facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old June 11, 2010, 03:44 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,932

this overly defensive post riddled with the odd insult, is exactly why atheist claims that in the absence of religion the world would be all hunky-dory is nothing but distilled bullcrap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
Wrong, right; are inventions of society by humans. Not inventions of (nonexistent) god.

I will not kill you because you are not attacking me and I don't have to kill you to defend myself or my family or someone whom you might be attacking who cannot defend him/herself. I will not kill you for no reason, because it is irrational, inhumane, illogical, socially unacceptable, prevented by law of the land (created by human).

I will not kill you because as a rational human being I have no reason to kill you. Not because there is some imaginary being who allegedly wrote a set of imaginary laws that telling me to follow morally questionable ethics.
i said if you want to you should. desire is enough of a reason to do anything, is it not?



Quote:
If god asks you kill others you will do so, like un-ethical, brainwashed zombie who doesn't understand the concept of right from wrong, because he doesn't understand how to think for himself. Some imaginary being and law needs to tell them how to think, how to sleep, how to eat, how to talk.
which is no different from a person who takes his orders from another human being(s) i.e societal norms.

if one was truly an independent thinker, he or she would realize that each individual should make his own personal code of conduct, especially in the absence of "laws" be they religious or otherwise.



Quote:
A non-believer will not stab you to death if you draw flying spaghetti monster or mock their non-belief.
but he will come up with an overly defensive and at the very least, tactless, post if you merely question his unbelief on an internet forum.

Quote:
I (or any non-believer) am more likely to defend your right to believe whatever you want to believe, even if I disagree with your belief, but you (or any fundamentalist religious person) are likely to kill me simply because I am infidel or a non-believer.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed, insulted, or just shocked.

Given that Adolf Hitler used 500 pages to malign a few million people, and you've stereotyped some 5 billion people as potential murderers in the space of a single sentence, do you still want to believe in your own tolerance?

and if this is, as you claim, representative of atheists, or most atheists...do you really think a world of atheists would be that much more violence-free than the current one?

****************************************

the bottom line is that most of the well known atheists, from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris, and others are either intellectually dishonest in an effort to "convert" others or are intellectually incapable of fully grasping the consequences of their "godlessness", for lack of a better word.

in other words, the standard atheist argument goes just like the one you're making now:

"i'm an atheist, and yet i have morals: i don't kill, don't steal, don't lie..."

but what goes unnoticed is that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". society has certain notions some based upon religious morality (i.e homosexuality and/or incest is "wrong"), and others based upon maintenance of order (i.e theft, homicide, etc). there is also some overalap between the two. for example adultery is primarily based upon religious morality, but is also tied to a degree of social order and domestic stability.

but like you said, these are society's ideas, and hence they vary from society to society. ritualistic homosexuality is the norm in certain african cultures, and while incest is taboo everywhere, the precise definition of incest varies from one locale to the next.

now if morality is society's ideas, it is invariably the ideas of a human being (or many human beings). and given that most of these ideas are thousands of years old - if not older, it should make sense, that one human being's ideas (in the absence of scientific/logical/mathematical proofs) is no more valid than any other human being's ideas.

thus, if i choose to depart from societal norms, i have every right and more importantly, i have every rational reason to depart.

so for example, murder and theft are considered wrong by society. but that is only because whoever first thought of that idea, realized that if it were acceptable, there would be no limitation on its use and total chaos and anarchy would result. this would inevitably set all human beings back.

but what if i, as an individual realized, that murder and theft, could be used exclusively to my advantage? society, by and large, does not engage in such actions due to the "immorality" of them, but what about me? it could work to my advantage.

this is precisely how organized crime operates, and even then they realize that rival elements can react in any way they deem fit. this is in effect a survival of the fittest scenario where he who is both clever and fortunate enough to get away with it, will prosper, and he who isn't will be eliminated.

you see, all that exists, is a human being's self interest. in the absence of a God, telling you how to align your self interest, there is no "morality".

an action is not "good" or "bad", but rather is either in your favor or not in your favor.

a woman who sacrifices herself to save her children, acts in a selfish manner, precisely because if she had let her children die, she would not be able to cope with the grief and/or guilt of her action.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old June 11, 2010, 03:51 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,932

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
Which bring the obvious question, if he didn't look at her how did he know she was dressed inappropriately (Whatever the F that supposed to mean)? By looking at her he means looking at her face? If so it is ok not to look at her face but everywhere else?
what he means is he did not look at her while speaking to her. he never said that he never saw her on the plane. on the contrary, he stated that she was sitting next to the british man, which implies that he saw her. seeing and looking are two different things.

