Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Violent Atheists?

    Explain 9/11.

    That's my part done.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    JIHAD we muslims must stand up for our chinese muslim brothers. I'll lead a army of 100000 british muslims armed with kitchen knives and ak47s
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alive)
    Please explain how these are wrong. If you intend to use an argument along the lines of "my holy book says so/my god decrees it", don't you then have to accept the same argument from someone else with a different book? Suppose a Satanist has a book of their beliefs that insists they should kill people, take huge amounts of drugs, have a lot of sex (I have no idea whether this is remotely true or not). Then surely I have to give equal weight to both your arguments? There is no way I can (as an atheist) make a decision when you have mutually exclusive claims of equal strength.
    Leave alcohol consumption and pre-marital sex for now. It's a bad choice of an example from my side because it is not on common grounds and hence diverts from the main argument. I have so many arguments against alcohol consumption and pre-marital sex but I will save them for the sake of focusing on the more important: the remaining of my post that you choose to ignore.

    Replace this example, for now, with something like: selling drugs. A drug dealer. Now you can't tell me there's nothing wrong with what he's doing just because the buyer is not forced to buy the drugs? This is a clear example of how desires can corrupt your fitrah, and from there I would kindly request you to continue reading my post.

    (Original post by Kolya)
    The problem with theism is that is has rules to govern it. Camus notes that ideology in general does this: it offers people "a perfect alibi: philosophy, which can be used for anything, even for transforming murders into judges." What is worse? No rules, or rules that allow criminals to righteously pursue their crimes?
    Ideology in general? What are you trying to say here? I was going to prepare a 500 words debunking of this if it is referring to Islamic ideology, but I need to get this out of the way first. Are you talking about religious ideology, or any ideology in general?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Replace this example, for now, with something like: selling drugs. A drug dealer. Now you can't tell me there's nothing wrong with what he's doing just because the buyer is not forced to buy the drugs? This is a clear example of how desires can corrupt your fitrah, and from there I would kindly request you to continue reading my post.
    I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with selling drugs. Sure, lots of drug dealers are involved things I would consider bad, but that's down to the fact it's illegal and underground, not because it's wrong.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Ideology in general? What are you trying to say here? I was going to prepare a 500 words debunking of this if it is referring to Islamic ideology, but I need to get this out of the way first. Are you talking about religious ideology, or any ideology in general?
    Any set-in-stone ideology is prone to lead people to defend horrendous acts they would not otherwise defend -- the ideology transcends all sensible considerations, with devastating effects. Rules give people an excuse to act inhumanely and not fully consider their actions.

    In the case of Islam (with similar examples appropriate for Christianity), one sees shy and sensitive Muslims defending outrageous and bloody ideas, even on TSR. Primarily, as in the case of most ideologies, they are cases of intolerance and show an inability to empathize with others who live their life differently. From those shy and sensitive Muslims, you see defences of the death penalty for adultery, you see derogatory and spiteful comments about homosexuals, you see derogatory and spiteful comments about non-Muslims. It isn't just expressing disagreement in a healthy fashion; it's wilfully malicious. What happens is that they label other people based on their ideological desires, rather than seeing them as what they are: people with conflicting emotions, thoughts, ideas.

    The same is the case with ideologies like Nazism or Stalinism. People come second to the ideology. So the problem is not theism-and-violence or atheism-and-violence; the problem is overpowering ideologies that become more important than human decency and respect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Go China!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Son of Adam)
    Without Islam i wouldn't care to cheat on my "future" wife daily, gazing at women, chatting with naked women online, but because i fear my creator who banned me to commit such a corruption, and his messengers taught me how to maintain goodness in the face of these sins, I don't follow any satanic caller.
    Alhamdoillah.
    I know that this is a complete side point, especially in light of how the discussion has moved on - but you're just a bit of a **** person, really.
    I wouldn't want to be married to somebody who doesn't cheat on me because of his religion, I'd want to be with somebody who doesn't cheat on me because he loves and respects me.

    I dislike the idea that all morality should be based upon religion. I don't have a problem with religion influencing upon your life and your morality, but I fully think that you should do things because of the impacts and the consequences on those people it influences, not because some book tells you so. Obviously any sort of morality is better than immorality, but it should surely be about what is just decent behaviour - and why should anybody need a book to tell them that?

