You're an idiot.

obviously there's a large fundamentalist core, but i think it logically has to be true that the majority of muslims world-wide are proponents of non-violence.

whatever they think the majority of muslims are certainly respecting a non-violent standard of morality that comes from global social consensus.

the vast majority of the world considers fundamentalist islamic sexism socially detrimental (immoral).

Wrong.

So DNA is our 'guide'?

We have evolved to feel that a certain action is 'wrong' because of a pre-programmed code in our DNA and if in the future this code gets changed, the previous action is no longer 'wrong'?



Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain

Link to above

Yeah I don't agree with that stuff.

Biology provides the constraints to the problem space within which we must find solutions to certain problems. And some solutions are better than others.

In other words, whenever animals live in large social groups there are all sorts of problems that arise, within the context of things that are biologically embedded in the situation, like empathy, trust, pleasure, pain, attachment, etc. Moral "rules" are solutions to those problems.

Ever notice how free you are speaking for the vast majority of the world?

So the majority of a species's solutions to problem is what dictates morality?

Yet history and current events show this not to be the case.

You sure are forgiving and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Islam whereas you are convinced that religion as a whole is bad for society.

The best solution, not the solution that the majority like.

For instance, trial by jury is a better solution than trial by ordeal, even though at some point in history the majority wanted trial by ordeal. It's objectively a better solution.

To be objectively a better solution, you have to argue that there was in existence a way to measure the solutions and then apply this measurement to the two possible methods, then make your declaration.


Mother nature not only doesn't declare whether or not a bus driving off a cliff filled with school children is bad or good, it doesn't care that the the event even happened

That's right. When it comes to systems of justice, for example, trial by ordeal is a demonstrably worse way to determine the guilt of the accused.



We care. ( And we are the leaves of her tree. ) The biological fact that we are bonded to and want to protect our children -- we inherently value them -- makes driving off a cliff with them bad. It's a bad solution to the problem of how to best protect our children.

ever notice how you like to insinuate that stupidly obvious facts are somehow just my opinion?

history is irrelevant to your question, and most muslims world-wide are currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality.
it's the minority that don't that happen to make the news.

Most of them are not participating in violence. But as to 'currently conforming to a non-violent standard of morality' I'd have to see some data to support that. I've seen polls which suggest much more than a small minority of "moderate" muslims agree that suicide bombings are necessary.

edit: here's one: 47% of muslims in britain say they would consider becoming suicide bombers if they lived in the palestinian territories.

well I think your facts are stupid too, so on that we can all three agree?


Remember, to pretend that you are an open minded thinker, on occasion you have to leave room for the remote possibility that you are wrong about something.

In your case crow maybe you should rent a second room

You say worse like it means something...




So then you are comfortable equating morals with survival instincts?

In that context, it means more effective at determining guilt. If the goal is find out who is innocent, clearly you can go about that in ways that will succeed more often than other ways. That's what 'better' means here. It's an objective fact about the solution to a problem.




No. In the example you provided there is some alignment between the two, but obeying 'survival instincts' does not come close to solving the problems we have living in huge groups.

remember to pretend that you don't use my quotes out of context every chance you get.

only an idiot would argue that the majority of the world doesn't think inhumane treatment of women by islamic fundamentalists is immoral, which is exactly what you are doing.

i didn't say "small" minority. i agree there is a fairly substantial fundamentalist core that supports violence, but my impression is that core is definitely a minority overall.

and this isn't really relevant to my original point, which is most of the world agrees with america about what is or isn't immoral when it comes to fundmanentalist islam, so BG's question is nonsensical.
also:

"according to a 2006 Gallup study in involving more than 50,000 interviews in dozens of countries, 7 percent of the world's 1.3. billion Muslims - 90 million people - consider the 9/11 attacks "completely justified"

"The Pew Global Attitudes Project surveys Muslim publics to measure support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence that target civilians in order to defend Islam. In the annual poll, the highest support for such acts has been reported by Palestinians (at approximately 70 percent), except for years in which Palestinians were not surveyed. The lowest support has generally been observed in Turkey (between 3 and 17 percent, depending on the year). The 2009 report concluded that support for suicide bombing has declined in recent years, especially in Pakistan, where support dropped from 33 percent in 2002 (the first year of the survey) to 5 percent in 2009"


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

well I'm sure then you can provide some data for us to look at. I mean it is most of the world

Might have to skip the Islmaic communities, and most of Africa...then there is China...of course I think the Latin american communities would give you a small vocal group that agrees with you, but I wouldn't want to put my eggs in that basket.


