Do you want religion to cease? If so, how?

Religion isn't in itself a cause of problems in the world.  People with equal parts power and ego are.  For its first centuries, both Christianity and Islam were wonderful things; it's only after they became large enough that men with power and ego found them useful that they began their long trek into darkness.  That is something that is possible completely in the absense of religion.  The communists of the 20th century were more than capable of being total monsters without religion.  BP was more than capable of tragically ignoring safety protocol without being influenced by religion.  The abuses in the meatpacking industry that led to the institituion of the FDA were not replies to religious instruction.  Anyone who tries to convince themselves that the world would be a utopia if it just weren't for those damn religions is fooling themselves in a monumental fashion.

I'd like it to cease, but gradually by its own devices. I think it's a situation I see us all moving to; i.e. our globally dwindling belief in Abrahamic religion mirrors the more ancient religions that have lost their followings over time. Although some religions do offer some good morals, democratic laws tend to offer more justified standards for living. I also believe that the very notion of faith is potential psychologically limiting or damaging.

While I feel responding to religious dogma is always appropriate, attempting conversion of any kind is both futile and sinister. I reached my own atheism by myself and I'd expect everyone else to do the same, if they can. I also personally happen to love church architecture, organ music and our shared global religious heritage, so wouldn't like to see references to our early forms of collective governance removed from our culture.

I am honestly not sure about this. I do "believe" the world would be better off without religion but there are a few very important questions for which there is no answer. How many people are good just because of religion? How many people are not evil just because of religion? You can say all you want that it's pointless to be good just for hope of reward but it's a benefit as far as society is concerned.

I also believe in order for a non-religious world to exist in a more peaceful way, you have to have more equality among humans throughout the world which is quite an impossible task really.

Also superstition will always exist in humans, if religion goes there will come some other forms of superstition. 

For its first centuries, Islam was a wonderful thing

GabuEx

The complete abolition by force of the polytheistic religion of the quraish was a wonderful thing? Whatever happened to respecting other people's beliefs? To conquer a land just because you werent allowed to perform pilgrimage for your invisible god was a wonderful thing? And then completely destroying another religion's holiest place of worship?

Are you really telling me that after the conquest of makkah, the majority suddenly converted to islam because somehow they had seen the truth? I wonder what else reason could be there to accept the religion of a conqueror?:roll:

And are you aware that in an islamic society a non-muslim is not considered an equal citizen and this was practiced from the get go?

It is so funny that because muhammad gave rights and respect to followers of other abrahimic religions, it is completely forgotten how he treated the idolatrous ones. He declared polytheism as the ultimate sin even above atheism but who gave him the authority to "act" on it?

The communists of the 20th century were more than capable of being total monsters without religion.  BP was more than capable of tragically ignoring safety protocol without being influenced by religion.  The abuses in the meatpacking industry that led to the institituion of the FDA were not replies to religious instruction.  Anyone who tries to convince themselves that the world would be a utopia if it just weren't for those damn religions is fooling themselves in a monumental fashion.

GabuEx

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

This quote sums up things nicely.

If you're going to evangelize, that's no better than the "soul winning" that mormon missionaries and Jehovah's witnesses do. At that point, you have created a religion for yourself; therefore, you cannot say in the next breath that religions are poisonous and should disappear. Atheism is about thinking for yourself-- evangelizing to people does not address that.

There are a number of bad things that come from religions, but outlawing religions would be a disgusting violation of the freedom of many people. It's one thing to outlaw religious indoctrination or polygamous marriage, but by removing religions altogether, it's overkill. It's like using a chainsaw to cut a blade of grass. I would love it if religious indoctrination on children were punishable by law, but removing all things religion related would not need to happen in order to achieve that. Thus, I don't believe that religions should die.

Whoever said that? Why are you acting like a typical religious apologetic?Gambler_3

I'm sorry, I'll try to act like someone else. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Gambler_3

GabuEx

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Animatronic64

GabuEx

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

If someone does burn the dog then their morals were never good enough to begin with.