secondly, from the grin on his face, and the laughter of the crowd it was fairly obvious that he was being jovial...so who knows, maybe he did cop a look. he is a man afterall...
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old June 11, 2010, 04:59 PM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,134

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
a woman who sacrifices herself to save her children, acts in a selfish manner, precisely because if she had let her children die, she would not be able to cope with the grief and/or guilt of her action.
A good rebuttal, I agree with where you taken and developed the former post.
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old June 11, 2010, 05:13 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purbasha T
Lol, you're saying as if all religious people are running after the non-religious ones to take their lives and all non-believers are as clean as it gets.

Just because some killers take their motivation from their religions, it doesn't make the religion blameworthy.
LOL. No I didn't say that. I wrote:

but you (or any fundamentalist religious person) are likely to kill me simply because I am infidel or a non-believer.

I took an extra effort to write fundamentalist so that I can avoid the type of comment you just made.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Purbasha T
There might be some non-believer who's a crazy peson and will shoot me on sight just because I laughed at the fact that he believes in no god. Maybe, you wouldn't. Similarly, there will be believers who'll do the same for having their belief mocked at. But I wouldn't.
Fair enough, find me one, just ONE example of someone who have killed, in the history of human race, specifically because someone mocked them on their non belief, or someone killed someone specifically because of their non-belief. (ie, I killed someone because I found justification on my non-belief to kill someone).

I will help you. You can't find one. On contrary, I won't even have to help you and you can find many examples of people killing someone because they found justification in their religion to kill someone (whether you agree with that justification or not). ie, lets blow up a building and I will go to heaven with 60 virgins.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old June 11, 2010, 05:22 PM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,134

Quote:
Fair enough, find me one, just ONE example of someone who have killed, in the history of human race, specifically because someone mocked them on their non belief, or someone killed someone specifically because of their non-belief. (ie, I killed someone because I found justification on my non-belief to kill someone).
I really finding this argument really silly. How can you mock a person's religion, if he has none. Thats like mocking someone working as a doctor, when they're a lawyer.

And anyway still I do see legitimancy of your argument, yes athiests dont act with violence on a premises of belief, (you already argued about communist stalin).

However what point are you trying to make, that athiests are more peaceful than religious people, Im sorry that doesnt prove anything meaningful... at all
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old June 11, 2010, 06:28 PM
Purbasha T Purbasha T is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Location: London
Favorite Player: Saudi Capital
Posts: 6,985

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
LOL. No I didn't say that. I wrote:

but you (or any fundamentalist religious person) are likely to kill me simply because I am infidel or a non-believer.
No fundamentalist but only the misguided ones would do that.

I try to be a fundamentalist in my religion and NO, I'm not likely to kill you simply because you're an infidel (if you are). Where exactly does that sort of thinking get into you from? And what's your real life experience with the ''fundamentalists'' who try to follow their religion properly? Ever found one with a weapon or something so that they can catch someone like you and make their way to heaven?? Even if you found one, still doesn't prove a point..you're generalising too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
Fair enough, find me one, just ONE example of someone who have killed, in the history of human race, specifically because someone mocked them on their non belief, or someone killed someone specifically because of their non-belief. (ie, I killed someone because I found justification on my non-belief to kill someone).
I guess Nafi answered that well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
I will help you. You can't find one. On contrary, I won't even have to help you and you can find many examples of people killing someone because they found justification in their religion to kill someone (whether you agree with that justification or not). ie, lets blow up a building and I will go to heaven with 60 virgins.
I don't agree with those justfications, because first of all I don't even see them as justifications in the first place. And I'd like to think that you'd agree to that those are a very minor percentage of people who'd try and justify killing people of different belief in order to get their rewards or something. And even if they aren't a minority, still doesn't prove a point. 100 out of 100 people can be wrong, that doesn't put blot on the guidance they're supposed to be following ''correctly''.

Okay, I think we're moving in a circle. What's your point exactly?
__________________
Man is here.

Last edited by Purbasha T; June 11, 2010 at 06:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old June 11, 2010, 06:51 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
this overly defensive post riddled with the odd insult, is exactly why atheist claims that in the absence of religion the world would be all hunky-dory is nothing but distilled bullcrap.
I won't pretend that I am trying not to insult you, because the mere proposal of non-belief is an insult to you personally. So, its a no win situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan

i said if you want to you should. desire is enough of a reason to do anything, is it not?
No a desire is not enough to kill people. There are two type of people who kill maliciously, people who kill because they have something to gain (money, greed, revenge, avenge, pleasure because mentally sick) and people who kill because they have found justification in their religion belief (killing infidels with a promise to go to heaven, honor killing of family members, killing someone because you think they have insulted your religion, killing merely because islam needs to rule the world).