Or you could quit making broad generalizations with no basis for truth and stop leaving me so much ammo to mock you?


I won't be holding my breath though, without Arguing to the Authority, you're debates skills are pretty much non-existent, almost as small a percentage as people who think there is no God.

Pointless argument unless you very clearly define "inhumane". If you're talking about treating women like second class citizens in general, BG's probably right about it being possible that a majority of the world is more than ok with that. If you're talking about stoning women to death for being raped, which is probably crow's definition for this argument, then of course the majority of the world considers that immoral, and indeed only an idiot would argue against that. Amoral? Immoral.

what constitutes an immoral level of social inequality would be a pretty subjective subject among americans and doesn't really work with the original question. after all it's also a christian tenet to a lesser degree.

by "treatment" of women i'm assuming he means what americans would generally agree constitutes abuse.

ummm... isn't that what we're here for?

The problem with the 'other' side's view ( you being over there also ) with regards to morality and their simplistic claims to it being a natural event for us to have, is that there are no consensus on what it is.

Large groups of people like Muslims see treatment of women in a manner that is reprehensible to others, like us. But if in fact 'morality' is the current expression of where our society is at at the moment, then both actions are equally moral.

It is the outside benchmark that makes this treatment right or wrong. And without an outside Authority, to argue that the Muslims are wrong, backwards etc is exactly equal to America saying that it is wrong to stone a woman for being raped.

There are no rights or wrongs without Authority behind it all, giving us the benchmarks.

Religions have an Authority

Atheist have only make believe as they lay claim to the invention of the morality placed in our souls by God. The founding fathers knew this when they coined the famous phrase, endowed by our Creator. I wonder what it would have read if the founding fathers were atheist? endowed by the state? I've heard that somewhere before...

No, we are here to make fun of each other.

Currently I am winning.


Did I mention my scoring system is slightly weighted?

You forget that, while we do think that "morality" is a concept that evolved both genetically and socially, none of us is arguing that said evolution has been perfect or is at an endstage. What constitutes perfect morals varies from person to person...whether he or she is a staunch atheist or a crazy christian. I'm not sure that proves either one of us right or wrong.



The authority you speak of is only as powerful as any individual's belief in him. The specific authority you believe in spent a long time telling his followers that slavery is cool, people should be killed for working on the sabbath, and a bunch of other ridiculous shit. And, according to you, up until the new testament came out, those things were morally correct.

Again, let's be clear. You believe in the Old Testament, but that it was wiped clean by the New Testament. So you believe that for many, many years, it was morally acceptable for people to stone to death anyone who worked on the sabbath, or did any number of other seemingly minor transgressions. You think that was the moral thing to do, because you believe that this was god's word at the time. I would argue that while it was socially acceptable, it was not morally correct. And I argue that because I have a deeply rooted belief that I know the difference between right and wrong, I don't need an authority or a social norm to tell me that everyone should be treated fairly and equally. But maybe that's just because I have good genes and good parents (which I suppose are related). Other people think they know what's right and wrong, but are wrong. I'm not sure what can be done about that...I guess those people would be better off with a god-figure to tell them what to do. So yes, I suppose that I agree that weak-minded and/or inherantly evil people are better off with an Authority to tell them what to do.

In the end, what the hell's the difference? Some atheists are great people, some are horrible. Some religious people are great, some are horrible. Having a society that's only one way or the other probably wouldn't result in anything special...would it? I mean, your argument is that we need an "Authority", right? I wonder what would happen in a region consisting of a few countries that is areligious. Not super anti-religion, just not caring either way, because it's not even a part of their lives...

"[Zuckerman] tells of a magical land where life expectancy is high and infant mortality low, where wealth is spread and genders live in equity, where happy, fish-fed citizens score high in every quality-of-life index: economic competitiveness, healthcare, environmental protection, lack of corruption, educational investment, technological literacy ... well, you get the idea. Zuckerman (who has explored the sociology of religion in two previous books) has managed to show what nonbelief looks like when it's normal, regular, mainstream, common. And he's gone at least partway to proving the central thesis of his book: Religious faith -- while admittedly widespread -- is not natural or innate to the human condition. Nor is religion a necessary ingredient for a healthy, peaceful, prosperous, and ... deeply good society."

Three cheers for Scandinavia?

Gotta go...I'd say that I'm looking forward to getting back tomorrow and reading your response, but instead I think I'll take this lovely opportunity to once again take off from the religion forum for a while. I like ending on a high note.

The big reason it matters in my mind is because we need to lose religion, and people should know that doesn't mean we need to lose morality.

hahaha... good one. No wonder BG can easily dismiss all of your posts.