And btw are you assuming most people would actually kill the dog?:| Admittedly I'll put a random animal on fire for a million dollars but not someone's pet. In this case I will try to make a deal with the dog's owners but if they dont agree then I wont kill it no matter what money is on offer.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Gambler_3

GabuEx

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

If someone does burn the dog then their morals were never good enough to begin with.

You are completely missing the point. When someone becomes evil for lust of money, they know what they are doing and choose money instead of their moral standards. What religion does is make people do evil things while the people themselves think that they are doing something good.

There are many things which can make people do bad things but they know they are doing something evil except in the case of religion. Now get the point?

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

Gambler_3

If someone does burn the dog then their morals were never good enough to begin with.

And btw are you assuming most people would actually kill the dog?:| Admittedly I'll put a random animal on fire for a million dollars but not someone's pet. In this case I will try to make a deal with the dog's owners but if they dont agree then I wont kill it no matter what money is on offer.

If you really believe that that quote is true, then it seems to me that you should be able to provide four things:

1. An example of a good man doing an evil thing;

2. An explanation for why the thing he did was evil;

3. An explanation for why the man is a good man despite having done the evil thing; and

4. An explanation for why religion may be blamed for this - i.e., an explanation for why, were there no religion in the world, this good man would not have done this evil thing.

Can you do that?

(Note that I am being charitable - an example of a single good man doing a single evil thing attributable to religion does not in any way prove the statement that all evil things done by all good men are attributable solely to religion - but I am curious to hear a response to this, for starters.)

You are completely missing the point. When someone becomes evil for lust of money, they know what they are doing and choose money instead of their moral standards. What religion does is make people do evil things while the people themselves think that they are doing something good.

There are many things which can make people do bad things but they know they are doing something evil except in the case of religion. Now get the point?

Gambler_3

I don't. The dog could have been torturing the neighbors with incessant night-time barking for the past 10 years. Some might be willing to pay to set their neighbor's dog on fire. I guess that's completely missed your point too, which I believe was that money is always morally evil. I think the rise of the west-inspired free-enterprise global capitalism says you're wrong. In my country, money is the primary motivation for action in society.

Where does "lust for money" fall off the morality standards scale for you? Might it be morally ok to desire money as a means to other ends? Don't you also think people can be contitioned to think they are behaving to high moral standards that might conflict with yours? Is your own moral standard the enshrined default for all humanity? People can make all sorts of immoral choices, based on information that does not need to be religious at all in nature.

If you really believe that that quote is true, then it seems to me that you should be able to provide four things:

1. An example of a good man doing an evil thing;

2. An explanation for why the thing he did was evil;

3. An explanation for why the man is a good man despite having done the evil thing; and

4. An explanation for why religion may be blamed for this - i.e., an explanation for why, were there no religion in the world, this good man would not have done this evil thing.

Can you do that?

GabuEx

2. Need any?

3. Not needed unless you think anyone who discriminates against homosexuals is by default not a good person.

4. Because many people(not all I know) simply discriminate against them because it is a sin and must be shunned. They consider the bible\quran to be the highest ideal and it takes precedent on anything material. I became alot more acceptable of homosexuality when I became an atheist, I am sure alot would too if there was no religion.

I don't. The dog could have been torturing the neighbors with incessant night-time barking for the past 10 years. Some might be willing to pay to set their neighbor's dog on fire. I guess that's completely missed your point too, which I believe was that money is always morally evil. I think the rise of the west-inspired free-enterprise global capitalism says you're wrong. In my country, money is the primary motivation for action in society.

Where does "lust for money" fall off the morality standards scale for you? Might it be morally ok to desire money as a means to other ends? Don't you also think people can be contitioned to think they are behaving to high moral standards that might conflict with yours? Is your own moral standard the enshrined default for all humanity? People can make all sorts of immoral choices, based on information that does not need to be religious at all in nature.

RationalAtheist

Ah the relativety argument. In order for the quote to be taken literally you have to remain within an objective criteria of good and evil like suicide bombing and pedophilia is evil otherwise if we keep things relative then ofcourse that quote doesnt stand up.