    I wouldn't ever murder somebody because of the devastating consequences it'd have on their family and friends, and the fact that you're removing a life - not because I was told that it was wrong. Similarly, I'd never cheat on my partner because I love him and wouldn't want to hurt him, I don't steal because of the effect it'd have on the shop.

    Why is the effect it'd have not a good enough reason for a basic-level morality?

    Lack of religion =/= lack of morality
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why did the Protestants and Catholics spend years killing eachother?

    Why are there sects where people committed mass suicide in the name of their God?

    There's crazy, crazy-fun, sane, and sane-boring people.

    People who kill or wrongly oppress others in the name of whomever they worship or believe in, are crazy.

    I don't really think this is a whole subject it's more like, "why are humans such Richard heads who can't just live peacefully?".

    Atheists who go around enforcing their atheism on others are just as bad as religous people enforcing their views.

    Ghandi go get them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Any set-in-stone ideology is prone to lead people to defend horrendous acts they would not otherwise defend
    That's not quite true. Any ideology can be used the way someone wants to use it, and it's the problem of the follower in many cases, not the ideology. Would you reject darwinism, then, because it sprouted social darwinism?

    Someone teaches your child martial arts and outlines in detail how not to abuse it which includes set-in-stone rulings and red lines not to cross, but then you find him going against the very teachings you taught him and trying to justify his actions by twisting what you taught him because it is psychologically gratifying to find someone who can share part of his blame. Who is really to blame here?
    -- the ideology transcends all sensible considerations, with devastating effects. Rules give people an excuse to act inhumanely and not fully consider their actions.
    That is a baseless and absurd generalization on all rules and ideologies.

    In the case of Islam (with similar examples appropriate for Christianity), one sees shy and sensitive Muslims defending outrageous and bloody ideas, even on TSR. Primarily, as in the case of most ideologies, they are cases of intolerance and show an inability to empathize with others who live their life differently. From those shy and sensitive Muslims, you see defences of the death penalty for adultery, you see derogatory and spiteful comments about homosexuals, you see derogatory and spiteful comments about non-Muslims. It isn't just expressing disagreement in a healthy fashion; it's wilfully malicious. What happens is that they label other people based on their ideological desires, rather than seeing them as what they are: people with conflicting emotions, thoughts, ideas.
    I will not shy away from saying that homosexuality is a crime. I am intellectually and morally convinced that it is, therefore there is no reason for me to be shy about it. I also support the death penalty for adultery, but with the condition that there are 4 eye witnesses (i.e. it also involves public indecency), and that is the Islamic ruling for it. Someone using malicious terms and sheer offensiveness and rudeness has got nothing to do with ideology, unless the ideology itself teaches this. It is a problem in the person.

    The same is the case with ideologies like Nazism or Stalinism. People come second to the ideology. So the problem is not theism-and-violence or atheism-and-violence; the problem is overpowering ideologies that become more important than human decency and respect.
    The same is the case with darwinism. It sprouted social darwinism which used absurd justifications for mass killing of everything that lives during war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with selling drugs. Sure, lots of drug dealers are involved things I would consider bad, but that's down to the fact it's illegal and underground, not because it's wrong.
    A business transaction that involves selling something that is inherently harmful and detrimental to society should be an impermissible transaction. The free choice of the buyer is completely irrelevant. At least, that is the case with Islam. You should not kill someone just because he told you to do it. If someone is in stress and asks you to relieve that stress from him by killing him, you are considered a criminal if you do it, especially if you know of other ways to relieve his stress that he is not aware of.

    You have exactly illustrated to me where your whims have not stopped you from condemning something that is obviously regressive to society and corrupts the health and safety of people.