Meh, these circles get old.

Hey Balloon, what specific morality did Jesus Christ tell us to have and why can you have it when athiests can't? He's the authority right?

Across the country an organization put up billboards this past month with a website for people who don't believe in God to go to
so they could find groups and meeting places for like-minded people to meet.

In the local paper it was hilarious reading how the religious people in town were all upset over it as if Big Butter Jesus wasn't more offensive. The comment
section in the paper went on for days. They eventually had to move the billboard since some Christian nut threatened to blow it up.

BG dismisses my posts because he's a coward who doesn't want to face the issues and it's an easy way out.

you're really gonna dispute that women have traditionally been held to a lesser social status than men within christianity?

there is near consensus that biggies like murder, rape, refusing to help people in real need, etc. that have demonstratable negative social consequences are immoral. otherwise what you consider morality is entirely subjective, and appealing to religious authority obviously doesn't change that - in fact it makes the subjective nature hopelessly worse.



your religious prejudice is showing.

You have just completely changed your statement. Women being held as lesser has nothing to do with the Bible or the tenets of Christianity.

If your new statement is that the Bible has been morphed and changed to something that it is not, to support the belief of some people, including huge churches and religions, like Catholicism, throughout the world, then we agree.

not interested in arguing who's christian "tenets" are the correct ones. i was just pointing out that the traditional social status of women in christianity vs. ilsam isn't a subject that lends itself very well to any kind of objective moral comparison.

totally untrue. Feel free to pick a particular church to focus on, but Christianity itself is unchanged in 2000 years and 100% in opposition to what you are describing.

you're not following what this discussion is about. it doesn't matter what you personally think is true christianity or how
you personally interpret the bible. we're discussing the implications of morality by consensus, and lots of christians
are fine with a certain degree of inequality in social status for women and can back that up biblically.

that is taken to a more extreme degree in islam, but what anyone considers moral or immoral about that is subjective
and varies a lot even within islam. there's no easy black and white comparison there- that is unless you look at the
extremes in islam that most americans would agree constitute abuse of some kind. but by the time you get to that
point most of the world is going to agree about what is immoral, making BG's original question moot.

Well from a Darwinian evolutionist viewpoint, the current level of the evolution of morality is perfect, because there is no other reason to assume that it isn't. If you are making up the rules as you go along, then the rules are complete and perfect until they change, then they are complete and perfect again.




I understand what you are trying to say, but it is based on a flawed viewpoint of what the Old Testament said. Acknowledging the existence of slavery and condoning it are not the same.
You also would say that it is immoral to kill a person, but shooting a man who is on a clock tower with a sniper rifle after he has killed 3 people isn't the same thing morally as his shooting of innocent people.
The Ten Commandments gave us a basis for morality, but they weren't a rope that ties our hands from taking actions with higher purposes. And if God is the one telling you to perform such and act that in your mind conflicts with the commandments, you can probably argue that the motive/reasons are higher than our understanding of them.
If God sent your grandfather to kill Hitler at age 4..etc.



First the New Testament fulfilled the Old, but that is semantics.
Your claim to a higher code of morality being inherent in your soul is very telling. You 'know' that certain things are wrong. They are part of you. You feel that given a neutral upbringing everyone would probably see things as you would.
The question becomes, if you feel it all comes from your genetic makeup that your parents had and passed onto you, and that it is an evolved trait etc, then you must also accept that some branches of our evolutionary tree are different than yours. There are superior levels of morality, just as there are superior levels of humans. The problem is that you cannot lay claim to yours being superior to a pygmy in New Guinna because you have no blueprint to compare it to. Which means at your current level of leftist love for fellowman, you must allow that the Islamic treatment of non-believers is equal in morality to your opinion of how you think you should treat your fellow man. Because without the Authority, there is only chaos, and in fact there is only power and whomever uses it best, will gain the title of most moral, just by virtue of their survival.



Of course it would be wonderful to take a group of kids and put them on an island and see what happens, but the truth is we will never gain this ability because we are inundated with morality, either from God or from DNA. Wishing we could see what would happen will only happen in atheist make believe books like dawkins etc.



Of course 300 years ago Scandinavia was butchering 10 million Poles and subduing most of the Baltic, but now they can make a claim to advanced treatement of man?

Besides, communism works well on paper too.

Atheist: the only parasite in the world that thinks it would be a good thing to kill off its host.

I think you need to try to make your points better without being witty or something because you make almost zero sense here.

If you are saying what do Christians believe that atheist don't...I will let you figure that out.

If you are saying what moral code do Christian claim that atheist say don't exist than I will just remind you that atheist are parasites.