I assmued the dog wasnt causing anyone any trouble. "Money is always morally evil", I dont even know what that means let alone being my point.

Ah the relativety argument. In order for the quote to be taken literally you have to remain within an objective criteria of good and evil like suicide bombing and pedophilia is evil otherwise if we keep things relative then ofcourse that quote doesnt stand up.

Gambler_3

The "money being morally evil" thing was poked at you, since you seemed to say there is no moral financial justification for accepting $1 million for dog murder. Sorry if I misunderstood. Suppose I used the cash to open a centre caring for dog burn victims? What about the moral justification of the "greater good"?

This hoary old relativity argument does keep popping up, since there are never any absolutes (except in the case of absolutes, where there never are any of them). In some cases, I believe paedophilia (according to UK law at least) shouldn't be a crime; i.e. if both participants are between 13 and 20. In other cases, suicide bombing could feasibly be justified in the most extreme of situations, where loss of life on one side would prevent impending greater loss on the other.

My reasoning for stating UK-specific law does indicate varying international moral outlooks, as enshined in various countries' laws. I recently saw a film from Malawi for example, where a homosexual couple both got 14 years hard-labour for their private behaviour. Malawi (just like most other African nations) is also coincidentally visited by huge numbers of evangelical American Christian missions to hand out moral "guidance". In places like Australia, I think Christian religious education ("SRE") is taught (for free, by Christians) to all primary school children every week. Are these countries, or your's, good sources of absolute moral guidance? What standards should we all use?

1. Discriminating against homosexuals.

2. Need any?

3. Not needed unless you think anyone who discriminates against homosexuals is by default not a good person.

4. Because many people(not all I know) simply discriminate against them because it is a sin and must be shunned. They consider the bible\quran to be the highest ideal and it takes precedent on anything material. I became alot more acceptable of homosexuality when I became an atheist, I am sure alot would too if there was no religion.

Gambler_3

Are people homophobes because of religion, or do most people find homophobia in their religion because they already were homophobic?  All you have given is one single piece of anecdotal evidence.  There are religious people who are completely tolerant of homosexuals, and there are people who are just as homophobic for totally nonreligious reasons.  It seems to me that if religion were the sole cause of homophobia, that should not be the case.

This is not even mentioning the hand-waving in part 3.  Why aren't people who discriminate against homosexuals no longer good people for having done so?

Homophobia has nothing to do with religion, it has always been around. One way or another, these people will find a way to discriminate. Next thing you're going to tell us is that blacks were discriminated against because of religion. I think as atheists we need to keep our minds open about certain things such as this. And as much as I want a world free of religion, it has NOTHING to do with what religion may or not may not be directly responsible for. It's purely on the basis of personal beliefs. Certain groups of organized religion are not representative of the religion as a whole, nor may their views reflect on what their religion actually stands for. If you want to rid the world of religion because it can be used to corrupt people, you might want to consider adding more things on to that list. Religion is far from the only thing that can aid in corrupting human beings. 

If you really believe that that quote is true, then it seems to me that you should be able to provide four things:

1. An example of a good man doing an evil thing;

2. An explanation for why the thing he did was evil;

3. An explanation for why the man is a good man despite having done the evil thing; and

4. An explanation for why religion may be blamed for this - i.e., an explanation for why, were there no religion in the world, this good man would not have done this evil thing.

Can you do that?

(Note that I am being charitable - an example of a single good man doing a single evil thing attributable to religion does not in any way prove the statement that all evil things done by all good men are attributable solely to religion - but I am curious to hear a response to this, for starters.)

GabuEx

I think I have one from personal experience.

