me at a neutral level.

I am starting to get a feeling that we will finally leave this discussion on the point of Islam, Quran, Allah and your prophet.

Nope, I have no desire to discuss these things as I'm not qualified to discuss them with a non-believer.

Well we do know that there would a great fire in Allah's hell where he would roast the disbelievers forever while renewing their skins every time the skins are burned off. We do know what the fuel for this hellfire will be. We know what would disbelievers have to drink there. We also know what sort of goodies Muslims would enjoy in heaven. I think this much information about hell and heaven as per Quran should be sufficient to have a general idea, no?

Yes if these things are taken literally. There is evidence from an Islamic p.o.v to show that much of this metaphorical and the reality will be something we can't imagine.

Overall I think we're coming to a conclusion to this discussion where I think I'll mostly just say that I agree to disagree.

Edited by skinee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible for any person to have examined all the evidence out there.

So let us both of us say that we are agnostics.

The first statement - this isn't something I necessarily accept - I was just telling you what many mystics say.

So it was irrelevant; any statement does not become true or acceptable to me only because I like mysticism and many mystics have said that.

Yes I'm familiar with argument. I can't convince you that I'm not filling the gap with God - there are far more arguments that can be made, but I don't want to turn this into an atheist vs. God debate. In fact the only reason I'm even discussing this with you is because you have some notion that there is Reality - most of the atheists I've come across only accept the physical world and that is it, and I don't find it useful to get into these discussions with them - you won't find me posting in the atheist subsection of this forum.

I never said or implied that the reality I was talking about was something supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about miseries getting alleviated if desires drop off.

This isn't how I view "punishment", to me is more natural consequences of our actions. I'll use the same analogy I used in a recent thread of a pregnant woman smoking and drinking - one will not blame the doctor if the woman did not heed advice and there are problems with the baby. Allah swt guides and protects us from these natural consequences. Yes I realize that the Quran says that He will punish us, but I don't know how to demonstrate the reconciliation between what I've said and the words of the Quran.

It is not because you can't, or you don't know, it is because there is no reconciliation between what you said and what Allah says. Only a fake reconciliation is possible, and that too in a believing mind, by simply ignoring the contradiction or refusing to juxtapose the two concepts.

Yes if these things are taken literally. There is evidence from an Islamic p.o.v to show that much of this metaphorical and the reality will be something we can't imagine.

And there are plenty of evidence many Islamic p.o.v. that these things are real and literal.

Overall I think we're coming to a conclusion to this discussion where I think I'll mostly just say that I agree to disagree.

Right you are. As a parting message, I would just like to tell you that your experience had nothing to do with any belief or religion; it can and does happen to atheists, polytheists, Christians, and any other people. No belief is necessary to experience or see reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is with this is that we have to live together and decide (as a society) which behaviors are acceptable (to the society) and which are not. Since atheists do not accept any power higher then themselves, it would not be possible for them to agree (as a large group) on the details of laws of morality because each individual would have their own opinions. That is not to say that they wouldn't agree on some basic principles, but the application of these principles to the real world would become impossibly problematic. This is why a society that abandons religion inevitably descends into chaos.

Of course, there are some societies today which are "officially" atheists (China, North Korea, etc.), however, these states are actually totalitarian and the ruling class enforces laws using fear and intimidation. I don't think these would be "model states" that an atheist would want to emulate. There has never been a democratic atheist state that has existed for long. The Greeks and Romans (for example) were probably atheists in practice but did have pagan religious beliefs which were widely believed in and practiced by the members of the soceity.

Morality is a problem for atheists because empirical evidence does not lend itself to a clear distinction between good and bad, moral and immoral, etc.

Well we only have to decide what is acceptable and what isn't if we are empowered to do that in some way and with consideration to what it may cost. For most of history and for most people there simply hasn't been that opportunity. What atheists don't accept is a non human higher authority supposedly dictating how they should live and there is no basis there for deducing that they cannot agree either among themselves or together with those who do. Its called democracy, finding a common consensus and it has little to do with religion. Religious people also have different opinions and different interpretations of their religion. We don't need to talk about this as a hypothesis, the West has already largely become secular leaving religion to the private sphere and in so doing has revolutionised living conditions with vast advances across a broad field. I agree that this has become more problematical and challenging but history shows that not only is it possible but that there are huge benefits to be gained. A lot more religious societies have descended into chaos than atheist ones! Western societies that started abandoning religion centuries ago far from descending into chaos have flourished.