You will never find someone who wakes up one day and says "hmm, since I don't believe in any god and since I don't have anything to fear after I die and there is no one watching, lets strap a bomb on myself and blow a building accrooss the road for shitz and giggles or that my non-belief gives me the the permission to kill anyone and everyone for any reason or no reason at all."

Let me give you a real life example.

Sweden has 76% of population who doesn't believe in any organized religion (23% atheists, 53% agnostics). Denmark has 68%, Norway has 64%. Are their country falling apart? Are people just randomly going around killing everyone, robbing everyone? We don't need a hypothetical scenario, at this very moment they are countries with population that are predominately non-religious yet prosperous in almost every way possible, whether it is standard of living, education, health, life expectancy, democracy. They are better off (as a society) in every way that I can think off compare to any country where the population is predominantly religious. The idea or the rational that religious moral is preventing us from destroying each other is unfounded both in actual facts or in theory.




Quote:
I'm not sure if I should be impressed, insulted, or just shocked.

Given that Adolf Hitler used 500 pages to malign a few million people, and you've stereotyped some 5 billion people as potential murderers in the space of a single sentence, do you still want to believe in your own tolerance?

and if this is, as you claim, representative of atheists, or most atheists...do you really think a world of atheists would be that much more violence-free than the current one?
Stalin was an atheist (which I pointed out but you ignored), Hitler was not an atheist, contrary to popular belief, just claiming that he was an atheist is an over-simplification of his religious beliefs or possibly you are just parroting talking points used by religious people against non believers.

As a matter of fact the whole idea of aryan race was transcribed from Christian heritage of German culture. This is his exact quote: In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

....

March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."

....

According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God—so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

....


"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race...so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe...Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.

....

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

....

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Albert Speer reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

....

Hitler stated in a speech to the Stuttgart February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."


Yes, you should indeed be insulted and shocked of your own ignorance of that fact that Hitler was a very religious person. You make such blatant, ill-informed statement as if hitler was devoid of any religious influence is indeed quite shocking.

There has been undocumented contradictory claims by those close to hitler that he was an atheist, which can not be verified in any shape or form, but there was no written record (to the best of my knowledge) by hitler as first person of denouncing all religious or proclaiming his absence of beliefs.

Stalin, as I stated, was an atheist in accordance to his Communist philosophy. His actions was not influenced by moral justification in his non-belief, it was influenced by his justification in communist philosophy.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old June 11, 2010, 07:11 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
I really finding this argument really silly. How can you mock a person's religion, if he has none. Thats like mocking someone working as a doctor, when they're a lawyer.
I can understand that you have never seen any evidence of someone getting mocked because they lack any religious belief. I have seen both side of the river, both as a devoted religious person early in my life and now as non believer.

The mocking of the non-belief usually goes like "atheists people are stupid they think things come from nothing." Here are some examples. Obviously people who likes to mock non-believer don't understand that we don't take it personally, we are often amused by their ignorance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
And anyway still I do see legitimancy of your argument, yes athiests dont act with violence on a premises of belief, (you already argued about communist stalin).

However what point are you trying to make, that athiests are more peaceful than religious people, Im sorry that doesnt prove anything meaningful... at all
The origin of this meta discussion resulted from al Furqaan's claim (or rather insinuation) that religion has exclusivity in moral values, or somehow they are of higher value and anarchy will reign without religious morality.

I am arguing in favor of rational morality in-absence of religion.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old June 11, 2010, 07:21 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purbasha T

Okay, I think we're moving in a circle. What's your point exactly?
It is difficult to jump in the middle of a discussion without actually following any context that originated to this discussion and cherry picking certain quotes to make your arguments or make a point.

As stated somewhere else:

The origin of this meta discussion resulted from al Furqaan's claim (or rather insinuation) that religion has exclusivity in moral values, or somehow they are of higher value and anarchy will reign without religious morality.

I am arguing in favor of rational morality in-absence of religion.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old June 11, 2010, 10:05 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,932

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
I won't pretend that I am trying not to insult you, because the mere proposal of non-belief is an insult to you personally. So, its a no win situation.
since you know me personally, and hence know that i have no non-muslim friends, and since i fired off the first round of insults on this thread towards you/atheists, you must be then, necessarily, be correct.

my apologies.