    If I ever had the chance and sufficient evidence, I would be more than happy to pin any drug dealer to the ground and call the cops to arrest him. I would be actually contributing to society if I did that. In fact, in your support and acceptance of this filth and evil that has crept into many of our societies, you are part of the problem.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    A business transaction that involves selling something that is inherently harmful and detrimental to society should be an impermissible transaction. The free choice of the buyer is completely irrelevant. At least, that is the case with Islam. You should not kill someone just because he told you to do it. If someone is in stress and asks you to relieve that stress from him by killing him, you are considered a criminal if you do it, especially if you know of other ways to relieve his stress that he is not aware of.
    I don't believe all illegal drugs are inherently harmful to society. Or at least not more so than plenty of legal activities. Maybe stuff like crack cocaine and heroin are a bit too dangerous and addictive to trust people with them, but weed? There are more dangerous drugs that are legal.

    A few people smoking a bit of weed is hardly harmful to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I don't believe all illegal drugs are inherently harmful to society. Or at least not more so than plenty of legal activities. Maybe stuff like crack cocaine and heroin are a bit too dangerous and addictive to trust people with them, but weed? There are more dangerous drugs that are legal.

    A few people smoking a bit of weed is hardly harmful to society.
    What you are saying now is quite different from what you are saying earlier. Earlier you were generally seeing nothing fundamentally wrong in selling drugs, now you're getting picky. I do not want to argue about details here.

    Anyway you're side tracking with my example. (I can give you many other examples of corrupted individuals that have tampered with their fitrah to justify their actions). Obviously a drug dealer doesn't give a crap about how dangerous a drug can be, so long as he's profiting and not forcing it on the buyer he sees nothing wrong in what he's doing. The main point I'm trying to make is that it is natural for your fitrah to get corrupted from external forces in society, and therefore it is important to not rely on your own whims for moral code, but you must have a strong foundation.

    (Original post by joey11223)
    Ok then.

    I'll still stick with the fact some(by a mix of nature, nurture, possibly even hormone levels.) humans are more inclined to be "evil" then others. We can see that religious people are just as immoral as Atheists. In fact there was a study in America and even taking into account the fact there are more Christians then Atheists(so I guess working out if say 80% are religious and 20% aren't.), the prison population has a higher ratio of religious people to Atheists.
    America itself has a higher ratio of theists than Atheists. So your argument is weak.
    I measure the morality of a Muslim, for example, by the extent to which he practices his religion. (I'm not talking of Christianity here because I don't know about it's moral teachings and whether something in it can be inherently calling to evil.) I quote examples from the Muslim faith because I'm most knowledgeable in this area. Choosing religion should be a person's own investigation to see which one indeed coincides with logic.
    As a Muslim, I can tell you straight-up, the difference between a moral Muslim and an immoral Muslim is the difference between a practicing Muslim and a nonpracticing one. You are welcome to investigate this further. All the independent Islamic sources and work of scholars are there.

    Whether you think we all have a pre-programmed morality from God or whether being moral is simply an advantage for a communal species, is up to you.:yep:
    Well this thinking is a slippery slope. What will stop you, then, from adopting ideas of survival of the fittest to justify criminal armed conflict? I keep bringing this is up but it is relevant because it is a living, direct example of where using ideas from evolution in the moral fabric of society are extremely dangerous: Social Darwinism.

    Animals are programmed to do certain things and do not have the level of intelligence of humans (generally speaking) hence are not held morally accountable for their actions on Earth, and all their actions are literally driven by animalistic desires that are programmed in their systems to be able to survive. On the other hand, Angels (if you don't believe in them, the concept of them is still valid here) are programmed to do what is right and do not have the choice to do what is wrong. So a person controlling his desires to do what is morally right when he has the choice to do what is wrong is better than angels, and a person who follows his whims and desires wherever they take him, despite his intelligence that makes him a moral agent, becomes worse than an animal.
    So, to me, all social darwinists are worse than animals.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)

    America itself has a higher ratio of theists than Atheists. So your argument is weak.
    ..I did say it took into account the fact the percentages of religious people and Atheists into account and used an example.

    Anyway yes social Darwinism can be dangerous if you think of it like that, which is probably why most decent people would call themselves humanists.

    they have their own official site and charity but wiki is a more in-depth read(I disagree that wiki is a bad source of information) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    The problem with Atheism is that it has no rules to govern it.
    Well, duh! Atheism is not a religion, so why would it have rules?