My society is essentially atheist with religion relegated to tradition only, and it is not descending into chaos but regarded widely as a successful model. What do you call long and why democratic? Which religious democratic states have existed for long?

Morality is not so much of a problem for atheists and empirical evidence certainly does lend itself to aiding clarification between beneficial as in right and detrimental as in wrong. For example studies into the effects of legalising pornography have been instrumental in legal changes which in turn lead to changes in moral values. Morals also change in religious societies as a result of changing conditions and not as any result of religious changes. I can site the present topic in the family forum with the marriage between a nine and seventy year old in Saudi. Only religion is a hindrance to reform.

Getting back to living together, this problem exists between societies on a global scale. How do you suggest this is solved when there is no agreement on a "higher" power? How is your society to agree to my society on what is wrong and what is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are looking at a brief period of time and think that your society is flourishing... well.. the NASDAQ was flourishing, and the internet stocks were rising, before the balloon get ruptured! Financial Markets, housing,..etc were flourishing just before suddenly shooting down into crisis...

What studies you have about porn? how long they were conducted? how much was the test group, and the control group? how the group selection was made? where did the study conducted? was it in one country, one culture? or was it distributed over several cultures and countries?!

is your democracy limiting age of marriage to 18 +- (in other democracies) is based on studies?

is the US intervention in Iraq based on empirical evidence?

how much is suicide rates in your country?

how much is spouse cheating in your country, especially after summer vacation! (i've seen in French TV that there is 16% increase in summer)

on what scientific research you prevent a 16 year old from having legal sex through marriage, yet allowing her to have un-moral sex with a boy firend?!

western societies started to grow because of conquest, and long before leaving religion! do you know when did France became secular?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making.

Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

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

Again, atheists have general principles of morality they can agree on, however, they resort to their own individual opinions on the correct way to apply these principles to the real world (and they also reserve the right to "change their mind" at any given moment). As a result, they have no basis for imposing their opinions on others. So (in an atheist society) we are left with no enforceable moral laws, only flowery words and speeches.

An atheist seeks to "free" society from religion and tradition. Of course, if the religion is a false one or the traditions are harmful then this may bring about positive results in the society, for a time. Since the atheist has no guide except his own limited and imperfect intelligence (and the imperfect and limited intelligence of other atheists) he will be unable to determine with any reasonable degree of precision which norms and values which are already present in the society need to be maintained and which should be eliminated. This is important because the society is highly unlikely to accept any "new" values or norms proposed by atheists (since they have no basis for enforcing these new values or norms on the society as a whole)

The atheist approach to morality is similar to the what happened in the early agricultural period (before people had an understanding of proper farming methods). Farmers would "slash and burn" the native environment and plant nutrient intensive crops without understanding how to ensure sustainable agriculture. As a result, they would yield crops for a few year until the top soil was depleted. Once the top soil was depleted it would blow away and the result was a desert in which nothing (including the native species) could grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are looking at a brief period of time and think that your society is flourishing... well.. the NASDAQ was flourishing, and the internet stocks were rising, before the balloon get ruptured! Financial Markets, housing,..etc were flourishing just before suddenly shooting down into crisis...

What studies you have about porn? how long they were conducted? how much was the test group, and the control group? how the group selection was made? where did the study conducted? was it in one country, one culture? or was it distributed over several cultures and countries?!

is your democracy limiting age of marriage to 18 +- (in other democracies) is based on studies?

is the US intervention in Iraq based on empirical evidence?

how much is suicide rates in your country?

how much is spouse cheating in your country, especially after summer vacation! (i've seen in French TV that there is 16% increase in summer)

on what scientific research you prevent a 16 year old from having legal sex through marriage, yet allowing her to have un-moral sex with a boy firend?!

western societies started to grow because of conquest, and long before leaving religion! do you know when did France became secular?!

First I think you should make sure you reply to my posts with the appropriate "reply" button so that the nested hiarchy of responses is maintained. It is not everyone who gets our dueling!

I am looking at half a millenium and I don't regard that as a brief period in human history. The periods you are comparing with fluctuations in the economy on the other hand certainly are. In any case these are minor bumps.