Quote:
No a desire is not enough to kill people. There are two type of people who kill maliciously, people who kill because they have something to gain (money, greed, revenge, avenge, pleasure because mentally sick) and people who kill because they have found justification in their religion belief (killing infidels with a promise to go to heaven, honor killing of family members, killing someone because you think they have insulted your religion, killing merely because islam needs to rule the world).
thats just 1 single reason.

people who kill in order that Islam will rule the word, are killing for personal gain. their gain is the fact that Islam will either rule the world as a result, or will be that much closer.

get it?

Quote:
You will never find someone who wakes up one day and says "hmm, since I don't believe in any god and since I don't have anything to fear after I die and there is no one watching, lets strap a bomb on myself and blow a building accrooss the road for shitz and giggles or that my non-belief gives me the the permission to kill anyone and everyone for any reason or no reason at all."
that isn't my arguement. at least not the crux of it. my argument is that you wouldn't do something like this not because you fear some God, but because you have been conditioned by society into believing in some form of "morality". ironically, you hold a very condescending view towards that same society for conditioning others with religion.

my argument is that since there is no such thing as morality, in the absence of a Diety to demand its adherence, IF an atheist were to commit such an action, he would not be doing anything "wrong". wrong does not exist, it is a made up concept, in the absence of God. it is as real as the ether that was thought ot permeate the universe, its as real as the Easter Bunny or Superman.



Let me give you a real life example.
Quote:
Sweden has 76% of population who doesn't believe in any organized religion (23% atheists, 53% agnostics). Denmark has 68%, Norway has 64%. Are their country falling apart? Are people just randomly going around killing everyone, robbing everyone? We don't need a hypothetical scenario, at this very moment they are countries with population that are predominately non-religious yet prosperous in almost every way possible, whether it is standard of living, education, health, life expectancy, democracy. They are better off (as a society) in every way that I can think off compare to any country where the population is predominantly religious. The idea or the rational that religious moral is preventing us from destroying each other is unfounded both in actual facts or in theory.
like i said, there is also the fear of

a) going to jail

b) social conditioning into believing such acts are "henious" or "immoral" or "wrong".

what i am saying is that atheists are hypocrites, because they either do not realize it, or they hide it if they do, that morals don't exist and one cannot believe in something which does not exist.

but atheists, usually, with rare, rare, rare, exceptions say "i'm a perfectly moral person" implying that they still believe in it.

rather what they should say, if they want to be totally honest, is "there is no such thing as morality...only what society accepts as morality as originally thought up by some old man (Moses, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, whoever).



Quote:
Stalin was an atheist (which I pointed out but you ignored), Hitler was not an atheist, contrary to popular belief, just claiming that he was an atheist is an over-simplification of his religious beliefs or possibly you are just parroting talking points used by religious people against non believers.



As a matter of fact the whole idea of aryan race was transcribed from Christian heritage of German culture. This is his exact quote: In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."

....

According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God—so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

....


"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race...so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe...Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.

....

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

....

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Albert Speer reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

....

Hitler stated in a speech to the Stuttgart February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."


Yes, you should indeed be insulted and shocked of your own ignorance of that fact that Hitler was a very religious person. You make such blatant, ill-informed statement as if hitler was devoid of any religious influence is indeed quite shocking.

There has been undocumented contradictory claims by those close to hitler that he was an atheist, which can not be verified in any shape or form, but there was no written record (to the best of my knowledge) by hitler as first person of denouncing all religious or proclaiming his absence of beliefs.
except that i didn't claim Hitler was an atheist...

all i said was it took him 500 pages to malign a few tens of millions of people, and you pulled it off a feat of 100x greater magnitude in the course of a single sentence.

it was a comparison between an action of hitler and one of your own. it was not a statement that hitler was an atheist - which btw, it is not clear if he was one or not.