1. A Pasthu farmer murders his baby daughter

2. Murdering babies is evil (Morality is a vague and relative thing so I'm going to have to assume you agree with me on this one. Kind of redundant anyway since evil is implied in the first criteria)

3. He normally just minds his own business, works to take care of his family and follows the pillars of islam as best he can. (In other words, he does not harm anyone, so he is not evil)  

4. His kid fell down a well. In a panic, he called the US army for assistance (They just so happened to be in Afghanistan for some reason, I'm kinda hazy on the details), they dispatched a helicopter to take the badly injured kid to a hospital. They don't allow a male member of the family to escort the child. Because the child who, IIRC, was under the age of six was in unescorted contact with non muslims, she is stoned or starved to death when she returns to her village. The reasoning being that she is no longer "pure" and sharia law or some other islam tenet demands she be put to death.  I doubt very much that if these religious rules did not exist that this man would have done this terrible thing to his daughter.   

I think I have one from personal experience.

1. A Pasthu farmer murders his baby daughter

2. Murdering babies is evil (Morality is a vague and relative thing so I'm going to have to assume you agree with me on this one. Kind of redundant anyway since evil is implied in the first criteria)

3. He normally just minds his own business, works to take care of his family and follows the pillars of islam as best he can. (In other words, he does not harm anyone, so he is not evil)  

4. His kid fell down a well. In a panic, he called the US army for assistance (They just so happened to be in Afghanistan for some reason, I'm kinda hazy on the details), they dispatched a helicopter to take the badly injured kid to a hospital. They don't allow a male member of the family to escort the child. Because the child who, IIRC, was under the age of six was in unescorted contact with non muslims, she is stoned or starved to death when she returns to her village. The reasoning being that she is no longer "pure" and sharia law or some other islam tenet demands she be put to death.  I doubt very much that if these religious rules did not exist that this man would have done this terrible thing to his daughter.   

Frattracide

It seems to me that one cannot exactly call a group of people "good" who place a higher value on accepted customs than on human life. (Or, depending on their motivation, who place a higher value on ensuring that they are in their god's favor than on human life.)  This is really kind of my entire point here: is it really religion itself that makes the people do evil things, or is it merely a catalyst that causes them to show their true colors?

It seems to me that one cannot exactly call a group of people "good" who place a higher value on accepted customs than on human life. (Or, depending on their motivation, who place a higher value on ensuring that they are in their god's favor than on human life.)  This is really kind of my entire point here: is it really religion itself that makes the people do evil things, or is it merely a catalyst that causes them to show their true colors?

GabuEx

The thing is, had these customs not existed then this problem would not exist.So it follows that this sort of problem stems directly from a religion. I sincerely doubt that this man wanted to kill his daughter and I don't think he would have if it were not for religion. Family and tribe are incredibly important to Pasthus, I don't think filicide represents the "true colors" of a pasthu tribe.  

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I assmued the dog wasnt causing anyone any trouble. "Money is always morally evil", I dont even know what that means let alone being my point.

Ah the relativety argument. In order for the quote to be taken literally you have to remain within an objective criteria of good and evil like suicide bombing and pedophilia is evil otherwise if we keep things relative then ofcourse that quote doesnt stand up.

RationalAtheist

The "money being morally evil" thing was poked at you, since you seemed to say there is no moral financial justification for accepting $1 million for dog murder. Sorry if I misunderstood. Suppose I used the cash to open a centre caring for dog burn victims? What about the moral justification of the "greater good"?

This hoary old relativity argument does keep popping up, since there are never any absolutes (except in the case of absolutes, where there never are any of them). In some cases, I believe paedophilia (according to UK law at least) shouldn't be a crime; i.e. if both participants are between 13 and 20. In other cases, suicide bombing could feasibly be justified in the most extreme of situations, where loss of life on one side would prevent impending greater loss on the other.

My reasoning for stating UK-specific law does indicate varying international moral outlooks, as enshined in various countries' laws. I recently saw a film from Malawi for example, where a homosexual couple both got 14 years hard-labour for their private behaviour. Malawi (just like most other African nations) is also coincidentally visited by huge numbers of evangelical American Christian missions to hand out moral "guidance". In places like Australia, I think Christian religious education ("SRE") is taught (for free, by Christians) to all primary school children every week. Are these countries, or your's, good sources of absolute moral guidance? What standards should we all use?