The influencial and authoritative studies by Berl Kutchinski. However the issue was whether empirical evidence lended itself to be used or not and clearly such evidence does. Studies into social phenomena are rutinely used in ethical/moral decison making. Your questions indicate that you are off on the wrong track. My society uses empirical evidence in the process of refining and changing its ethical/moral basis whatever you may think of the validity of the studies. It also uses studies from foreign sources. You think that morals in my society are in decay and not evolving however the truth of the pudding is in the eating and my society is vibrant and flourishing and has been long. Yes, there have been many studies on teenage marriage however marriage is becoming less relevant with cohabitation becoming normal. This is not to say only empirical evidence is used in the public debate and policy making. Yes sure, lots of studies are made in the area of conflict and some are used to argue for a certain decision, like the invasion of Iraq.

You want to use the suicide rate to determine if a society is flourishing? There have been many attempts with objective measures of the well being of a society but its a difficult area naturally. My society scores very high on the happiness index. The number of suicides here has fallen to half the number a generation ago when porn was legalised so on that basis no evidence of decay! In the same periode I believe the suicide rate in your society has increased substancially thanks to the maltreatment of imported third world labour. Suicide is also high in Shia society in Iran with the widespead drugs problem. Suicide can be many things. I've experienced suicidal actions by Muslims who believe their fate is in Allah's hands rather than their own. Spouse cheating! I don't know but Muslim men are pretty reknowned for it here!

Legal sex here is not defined by marriage and sex with a boyfriend is not considered immoral so your question makes no sense.

No, actually the roots leading to the demise of religion and the growth in dominance of Western societies went hand in hand starting in the late 15th century. The ability and opportunity to conquer doesn't just appear from nowhere and its no news that this is associated with the growth of civilisations, Western as others. It is not a matter of being religious one day and secular the next, its a long process which starts by tolerating questions and the path is far from smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, atheists have general principles of morality they can agree on, however, they resort to their own individual opinions on the correct way to apply these principles to the real world (and they also reserve the right to "change their mind" at any given moment). As a result, they have no basis for imposing their opinions on others. So (in an atheist society) we are left with no enforceable moral laws, only flowery words and speeches.

The moral laws of a secular society are/will be based on the Golden Rule.

And yes, it is fully reasonable to change one's opinion as the world is changing too. The rules regarding the cleanliness (toilet etiquette) in the 7th century no longer apply because the world have moved far ahead of that time.

The moral laws of a secular society, arrived at by opinion of the people, is bound to be better than a law devised by any individual even if he is Muhammad.

An atheist seeks to "free" society from religion and tradition. Of course, if the religion is a false one or the traditions are harmful then this may bring about positive results in the society, for a time. Since the atheist has no guide except his own limited and imperfect intelligence (and the imperfect and limited intelligence of other atheists) he will be unable to determine with any reasonable degree of precision which norms and values which are already present in the society need to be maintained and which should be eliminated. This is important because the society is highly unlikely to accept any "new" values or norms proposed by atheists (since they have no basis for enforcing these new values or norms on the society as a whole)

All the religious codes are also devised by mere humans. The claims of divine origin do not make them so.

The basis for enforcing the new values or norms on the society as a whole is based on opinion of the people.

The atheist approach to morality is similar to the what happened in the early agricultural period (before people had an understanding of proper farming methods). Farmers would "slash and burn" the native environment and plant nutrient intensive crops without understanding how to ensure sustainable agriculture. As a result, they would yield crops for a few year until the top soil was depleted. Once the top soil was depleted it would blow away and the result was a desert in which nothing (including the native species) could grow.

And that is how they learned; by trial and error. No God came to them or sent his messenger to tell them how to grow their crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, atheists have general principles of morality they can agree on, however, they resort to their own individual opinions on the correct way to apply these principles to the real world (and they also reserve the right to "change their mind" at any given moment). As a result, they have no basis for imposing their opinions on others. So (in an atheist society) we are left with no enforceable moral laws, only flowery words and speeches.

An atheist seeks to "free" society from religion and tradition. Of course, if the religion is a false one or the traditions are harmful then this may bring about positive results in the society, for a time. Since the atheist has no guide except his own limited and imperfect intelligence (and the imperfect and limited intelligence of other atheists) he will be unable to determine with any reasonable degree of precision which norms and values which are already present in the society need to be maintained and which should be eliminated. This is important because the society is highly unlikely to accept any "new" values or norms proposed by atheists (since they have no basis for enforcing these new values or norms on the society as a whole)

The atheist approach to morality is similar to the what happened in the early agricultural period (before people had an understanding of proper farming methods). Farmers would "slash and burn" the native environment and plant nutrient intensive crops without understanding how to ensure sustainable agriculture. As a result, they would yield crops for a few year until the top soil was depleted. Once the top soil was depleted it would blow away and the result was a desert in which nothing (including the native species) could grow.