Quote:
Stalin, as I stated, was an atheist in accordance to his Communist philosophy. His actions was not influenced by moral justification in his non-belief, it was influenced by his justification in communist philosophy.
i don't disagree, but (please read the next post for clarity)...
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old June 11, 2010, 10:11 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,932

just to clarify from the muddled post above:

i am NOT saying that atheists don't have or believe in morals.

but i AM saying that an atheist must acknowledge that no such thing as morality, in any shape or form, exists anywhere in the univierse. the atheist must concede that any morals he may possess are in direct contradiction to his beliefs. but very few, if any, atheists realize, let alone admit this.

the logical implication of that is that the statement:
Quote:
If God is unwilling to prevent evil, He is Malevolent.
is a circular one, because evil does not exist if God does not exist.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old June 11, 2010, 10:25 PM
Electrequiem's Avatar
Electrequiem Electrequiem is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 21, 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Favorite Player: The venerated one on BC.
Posts: 4,205

__________________
"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." - Bill Hicks
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old June 12, 2010, 12:00 AM
cricket_pagol's Avatar
cricket_pagol cricket_pagol is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 20, 2004
Location: Indiana
Favorite Player: Mashrafee & Shakib
Posts: 6,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
just to clarify from the muddled post above:

i am NOT saying that atheists don't have or believe in morals.

but i AM saying that an atheist must acknowledge that no such thing as morality, in any shape or form, exists anywhere in the univierse. the atheist must concede that any morals he may possess are in direct contradiction to his beliefs. but very few, if any, atheists realize, let alone admit this.

the logical implication of that is that the statement:


is a circular one, because evil does not exist if God does not exist.
This is a crazy statement. If you harm someone for personal reason or for fun, that is evil... God or society does not have to be present to proclaim that as evil. So basically you do the right thing because you are scared of god, not because you really want to... you need a reward to do the right thing, but isn't doing the right thing a reward in itself!

You should set a higher standard for yourself.
__________________
Win Or Lose - We are ALWAYS with you BANGLADESH
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old June 12, 2010, 12:01 AM
cricket_pagol's Avatar
cricket_pagol cricket_pagol is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 20, 2004
Location: Indiana
Favorite Player: Mashrafee & Shakib
Posts: 6,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrequiem
lol
__________________
Win Or Lose - We are ALWAYS with you BANGLADESH
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old June 12, 2010, 10:24 AM
Purbasha T Purbasha T is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Location: London
Favorite Player: Saudi Capital
Posts: 6,985

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
It is difficult to jump in the middle of a discussion without actually following any context that originated to this discussion and cherry picking certain quotes to make your arguments or make a point.
Alright you got me there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
As stated somewhere else:

The origin of this meta discussion resulted from al Furqaan's claim (or rather insinuation) that religion has exclusivity in moral values, or somehow they are of higher value and anarchy will reign without religious morality.

I am arguing in favor of rational morality in-absence of religion.
Okay, examples are often misleading. Suppose if an illiterate man who never went to school somehow makes his way to the top of the world; that wouldn’t mean education is not at all important in life. So a set of, supposedly, less religious countries developing at a faster rate than the, again supposedly, religious countries doesn’t make a case for religions to be hindrance to a country’s development. There are so many factors involved. Circumstances, contexts, proper application of the laws and so many other things work here and sadly a good part of the current Muslim world is failing in getting those things right. But still what do you make of the Islamic revolution that happened in the middle ages? Did Islam, as a religion help the cause, or rather obstruct it, or was Islam at that point a totally different thing than it is now? (yes, some things are…but the fundamentals didn’t change).

So if a religious (!) person is immoral, he isn’t so because he’s religious but it’s that he’s not religious enough, or he justifies his cause by himself in his religion for doing his immoral act (as you said….and in which case, that's the problem of his own thinking). Also even a non-believer can justify stealing saying he has no food to eat or no TV to watch, and steals foods and TVs. :| So non-believers are as equally likely to do wrong things as the not-properly-believing believers, or even in some cases devote believers as well (again..circumstances tell).

And about the surveys in Denmark, Sweden. Though it seems they avoid religious commandments in social and political matters; but they still are taught about the deep core values of their religion while they’re growing up. Now where do they come from? So don’t tell me that now though you’re a non-believer the fact that you were brought up in a religious environment (I’m assuming so as you said you were a devotee religiously before) didn’t contribute to your moral development (whatever the state of it is now ).