Ok man I will say according to my personal moral standards that statement is somewhat true. I mean I personally agreed with that statement so I dont know why it must have to pass an objective test of morality?

And suicide bombing is justified as self defence, did I say otherwise? I only meant the current form of suicide bombing where the very purpose is to kill innocents to spread terror, do I really have to mention each and every little detail in my posts?

And there are people who think killing any american just because they are american is completely justified, does this mean I cant declare such thinking as evil? I mean not everyone agrees with it so obviously I shouldnt outright call it evil right? Comon man it's too unnecessarily tiring to bring relativety in an argument all the time, common sense and mutual schools of thought should be enough at times.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

1. Discriminating against homosexuals.

2. Need any?

3. Not needed unless you think anyone who discriminates against homosexuals is by default not a good person.

4. Because many people(not all I know) simply discriminate against them because it is a sin and must be shunned. They consider the bible\quran to be the highest ideal and it takes precedent on anything material. I became alot more acceptable of homosexuality when I became an atheist, I am sure alot would too if there was no religion.

GabuEx

Are people homophobes because of religion, or do most people find homophobia in their religion because they already were homophobic?  All you have given is one single piece of anecdotal evidence.  There are religious people who are completely tolerant of homosexuals, and there are people who are just as homophobic for totally nonreligious reasons.  It seems to me that if religion were the sole cause of homophobia, that should not be the case.

This is not even mentioning the hand-waving in part 3.  Why aren't people who discriminate against homosexuals no longer good people for having done so?

I mean are you really telling me that the bible doesnt have a significant influence on how many christians percieve homosexuals? Shall I give you some verses here? Nah there is no point, you already know and your defensiveness simply shows denial to me.

Because in my opinion their religous delusion makes them do this and apart from it they are good people.

Homophobia has nothing to do with religion, it has always been around. One way or another, these people will find a way to discriminate.

Animatronic64

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I think I have one from personal experience.

1. A Pasthu farmer murders his baby daughter

2. Murdering babies is evil (Morality is a vague and relative thing so I'm going to have to assume you agree with me on this one. Kind of redundant anyway since evil is implied in the first criteria)

3. He normally just minds his own business, works to take care of his family and follows the pillars of islam as best he can. (In other words, he does not harm anyone, so he is not evil)  

4. His kid fell down a well. In a panic, he called the US army for assistance (They just so happened to be in Afghanistan for some reason, I'm kinda hazy on the details), they dispatched a helicopter to take the badly injured kid to a hospital. They don't allow a male member of the family to escort the child. Because the child who, IIRC, was under the age of six was in unescorted contact with non muslims, she is stoned or starved to death when she returns to her village. The reasoning being that she is no longer "pure" and sharia law or some other islam tenet demands she be put to death.  I doubt very much that if these religious rules did not exist that this man would have done this terrible thing to his daughter.   

GabuEx

It seems to me that one cannot exactly call a group of people "good" who place a higher value on accepted customs than on human life. (Or, depending on their motivation, who place a higher value on ensuring that they are in their god's favor than on human life.)  This is really kind of my entire point here: is it really religion itself that makes the people do evil things, or is it merely a catalyst that causes them to show their true colors?

Was abraham evil for putting a knife on his child's neck? You can only answer yes so lets move on.

Anybody who considers sacrificing their child for god as the height of morality and sacrifice instead of an evil act must not be a good person? Again you can only say yes so basically according to GabuEx the majority of the muslims are not good people.

Why are you taking things so literally? Such one liners are not meant to be scrutinized so deeply as you are doing, it is a vague statement.

Gambler_3

I just can't seem to take wirtten things any other way than literally! I have honestly tried to show a little jokiness in my reply, but can understand why you don't like me to pick apart your statements. I'll try to be less scutinisational in future and agree with your statements instead if you like. Let's see how it goes, but whatever you do, please don't read the stuff in brackets - it's just a monologue...

Ok man I will say according to my personal moral standards that statement is somewhat true. I mean I personally agreed with that statement so I dont know why it must have to pass an objective test of morality?