Atheists just like religous people, have their experts they rely on. Here in my society there is an ethics panel which provides advise to the government. The basis for their decisions, is published on the web for all to read and make up their own mind about it. For example: euthanasia, stem cell research, patents on human genes. The difference is that the answer is not sought from religious scriptures by obscure deductions like the one Lion has a thread on in the origins of humans but by plain reasoning and empirical evidence. The panel is advisory and any changes in the law are open to the normal democratic procedure, informed public debate and the ballot box. As can be gleened from their site, anyone can write to the panel and give their opinion or make their points known. Itis an open and transparent system without any concerns to control the debate in a particular direction. Arguments are not constructed to serve a predisposed position but put simply laid on the table. The process is not one of sudden change as implied by changing minds at any given moment. It is not so much a matter of imposing opinions but reaching a consensus which is facilitated by the lack of religious bigotry. Laws passed on the basis of advice from the ethics panel are in every way enforcable just as any other law. The fact that they are the transparent product of the democratic system and not some closed theological elite, means that they are largely accepted. There is nothing flowery or vague about it.

This very forum is a good example of the contrast between a secular democratic cultural tradition and one based on Islamic authoritarian tradition. The rules of this forum are very much all flowery words and the mods and admins are only accountable to themselves. Their work is not open to criticism and is not even made public. They have wide discretion to handle as they see fit without even notifying the posters or justifying their actions. They rule like Saudi princes!

Atheists don't seek to free society from traditions. Religions cannot be false or true as they are only a question of faith. Naturally every believer will consider his or her religion as the true one and all others as false. How does a religious person determine whether a tradition is harmful or not and what would constitute positive results? Examples please! From the example and links I have brought please explain the limitations of the individual atheists involved and how it results in a lack of any degree of reasonable precision as to which norms and values are beneficial or not. On the contrary new values and norms evolve at an ever increasing pace. I regard this argument as a complete construction with no basis.

Slash and burn agriculture has got a bad name but it isn't necessarily unsustainable and obviously it doesn't just lead to desertification otherwise most of the world would be desert as its been practiced widely for thousands of years if not millions. The chief drawback is that it cannot sustain large populations. I cannot see any analogy with secularism at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is how they learned; by trial and error. No God came to them or sent his messenger to tell them how to grow their crops.

Yes, but a human being is infinitely more complex and important then a plant...

If you are growing a garden, creating a work of art, etc. trial and error is an acceptable (but inefficient)method. However, even in the case of matters like these their are often serious unforeseen consequences that the gardener, artist, etc. would have preferred to avoid. This is why an intelligent artist or gardener will find a person that has mastered whatever art he is learning and become their student. In this way they will progress much faster and avoid unnecessary suffering.

Using trial and error to perfect a hobby or skill can work because each error should lead you closer to perfection. This is because plants, paint, wood, etc. have well known and understood properties and behave in a predictable way. Human beings, however, are far more complex and unpredictable.

In the case of an individual, the use of trial and error in regards to deciding what is right and wrong is a fools errand. Even scientist know this, and don't allow a scientist to volunteer himself as a human subject for his own experiments. This is because a person cannot remain objective about subjective experience. In the case of immoral behavior it has the effect of "dulling" ones sensitivity to moral questions (even if the person doesn't realize he is engaging in immoral behavior), and thus, making the person a worse judge of right and wrong with each error. As a result, the cumulative effect of the moral errors (even if a person commits relatively few) is to change the bearings of ones "moral compass", thus making the resulting conclusion void.

In the case of human beings you have an impossible task if you seek to lead a society with perfect justice based on "trial and error". This, in fact, has never been explicitly attempted (that I know of). Every leader defers to some existing religion, philosophy, tradition, etc. to legitimize his/her authority. The leader ultimately comes to power based on the support of those who claim to follow the same "path". The only real alternative to this is the model of Gengis Khan, which is to take power by force and rule by fear and intimidation. I don't think you could find a single person (outside of atheists) who would agree to allow you to commit injustice in the name of "trial and error".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a religious person determine whether a tradition is harmful or not and what would constitute positive results?