If you say that non-belief can be a source of morality equal to the way belief is, that’s wrong IMO. Tell me where exactly does the motivation of being moral and fair come from if you do not see any benefit for yourself in it? Anyway by saying moral, I’m not just meaning non-killing of others for no apparent reason. You wouldn’t even steal something if you don’t need it, why would you kill someone anyway if there’s no reason. But if there’s a reason that you think justifies your cause for killing someone, that’s when religion comes in. It gives you the guidance to verify whether your reason is reasonable enough. (just an example)

Think of the charity or the relief organizations, or you helping out others around you. Maybe in minor circumstances, it would make you feel good momentarily about being the cause of someone else’s happiness. But when ''helping of others'' take more than just mere effort, then what? Not talking about helping people closer to you, talking about people not related to you. What would make you go to distant villages of Africa and help needy people get their basic needs fulfilled? What would make a soldier risking their lives or even sacrificing it for the sake of their mates in a battlefield? If there’s no payback for all these activities, why would someone do these? I live in a solvent family, I have all my basic necessities fulfilled; why would I care about others having problems? I wouldn’t, because there’s no benefit for me. And in this world full of selfness, don’t tell me you would. Well, yes if you're getting paid or other your causes of yours are being taken care of…but otherwise, NO!

Also think of the sort of immoral acts that society doesn’t punish you for. Say here in the UK (or most of the other western countries), adultery leads to the dissolution of the marriage contract. But is that enough? I’m not calling for the head of the adulterers, or I don’t even agree with the stoning theory of Middle East (which I don’t, at the current stage of my research, believe to be a part of Islam). But there should be a minimum punishment.

Anyway, the thing is if there’s no sense of accountability in what you do, then you’d never know or care about when to draw the lines in stuff. And (in the case of crimes) a set of laws with avoidable punishments (more so in undeveloped areas) isn’t good enough to put a limit on people’s wrong desires, unless there is the awareness of a punishment which is certain to be applied (as it is in the case of religious belief..you'll be dealt with as you have been dealing). And it helps and encourages staying away from the wrong-doings, when you know you are going to have rewards for it in this life, and if not so, at least in the afterlife.
__________________
Man is here.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old June 12, 2010, 10:29 AM
Purbasha T Purbasha T is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Location: London
Favorite Player: Saudi Capital
Posts: 6,985

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Enjoying?? Enjoy.
__________________
Man is here.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old June 12, 2010, 12:52 PM
One World's Avatar
One World One World is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: May 18, 2005
Location: New England
Favorite Player: Charlie Chaplin
Posts: 16,601

I have to say following this thread was a refreshment best expressed by that popcorn gulping MJ. The debate gave me the final verdict that John Lennon was a sinister. I know - some of you already started rolling eyes, now if he was not then he was an angel and Imagine was sang by Karl Marx.
__________________
Human mind has all the power, when your mind is grind grit wins the battle. Go Bangladesh. Be the world number one in Test Ranking.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old June 12, 2010, 05:29 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,932

Quote:
Originally Posted by cricket_pagol
This is a crazy statement. If you harm someone for personal reason or for fun, that is evil... God or society does not have to be present to proclaim that as evil. So basically you do the right thing because you are scared of god, not because you really want to... you need a reward to do the right thing, but isn't doing the right thing a reward in itself!

You should set a higher standard for yourself.
OK, let me try to explain this:

Premise = God does not exist.

Hitler: "Jews (and Slavs, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, clincal retards) are bad, therfore exterminating them via genocide is good".

You: "hitler is evil".

do you see that both Hitler and yourself are acting upon your individual consciences?

in other words you do as your conscience instructs, as did Hitler. there is no difference. you act in a manner which will maximize your self interest (to be accepted by society as a "good" individual or because you "believe" in some standard of "morality") as you currently assess it, and so did hitler (i.e to destroy all opponents of the Third Reich). the assessment may be flawed tactically or strategically, but that is irrelevant since everyone always acts in the same direction, that is in accordance with whatever assessment one has made. there is no moral compass.

so while evil and good do not exist, there is still suffering and pleasure.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old June 12, 2010, 06:40 PM
zman's Avatar
zman zman is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 20, 2005
Posts: 1,694

Okay it's official now...Al is in the zone. He keeps scoring like boom Tshabalala boom.
__________________
MOTIVATION - Few things inspire us to soar quite like being really f***ed if we don't (Avatar caption)
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old June 12, 2010, 09:08 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
just to clarify from the muddled post above:

i am NOT saying that atheists don't have or believe in morals.

but i AM saying that an atheist must acknowledge that no such thing as morality, in any shape or form, exists anywhere in the univierse. the atheist must concede that any morals he may possess are in direct contradiction to his beliefs. but very few, if any, atheists realize, let alone admit this.

There is no law, law exists because we created laws to help set up boundaries on what can and cannot be done based on (mostly) democratic process.
There is no numbers, we created numbers to help us with measurement.
There is no words, we created words to help us express ourselves.

In the same sense there is no morality. No where did I (to the best of my knowledge) claimed the existence of absolute morality. As a matter of fact, I have been speaking against the concept of absolute religious (or otherwise) morality right from the beginning.