Gambler_3

Yup. (but I'm secretly thinking that what you personally think may not be what the majority of people think as moral yardsticks. Also, moral values are constantly tested and change dynamically with new discovery, so absolute moral definitions are impossible to justify.)

And suicide bombing is justified as self defence, did I say otherwise? I only meant the current form of suicide bombing where the very purpose is to kill innocents to spread terror, do I really have to mention each and every little detail in my posts?

Gambler_3

Nope, or sure - whatever. (I'm pondering why you said it was morally wrong in your last post, now say its morally ok in this one. I can even understand the rational for current suicide bombings that I personally find despicable. I can see how people can justify those attacks morally, according to thier own ideologies.)

And there are people who think killing any american just because they are american is completely justified, does this mean I cant declare such thinking as evil? I mean not everyone agrees with it so obviously I shouldnt outright call it evil right? Comon man it's too unnecessarily tiring to bring relativety in an argument all the time, common sense and mutual schools of thought should be enough at times.

Gambler_3

Absolutely. (But I have a secret contemplation that you can make your own evaluation on the morality of such acts - we all constantly do in re-defining our own moral outlooks and comparing them with the societies we live in. But to think everyone else should share your current view denies everyone elses' different life-experiences.)

I think it is hard to apply morals to actions, since I think morals represent the justifiction for actions, rather than the actions themselves. Should I have put this bit in brackets?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It seems to me that one cannot exactly call a group of people "good" who place a higher value on accepted customs than on human life. (Or, depending on their motivation, who place a higher value on ensuring that they are in their god's favor than on human life.)  This is really kind of my entire point here: is it really religion itself that makes the people do evil things, or is it merely a catalyst that causes them to show their true colors?

Frattracide

The thing is, had these customs not existed then this problem would not exist.So it follows that this sort of problem stems directly from a religion. I sincerely doubt that this man wanted to kill his daughter and I don't think he would have if it were not for religion. Family and tribe are incredibly important to Pasthus, I don't think filicide represents the "true colors" of a pasthu tribe.  

But the fact that remains that the people complied and went through with it.  Unless we're claiming that religion is a demon that possesses people's bodies and operates them like a mechanical puppet, the fact remains that the people willingly did what they did.  How, then, can it be said that it does not represent their true colors?  Obviously he wanted to kill his daughter more than the alternative; otherwise, he would not have done so.  They say that you see who a human really is in times of greatest distress; what greater distress can there be than faced with the prospect of having been instructed by someone to murder a member of your family?  And for you to then choose to do so - how is that anyone's colors but your own?

I'm reminded of a famous rebuttal in a 1984 debate in Canada between Prime Minister John Turner and Conservative leader Brian Mulroney.  During the debate, the topic of some unpopular appointments Turner had made was raised, and Turner's only defense was, "I had no option."  Mulroney then famously replied,

"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

I feel that this is much the same sort of thing - to claim that the fault is with religion, rather than with men too cowardly to do the right thing, seems to me to be passing the buck, to act as though human beings are not in control of their own actions, but rather are strung up like puppets, controlled against their will by an evil mastermind which in fact is nothing more than an immaterial idea, a concept with not even any corporeal form.  There are many forms of religion, some of which give people positive ideas, and some of which give people negative ideas, but they all rely on the humans hearing the idea to obey and to comply ultimately because he wants to, or at least wants to more than the alternatives.  A form of religion cannot force men to do evil any more than it can force men to do good.

Whoever said religion was the "sole" reason for discrimination against homosexuals? I even said otherwise very specifically. Did I say all religious people are intolerant of homosexuals? You are really searching for things I havent said arent you?

I mean are you really telling me that the bible doesnt have a significant influence on how many christians percieve homosexuals? Shall I give you some verses here? Nah there is no point, you already know and your defensiveness simply shows denial to me.

Because in my opinion their religous delusion makes them do this and apart from it they are good people.