They refer to their scripture and those appointed by God with teaching and explaining it. For a religious person this is simple.

From the example and links I have brought please explain the limitations of the individual atheists involved and how it results in a lack of any degree of reasonable precision as to which norms and values are beneficial or not.

I will use a popular analogy to explain. If you drop a rock in a pond, it is impossible for you to predict (with any degree of reasonable precision) what the effects of dropping that rock may be. This is because your mind is limited, and you cannot consider all the possible effects, and calculate with reasonable accuracy which ones will occur. This is sometimes called "The Butterfly Effect".

I'll tell you a story. You are an atheist living in the middle or rural Pennsylvania and you probably do not like the Amish (since their entire life is based on God and belief). Someday you are walking down the road and a young Amish boy comes up to you to ask your opinion about what his parents have taught him. He is young an impressionable, and would be much more likely to take your words to heart then someone like me. How would you answer him? Whatever your answer is it would be based on your understanding of his beliefs and your own opinions at the time. Now you may later change your mind about something you said, but you cannot "unsay" it. The effect of your words occured long ago (even if you know realize you were wrong). If you told him something untrue and he believed it he may have given up some belief he had (which was correct, good and beneficial for him)or adopted some belief which was false and ruined his life.

A believer in God is a person that believes in absolute truth. The source of absolute truth cannot be from you or I, since our understanding of things changes minute to minute and hour to hour. The source must be from a superior being. As a Muslim, I would not answer a question as important as the one asked by the hypothetical boy with my own opinion, as that would be unjust. I would answer based on the teachings of Allah (s.w.a.) and the Prophet Mohammad to guide me. Their is no room for trail and error in matters of right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A believer in God is a person that believes in absolute truth. The source of absolute truth cannot be from you or I, since our understanding of things changes minute to minute and hour to hour. The source must be from a superior being. As a Muslim, I would not answer a question as important as the one asked by the hypothetical boy with my own opinion, as that would be unjust. I would answer based on the teachings of Allah (s.w.a.) and the Prophet Mohammad to guide me. Their is no room for trail and error in matters of right and wrong.

And yet your beliefs of Allah swt and the Prophet could be wrong e.g. the killing of Shia people in the name of Islam. Religion guides you to the Truth, you don't attain Truth by memorizing scripture or legal mumbo jumbo. The disease is in us, and unless it is cured, neither atheist nor a believer will ever get things right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet your beliefs of Allah swt and the Prophet could be wrong e.g. the killing of Shia people in the name of Islam. Religion guides you to the Truth, you don't attain Truth by memorizing scripture or legal mumbo jumbo. The disease is in us, and unless it is cured, neither atheist nor a believer will ever get things right.

Please tell me what is this disease and how it can be cured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: You can't say that stuff here. Note forum rules:

Hello Smiley,

Do you think I care about being banned from this site at all? I have been arguing against the blasphemy and apostasy laws all the time. But I can only argue against the illogic of such laws, I can't change them. I thought there was a difference between an Islamic country and an Islamic forum.

I did not denigrate your prophet or lay any false accusations against him. And I have not said ANYTHING about ahlubait at all.

Ban me immediately if you wish, and keep the faith of the believers intact. I had a quite fruitful discussion with skinee at this forum and I am quite satisfied with my stay here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me what is this disease and how it can be cured.

Check out this post where I posted a section from a book called A New Earth, I think Eckhart Tolle explains it well (after the second quote box):

Edit: fixed the link

Edited by skinee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out this post where I posted a section from a book called A New Earth, I think Eckhart Tolle explains it well (after the second quote box):

Edit: fixed the link

I read the quoted text, and there is hardly anything which I do not agree with.

Now please tell me how Islam or its teaching or the Islamic beliefs are related to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the quoted text, and there is hardly anything which I do not agree with.

Now please tell me how Islam or its teaching or the Islamic beliefs are related to it.