Morality is human creation. No one from above is telling us, whats the moral way to have sex, whats the moral way to dress, whats the moral way to have facial hair and so on and so forth.

By saying... "atheist must acknowledge that no such thing as morality" you want atheists to admit what we already know to be a fact? What did I say anything that says morality is not human creation. You are pulling thing out of no where and debating against yourself.

EVERY social construct, from laws, to music, to culture, to language, to morality, to philosophy is made by humans. (including religion).

We already know this. I am not sure where you are going with this.

This is your exact quote which started this meta-discussion, which you gladly deviated from:

Quote:
in absence of God there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as "morality", "right" or "wrong", whether in a relative sense or in an absolute sense.
You have this weird understanding that somehow religion has exclusivity in morality.

I am saying that this is not the case, just like human invented, "numbers", "culture", "laws", we also invented the concept of morality. And it exists in absence of religion.

If tomorrow there was no religion (hopefully), we would not be killing each other because there is no god.

On contrary the world would be a much safer and better place without religious morality.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old June 12, 2010, 09:26 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purbasha T
Alright you got me there.



Okay, examples are often misleading. Suppose if an illiterate man who never went to school somehow makes his way to the top of the world; that wouldn’t mean education is not at all important in life. So a set of, supposedly, less religious countries developing at a faster rate than the, again supposedly, religious countries doesn’t make a case for religions to be hindrance to a country’s development. There are so many factors involved. Circumstances, contexts, proper application of the laws and so many other things work here and sadly a good part of the current Muslim world is failing in getting those things right. But still what do you make of the Islamic revolution that happened in the middle ages? Did Islam, as a religion help the cause, or rather obstruct it, or was Islam at that point a totally different thing than it is now? (yes, some things are…but the fundamentals didn’t change).

So if a religious (!) person is immoral, he isn’t so because he’s religious but it’s that he’s not religious enough, or he justifies his cause by himself in his religion for doing his immoral act (as you said….and in which case, that's the problem of his own thinking). Also even a non-believer can justify stealing saying he has no food to eat or no TV to watch, and steals foods and TVs. :| So non-believers are as equally likely to do wrong things as the not-properly-believing believers, or even in some cases devote believers as well (again..circumstances tell).

And about the surveys in Denmark, Sweden. Though it seems they avoid religious commandments in social and political matters; but they still are taught about the deep core values of their religion while they’re growing up. Now where do they come from? So don’t tell me that now though you’re a non-believer the fact that you were brought up in a religious environment (I’m assuming so as you said you were a devotee religiously before) didn’t contribute to your moral development (whatever the state of it is now ).

If you say that non-belief can be a source of morality equal to the way belief is, that’s wrong IMO. Tell me where exactly does the motivation of being moral and fair come from if you do not see any benefit for yourself in it? Anyway by saying moral, I’m not just meaning non-killing of others for no apparent reason. You wouldn’t even steal something if you don’t need it, why would you kill someone anyway if there’s no reason. But if there’s a reason that you think justifies your cause for killing someone, that’s when religion comes in. It gives you the guidance to verify whether your reason is reasonable enough. (just an example)

Think of the charity or the relief organizations, or you helping out others around you. Maybe in minor circumstances, it would make you feel good momentarily about being the cause of someone else’s happiness. But when ''helping of others'' take more than just mere effort, then what? Not talking about helping people closer to you, talking about people not related to you. What would make you go to distant villages of Africa and help needy people get their basic needs fulfilled? What would make a soldier risking their lives or even sacrificing it for the sake of their mates in a battlefield? If there’s no payback for all these activities, why would someone do these? I live in a solvent family, I have all my basic necessities fulfilled; why would I care about others having problems? I wouldn’t, because there’s no benefit for me. And in this world full of selfness, don’t tell me you would. Well, yes if you're getting paid or other your causes of yours are being taken care of…but otherwise, NO!

Also think of the sort of immoral acts that society doesn’t punish you for. Say here in the UK (or most of the other western countries), adultery leads to the dissolution of the marriage contract. But is that enough? I’m not calling for the head of the adulterers, or I don’t even agree with the stoning theory of Middle East (which I don’t, at the current stage of my research, believe to be a part of Islam). But there should be a minimum punishment.