Gambler_3

Are there certain interpretations of the Bible that would, if accepted, lead people to feel that discrimination against homosexual people is the correct form of action?  Certainly.  But the fact remains that they must come to that conclusion that it is the correct interpretation, and they must then accept that that discrimination is the proper course of action.  None of that acceptance can be attributed to religion; it is solely and fully a conclusion the person reaches on their own.

For me it had all to do with religion and now I dont anymore look for reasons to discriminate against them and am getting more and more acceptable of them the more I think about the absolute lack of choice in a person's sexuality.

Gambler_3

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

I used to believe that but not anymore. I have seen far too many extremely intelligent and yet extremely devoted to religion people now, it's clearly some sort of mental disease working here or just some emotional/mental block for people, they just cant see outside of it.

Was abraham evil for putting a knife on his child's neck? You can only answer yes so lets move on.

Anybody who considers sacrificing their child for god as the height of morality and sacrifice instead of an evil act must not be a good person? Again you can only say yes so basically according to GabuEx the majority of the muslims are not good people.

Gambler_3

I don't believe that there exist "good" and "evil" people, myself; I believe that there exist people whose circumstances have caused them to develop in different ways and which have activated different parts of the full spectrum of human capabilities and behavioral patterns, so yes, in that respect I believe that the majority of Muslims are not good people, in that I believe that no one is a good person, in that I believe that the very concept of a "good person" is incoherent and based on faulty premises.

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

GabuEx

If I didnt do that then God may become angry at me for disagreeing with His word.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

Gambler_3

If I didnt do that then God may become angry at me for disagreeing with His word.

So in other words, your motivation was the avoidance of God's wrath?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

Gambler_3

If I didnt do that then God may become angry at me for disagreeing with His word.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

GabuEx

If I didnt do that then God may become angry at me for disagreeing with His word.

So in other words, your motivation was the avoidance of God's wrath?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Let me ask this question: for what reason did you believe that you ought to discriminate against homosexuals, and what led you to the conclusion that that was the correct course of action?  What did you believe would happen if you did not discriminate?

Gambler_3

If I didnt do that then God may become angry at me for disagreeing with His word.

So in other words, your motivation was the avoidance of God's wrath?

You just said that not doing so was going against the moral code of God, and that if you didn't do so then God would be angry at you.  You additionally said earlier in this thread that you stopped doing so after you stopped being a theist (i.e., after you stopped believing that God would be angry at you).  So, how is it incorrect to say that your ultimate motivation was to avoid God's wrath?

You just said that not doing so was going against the moral code of God, and that if you didn't do so then God would be angry at you.  You additionally said earlier in this thread that you stopped doing so after you stopped being a theist (i.e., after you stopped believing that God would be angry at you).  So, how is it incorrect to say that your ultimate motivation was to avoid God's wrath?

GabuEx

When god didnt exist anymore then it was left on me to decide what is right and what is wrong, I didnt suddenly changed my stance on homosexuality. Previously I wouldnt listen to any rationality on the subject as the quran condemns homosexuality and thus nothing in the world could convince me otherwise but when I stopped believing then my mind was open to thinking beyond what I had been brought up with, I was finally free of the mental virus.

I was simply trying to be a good human being, following god's will is the best thing to do under all circumstances as he knows better than anyone else.

When god didnt exist anymore then it was left on me to decide what is right and what is wrong, I didnt suddenly changed my stance on homosexuality. Previously I wouldnt listen to any rationality on the subject as the quran condemns homosexuality and thus nothing in the world could convince me otherwise but when I stopped believing then my mind was open to thinking beyond what I had been brought up with, I was finally free of the mental virus.

Gambler_3

What convinced you that the Qur'an (or at least the interpretation of which you had been taught) should be listened to for moral guidance, and that it uniquely could be relied upon to determine God's will?

If you were doing it because you thought it was right, then you must have had some thoughts other than, "God will be angry if I don't."  Otherwise, what I said holds.

It seems to me that one cannot exactly call a group of people "good" who place a higher value on accepted customs than on human life.

GabuEx