The dysfunction Tolle refers to is called Nafs-Ammara in Islam - this is considered to be the dysfunctional state of the soul - Islam teaches how to graduate from the lower levels of consciousness to reach higher levels and ultimately revealing our true nature which is goodness. All the rules and regulations created by Islam lead to this state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InshAllah they will not end up in hell. I mean common, what is their crime? Their tendency to use their aql on a more regular basis than the rest of us? Sure they do not reach our desired conclusions, but the essence of their journey is indeed very islamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists just like religous people, have their experts they rely on. Here in my society there is an ethics panel which provides advise to the government. The basis for their decisions, is published on the web for all to read and make up their own mind about it. For example: euthanasia, stem cell research, patents on human genes. The difference is that the answer is not sought from religious scriptures by obscure deductions like the one Lion has a thread on in the origins of humans but by plain reasoning and empirical evidence. The panel is advisory and any changes in the law are open to the normal democratic procedure, informed public debate and the ballot box. As can be gleened from their site, anyone can write to the panel and give their opinion or make their points known. Itis an open and transparent system without any concerns to control the debate in a particular direction. Arguments are not constructed to serve a predisposed position but put simply laid on the table. The process is not one of sudden change as implied by changing minds at any given moment. It is not so much a matter of imposing opinions but reaching a consensus which is facilitated by the lack of religious bigotry. Laws passed on the basis of advice from the ethics panel are in every way enforcable just as any other law. The fact that they are the transparent product of the democratic system and not some closed theological elite, means that they are largely accepted. There is nothing flowery or vague about it.

It sounds like you're confusing science with politics and the ballot box again. Science is one thing, and that is where consensus plays it greatest role, but implementing that into policy and the ballot box is a whole different thing. And making laws is a whole other matter as well. If you're talking about laws, then do I need to remind you yet again that laws are often not made by people's consensus. Yes, we all know that ministers, senators and congress people are elected, but their decision on voting often has nothing to do with the feelings and attitudes of their constituents. The constituents usually vote for politicians based on a limited number of reasons or issues. Instead of the will of the people and consensus, they often vote based on the influence and money of special interest groups, lobbyists, industry and business, and those who have the influence and power to their vote. And save for referendums and initiatives, these laws - voted by government - are often made by a select few who are influenced in their vote not by the people and their constituents, but by the political backroom deals, special interest groups, big business, lobby groups, and the like. Edited by Heiden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I think you should make sure you reply to my posts with the appropriate "reply" button so that the nested hiarchy of responses is maintained. It is not everyone who gets our dueling!

I am looking at half a millenium and I don't regard that as a brief period in human history. The periods you are comparing with fluctuations in the economy on the other hand certainly are. In any case these are minor bumps.

The influencial and authoritative studies by Berl Kutchinski. However the issue was whether empirical evidence lended itself to be used or not and clearly such evidence does. Studies into social phenomena are rutinely used in ethical/moral decison making. Your questions indicate that you are off on the wrong track. My society uses empirical evidence in the process of refining and changing its ethical/moral basis whatever you may think of the validity of the studies. It also uses studies from foreign sources. You think that morals in my society are in decay and not evolving however the truth of the pudding is in the eating and my society is vibrant and flourishing and has been long. Yes, there have been many studies on teenage marriage however marriage is becoming less relevant with cohabitation becoming normal. This is not to say only empirical evidence is used in the public debate and policy making. Yes sure, lots of studies are made in the area of conflict and some are used to argue for a certain decision, like the invasion of Iraq.

You want to use the suicide rate to determine if a society is flourishing? There have been many attempts with objective measures of the well being of a society but its a difficult area naturally. My society scores very high on the happiness index. The number of suicides here has fallen to half the number a generation ago when porn was legalised so on that basis no evidence of decay! In the same periode I believe the suicide rate in your society has increased substancially thanks to the maltreatment of imported third world labour. Suicide is also high in Shia society in Iran with the widespead drugs problem. Suicide can be many things. I've experienced suicidal actions by Muslims who believe their fate is in Allah's hands rather than their own. Spouse cheating! I don't know but Muslim men are pretty reknowned for it here!

Legal sex here is not defined by marriage and sex with a boyfriend is not considered immoral so your question makes no sense.

No, actually the roots leading to the demise of religion and the growth in dominance of Western societies went hand in hand starting in the late 15th century. The ability and opportunity to conquer doesn't just appear from nowhere and its no news that this is associated with the growth of civilisations, Western as others. It is not a matter of being religious one day and secular the next, its a long process which starts by tolerating questions and the path is far from smooth.

The happiness index is not exactly clear cut and simple as you may think. What is considered needed for happiness differs from society to society, and there are many things that can influence it.