They contribute almost nothing to the world, they just suck off the healthy tissue that Christianity has created.
They live in Christian founded nations, learn at Christian founded schools, get healthy at Christian founded hospitals and then go on their little rants about how the world would be better off without Christians, while ignoring the constant help offered society by Christians from soup kitchens to churches and free counseling for troubled people.

Their completely insane view of how things are leave them constantly being hypocritical about everything religious, and then they write books about their hypocrisy and pretend they are clever.

so I guess if there is one thing that Christ gave us that atheist can't have, it would be a grasp of reality?

Right..let's get that broad brush out folks, crow wants to do some painting. First let's ignore the way things are, and let's put on the Hollywood stereotype machines.
Much easier to operate that way huh crow?
Next let's place a level of demand on Christians higher than the ones placed on atheist. Pretty standard stuff here.
Of course Christians are easy to pigeonhole, we hate know them right crow? Of course atheist are harder to broad brush because once you do it becomes operation 'change the definition' from the crowster. We can't say what atheist beleive because we don't have any consensus on who they are.



Or you could think for 2 seconds instead of one and realize that your definition of morality is what causes the problem here, not mine.

I believe in a clear cut morality that has a basis for determining all right and wrong.

Yours is a subjective nothing based on random fluctuations of the current DNA that are in constant flux and therefore can NEVER make a claim of superiority because there is no benchmark to prove this by.

In other words, you can only claim your morality is good if you steal the Christian benchmarks to do so.

Just don't pretend that you aren't a theif when you do it, have some intellectual honesty for once in your life.

what are you babbling about? all i'm doing is challenging the premise of your original question because it was prejudiced. most muslims are not "immoral" by american standards. america is not some bastion of morality in an immoral world.

if you want to restate the question as a hypothetical feel free.

Woah, now I think you have just stepped right off your absolute moral authority and onto a very slippery slope. If we are able to interpret the moral rules and sometimes break them using our own judgement, then it is our judgement that is paramount, not the rules. Anyone can claim that god told them to do something.




You're the one who killed the host. You've replaced nature (your actual source) with an idea you made up (god). You're essentially worshiping an idol. And as moses warned after his meditation, there is a price to pay for that disconnection.

In the context I was addressing speedz contention that the examples of God commanding the Israelite to kill a whole community are not in conflict with the commandment not to kill because the command to wipe them out was from the Source of the command not to kill. That action based on that command from God was brought up in question, not whether someone 'says' God told them so it's okay.
It would be foolish to argue that God cannot speak to us, and equally foolish to say that anyone who says God spoke to him must be believed.



This really is such a good example of the circular reasoning and complete fabrications of reality your side makes.
You imply that I am doing something 'wrong' by worshiping an idol, which is only wrong if there is a God who said don't worship them.
You want to hold the rules over my head while you argue that those rules don't apply.

It is because, as speedz already admitted, deep down you know that these things are true and that disobeying them is wrong, but you have disconnected yourself from being allowed to believe it so you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too.

It's classic schizophrenic behavior, which is the hallmark of all things atheist.

In fact if I am the one in denial about my 'host' than I gain and lose nothing.

The same cannot be said about your position. So you must attempt to apply standards to me that you yourself would never accept.

No, you are trying to pretend you have made some point.

You haven't, in fact you have done the opposite, you have proven you know almost nothing about Christianity. And that the only way you can make any point is to first poison the debate with lies.

And you have proven that you want to grab any straw, no matter how ridiculous and use it to fight against the tide of truth storming down on your head as you flail about like a wild man, hoping that someone comes to your rescue soon before you have to face your inadequacies.

no content. doesn't address anything i said. dodge.

again, the real world america vs. islam premise of your question isn't valid, but it's not a terrible question in terms of hypotheticals and you should state it that way. i can do it for you if you want.

so you don't believe in zeus because you're schizophrenic?

Why do you want to worship somebody who orders you to worship them? That's horrible, in my opinion. It's like me giving a homeless person some money and expecting them to bow down to me for the rest of the day. A little bit like your 'heaven', where you worship God for eternity... that's my idea of hell. If heaven did exist, I genuinely wouldn't want to go there.



As for the morality issue BG, are you a moral person because of God, or despite him? i.e - you only obey laws etc, because of your fear of God? Is that really being genuinely moral, at all? Or is it a selfish repression of your real desires, in order that you get to this place called heaven?


If you're moral, without the influence of God, purely through your own rational mind... why would you need God at all? *



*I've only read the last page of this thread... if this has been addressed earlier, can you direct me to an answer of yours that answers this? Thanks.