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    There is no scripture that can be abused for violence, yes, but at the same time there are NO rules that prohibit killing the innocent either, for example.
    Would you please care to provide evidence in support of your claim that, in the absence of belief in a religion, people do not have restraints when it comes to issues such as violence?

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    It's a complete anarchy.
    I don’t think there’s anything particularly anarchistic about countries such as Sweden and Vietnam where atheism is prominent, do you?

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    I have enough sources to objectively refute and condemn Al-Qaeda based on Islamic sources and prove the way they distorted it's texts.
    The mere fact that you do not agree with their interpretation of Islam does not mean that you are right and they are wrong.

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    how can you objectively say to an atheist that what he is doing is immoral? You cannot.
    What about human empathy and the way it shapes our moral values?

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    There was a radical atheist in TSR who supported forcing women to remove their hijab, and he knows himself.
    Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say ‘a radical atheist’. What does that mean?

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Does anyone here support forcing people not to fast in Ramadan?
    No, I don’t know of anyone who supports forcing people not to fast in Ramadan. I do, however, know of people who support the torture and mass murder of gay people. I am offering £20 to whoever correctly guesses who I am referring to.

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    But the whole argument Atheists keep making that violence nowadays only comes from religion belongs to the gutter.
    Name me one atheist who claims that all ‘violence nowadays only comes from religion’? I would appreciate it if you could find me a quite as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Every person, regardless of the religion of his parents, is initially born with what we call Fitrah
    Where's the evidence for this claim?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    What you are saying now is quite different from what you are saying earlier. Earlier you were generally seeing nothing fundamentally wrong in selling drugs, now you're getting picky. I do not want to argue about details here.
    I have not contradicted myself. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with selling drugs, as in it's possible to be a drug dealer without doing anything I would consider immoral or harmful. I never said all drug dealers are fine and dandy. Let's not forget that drugs also include alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and whole load of other things. I'm sure you don't really agree with alcohol consumption in general, but it seems to me that you feel even more strongly about drugs that happen to be illegal, even if they are less dangerous than alcohol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I have not contradicted myself. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with selling drugs, as in it's possible to be a drug dealer without doing anything I would consider immoral or harmful. I never said all drug dealers are fine and dandy. Let's not forget that drugs also include alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and whole load of other things. I'm sure you don't really agree with alcohol consumption in general, but it seems to me that you feel even more strongly about drugs that happen to be illegal, even if they are less dangerous than alcohol.
    Well you obviously haven't been reading my posts, have you? This argument is absolutely off tangent and diverts from my main argument.

    Let me put it to you another way. There are many examples in society where people have corrupted their fitrah, correct? If you agree with that, ignore examples for now and go back to my main post.

    Ugh.

    Edit: Supporting21, I don't want to repeat my arguments again and again. Please read my other posts on this thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Well you obviously haven't been reading my posts, have you? This argument is absolutely off tangent and diverts from my main argument.
    I know, I'm just making it clear what I meant about the drugs thing.

    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    Let me put it to you another way. There are many examples in society where people have corrupted their fitrah, correct? If you agree with that, ignore examples for now and go back to my main post.
    Well I'm not a muslim so of course I don't agree. If anything it's religion that is denying human nature (although I'll admit that's a good thing in some cases).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Well I'm not a muslim so of course I don't agree. If anything it's religion that is denying human nature (although I'll admit that's a good thing in some cases).
    With fitrah I was referring specifically to the intuition every human develops from childhood base on his intelligence to gain a basic understanding of right from wrong. Everyone generally understands the wrong in killing the innocent, taking what is not yours, etc... much of these morals are taught through either parents or nurseries or both.

    You don't agree that people can change to the worse, i.e. going against what they learned of basic foundations of morals from childhood, because of external pressures? I hope my rephrasing makes it clear now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ABR~)
    With fitrah I was referring specifically to the intuition every human develops from childhood base on his intelligence to gain a basic understanding of right from wrong. Everyone generally understands the wrong in killing the innocent, taking what is not yours, etc... much of these morals are taught through either parents or nurseries or both.

    You don't agree that people can change to the worse, i.e. going against what they learned of basic foundations of morals from childhood, because of external pressures? I hope my rephrasing makes it clear now.
    Ok yeah that makes sense now.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.