So, has your attitude in this finally changed? In past arguments you have held practically every aspect of the West to the highest regard and simply wrote off anything that wasn't as noble as you would have preferred, while ridiculing others and blaming everything on their values and norms. For example, you argued that values are based not on what we strive for, but on what we do. In that case, everything from taking drugs to abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo would constitute a value (and don't come here arguing that taking drugs is about freedom when it is illegal). So do you finally admit that values and norms are about what we are supposed to strive for rather than simply what we do?

As for the rise in dominance of Western societies, we've already been over that, now haven't we? So you're still going around making claims like that?!?!?! The West's dominance was based on beating others into submission, conquering them, colonizing them, murder, rape, pillaging, and then exploitation. The West's dominance laid the board game and game rules that all those under their domination of sphere of influence have to play by. And yes, the West isn't the only one who has used violence and conquering to become dominant, but the West used those every things to conquer other lands, eradicate people, steal land, and transport their excessive masses overseas in order to relieve the stress of overpopulation in their lands and to wrestle and keep control over their conquered lands.

Edited by Heiden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists don't seek to free society from traditions.

Speak for yourself. Atheists in the US do try to remove religious tradition from society and politics, whether it be removing 'in god we trust' as the national motto, ending pledges to god, ending a very long established tradition in the jurisdictions that use swearing on the bible in court, ending certain state government policies such as the one in Kentucky crediting god with defense of the state through homeland security, ending the very old tradition of swearing in politicians using religious texts like bibles, fighting religion and religious policies in schools, ending the tradition of placing religious monuments and crosses on public lands, long-established traditions of opening government sessions with prayers, prayers at school graduations, and the like.

Edited by Heiden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself. Atheists in the US do try to remove tradition from society and politics, whether it be removing 'in god we trust' as the national motto, ending pledges to god, ending a very long established tradition in the jurisdictions that use swearing on the bible in court, ending government policy crediting god with defense of the country through homeland security, fighting religion and religious policies in schools, ending the tradition of placing religious monuments and crosses on public lands, long-established traditions of opening government sessions with prayers, prayers at school graduations, and the like.

So atheists in US want to remove all these because they are traditions do they? They also want to stop traditions like flying the flag on holidays, Christmas dinners, gifts, Haloween celebrations, Columbus day, veterans day, the Super Bowl, Oscar awards etc. etc.! Wow, that must be why they aren't very popular!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So atheists in US want to remove all these because they are traditions do they? They also want to stop traditions like flying the flag on holidays, Christmas dinners, gifts, Haloween celebrations, Columbus day, veterans day, the Super Bowl, Oscar awards etc. etc.! Wow, that must be why they aren't very popular!

Did I say they want to remove ALL traditions?????? Of course they're not going to want to remove ALL traditions!!! Many atheists very much do want to remove RELIGIOUS traditions in public and government. Many want Christmas parties ended in schools, or end city Christmas decorations in court houses, city halls, and on street lights and the like, or anything related between government/public and religious celebrations, or even people working in the public sphere such as stores and shops from using 'Merry Christmas' as a greeting or rather replacing it with the use a less religious 'season's grettings' or 'happy holidays'.

Edited by Heiden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

Atheists are not going to hell, but will be dragged to hell. But there is plenty of time, so you will have your change. The way to avoid God is only to not have heard his communications. Get started.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

Speak for yourself. Atheists in the US do try to remove religious tradition from society and politics, whether it be removing 'in god we trust' as the national motto, ending pledges to god, ending a very long established tradition in the jurisdictions that use swearing on the bible in court, ending certain state government policies such as the one in Kentucky crediting god with defense of the state through homeland security, ending the very old tradition of swearing in politicians using religious texts like bibles, fighting religion and religious policies in schools, ending the tradition of placing religious monuments and crosses on public lands, long-established traditions of opening government sessions with prayers, prayers at school graduations, and the like.

God does not wish the removal of his religions. I think many Atheists are Gods chosen to represent us in the US. I am Atheist myself except that i believe in God. Being without a God, family, and a company is not satisfactory though we may be keeping our behavior that is like a bird in a golden cage under control. The only thing these birds gets under their masters is their freedom abolised ... So what if your cage is from gold? I have no cage and am doing fine, and expecting it to get much better. Maybe the Atheists shouldn't saw Gods holliness in pieces. That will anger God, the Angels, Jinn, the believers and unleash his creation. Worry that He might smite you. But if he sees something good in your hearts he will come for you. He has promised us, we should give him a chance to defend himself before we deem that He should atone. Don't think this is weakness. The weakness is if you shut your eyes and still claim that you can see, then I will weep because we are sensitive toward you. Truth is, you who are without a family to return to, have noone else but God and us to turn to. Are you sure you want to start some kind of war with us? If you quit doing what you are doing, that is better. And I suck! Very much.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

God does not wish the removal of his religions. I think many Atheists are Gods chosen to represent us in the US. I am Atheist myself except that i believe in God. Being without a God, family, and a company is not satisfactory though we may be keeping our behavior that is like a bird in a golden cage under control. The only thing these birds gets under their masters is their freedom abolised ... So what if your cage is from gold? I have no cage and am doing fine, and expecting it to get much better. Maybe the Atheists shouldn't saw Gods holliness in pieces. That will anger God, the Angels, Jinn, the believers and unleash his creation. Worry that He might smite you. But if he sees something good in your hearts he will come for you. He has promised us, we should give him a chance to defend himself before we deem that He should atone. Don't think this is weakness. The weakness is if you shut your eyes and still claim that you can see, then I will weep because we are sensitive toward you. Truth is, you who are without a family to return to, have noone else but God and us to turn to. Are you sure you want to start some kind of war with us? If you quit doing what you are doing, that is better. And I suck! Very much.

Peace

You are atheist except you believe in god??????? I really can't even fathum what you mean by that. As for the rest, that is religious dribble. Gods, angles, jinn, holy ghosts, hoccus poccus......they all mean nothing to me. As for the topic, there are atheists who want tradition removed. But I also support the removal of certain aspects of these traditions especially in the areas of politics and state institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say they want to remove ALL traditions?????? Of course they're not going to want to remove ALL traditions!!! Many atheists very much do want to remove RELIGIOUS traditions in public and government. Many want Christmas parties ended in schools, or end city Christmas decorations in court houses, city halls, and on street lights and the like, or anything related between government/public and religious celebrations, or even people working in the public sphere such as stores and shops from using 'Merry Christmas' as a greeting or rather replacing it with the use a less religious 'season's grettings' or 'happy holidays'.

Exactly. Which is why you were being misleading saying they wanted to remove traditions. Just as it would be misleading to say Californians are against marriage when they are in fact only against gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The happiness index is not exactly clear cut and simple as you may think. What is considered needed for happiness differs from society to society, and there are many things that can influence it.

....

You obviously didn't read my post:

There have been many attempts with objective measures of the well being of a society but its a difficult area naturally.

The rest of your post you are just harassing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

You are atheist except you believe in god??????? I really can't even fathum what you mean by that. As for the rest, that is religious dribble. Gods, angles, jinn, holy ghosts, hoccus poccus......they all mean nothing to me. As for the topic, there are atheists who want tradition removed. But I also support the removal of certain aspects of these traditions especially in the areas of politics and state institutions.

That? Maybe you should seek to achieve what i have accomplished by Gods will. You don't have to understand me for my words to be sensible because i am sure in my God. Don't talk to me like that. Everything is yourself. You should hate them for not having seen the blessings, and you've seem it all right? I guess they will cry of joy then. Muwhahaha! :) Never use the word exterminate except on want to exterminate. Before exterminating, you need to pray OR gather equipment. You don't have to, but praying is just as awesome as gathering. I can not understand that i don't when i understand that I should. ... Maybe i am in total darkness and afraid to conseptualize that I have no power over anything except the materialistic enviorment? You can knock. We will have an excuze for doing the task appointed to us, and the weather is very good now. Are you afraid? Don't worry too much or worry too much, but the middle-path is the best. How can I share the good stuff (bad stuff) if you don't? I am not happy like this, and God is punishing us Shia for your mistakes. Man, that is sick. God must be some kind of psycho and i am pretty certain he likes to see us suffering. This is what it means. Cross the borders, remain within them, commit suicide. These things all pleases God. As a matter of fact, how can you displease? The only way to do that is to not ask him and assume you can just take from him whatever you want and drop the rest. He likes to see you bowing to him seeking his grace. The only reason he does not intervene is because we haven't asked for his help and we won't. You see, he wishes for us to gain some confidence in our selves and our religions so we may restore our honor or die with it should it be what we want. What is the purpouse otherwise? But remember once you are dead that you cannot say; "why did i not ...".

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/shaniatwain/imgonnagetchagood.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...