Anyway, the thing is if there’s no sense of accountability in what you do, then you’d never know or care about when to draw the lines in stuff. And (in the case of crimes) a set of laws with avoidable punishments (more so in undeveloped areas) isn’t good enough to put a limit on people’s wrong desires, unless there is the awareness of a punishment which is certain to be applied (as it is in the case of religious belief..you'll be dealt with as you have been dealing). And it helps and encourages staying away from the wrong-doings, when you know you are going to have rewards for it in this life, and if not so, at least in the afterlife.
The premise of your argument is that just rational morality is not good enough for people not to do bad things, they need a fear of higher being to not do bad things.

This is what you believe because you are a religious person.

You have no evidence of this being a fact in any shape or form. I gave several examples of why religious people often do bad things thanks to their interpretation of religion, that a non-believer would never do. Which involves killing people for simple fact of them being someone from other beliefs.

Whether you agree with their actions or your religious interpretation doesn't agree with their religious interpretation is a moot point. It doesn't change the fact that people have killed because of their religious beliefs because they have found justification in their religious beliefs, whether you agree with their beliefs or not.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old June 12, 2010, 09:53 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
OK, let me try to explain this:

Premise = God does not exist.

Hitler: "Jews (and Slavs, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, clincal retards) are bad, therfore exterminating them via genocide is good".

You: "hitler is evil".

do you see that both Hitler and yourself are acting upon your individual consciences?
Wat?

According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God—so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

The whole justification of killing jews was because of religious reasons, and germans supported him because he gave religious reasons. He didn't go around killing non-germans because they are "bad" or would have got any support to kill simply because they are "bad".

Hitler didn't act on his personal conscious, he did what he did because he found justification in religious belief.

Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsführer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the Final Solution, or Holocaust, told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing — he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions.

Last edited by Blah; June 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old June 13, 2010, 07:51 AM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,134

Blah, really at the end of the day, if there was no religion, crazy people will adopt whatever justifications needed through an ideology/process of thought/perspective to commit heinous crimes for their own self interests and gain.

Bin Laden allegedly blew up the world trace centers, in retaliation for American policy on Israel and the Gulf war. He found justification through his ideology, his way of thinking. This could have been framed in an Islamic Jihad context by himself, but it could have been framed by any belief, it could have been framed by Marxism, etc

You keep touting this nonsense that if religion didn't exist, the world would be relatively peaceful, this is nonsense.

Ideology doesnt need religion to be formed, ideology will always exist when humans are always thinking, therefore violence will always exist when violent ideologies always exists.

Now EVERYONE just stop this nonsense argument and return to a more topical argument that involves the thread, or I will ask the moderator to delete any further off-topic posts

The thread is about the Quran (sole authentic source of Islam)
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''

Last edited by Nafi; June 13, 2010 at 09:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old June 13, 2010, 10:25 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
You keep touting this nonsense that if religion didn't exist, the world would be relatively peaceful, this is nonsense.
Personal opinions doesn't make facts. I have given examples that countries where majority citizens are non-believers by choice (unlike communism) are much more prosperous, peaceful than countries where majority population are religious.

This is not a hypothetical world, this is happening right now. If you don't see the correlation between relative peace and prosperity in the absence of religion and its morality, its because you are afraid to face the reality.

If you have time you should read this survey done in 2007 [PDF].

Choice quote:

"High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world -- particularly nations with high birth rates -- atheism is barely discernable."

Another study done in 2005 in England.

Choice Quote:

"RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.
"


The number of crime doubled in a swedish town with the highest concentration of religious immigrants (in this case muslims):

Choice quote:

"The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years."

In USA, states with the highest crime rate and the highest poverty, lowest education level are the most religious states. Namely the southern states. (I have read the study some time ago, but can't find the source at this moment).

So you see your opinion on the superiority of religious morality is incongruent to reality.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old June 13, 2010, 10:43 AM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,134

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
So you see your opinion on the superiority of religious morality is incongruent to reality.
Well obviously theyre doing it wrong, the way I see it, none of these criminal people follow an interpretation of Islam that I believe is correct.

Find a statistics on Quranists. And tell me what you find..I doubt you will find anything because its not even a sect.

So regardless all these statistics are meaningless, because they are so many factors involved, your use of Scandinavian countries just shouts out the clear biased/construed argument you have. Of course the crime rates are low there, those countries have the best economies and democracies, of course religious immigrants will have a higher crime level....They're poor!!!!!!

You always say communism doesnt count, but it does, how much oppression did atheist communism enforce, millions and millions.

With each ridiculous post you make to push your anti-religion agenda, Im really losing respect of you.

It is Atheism not theism which is odd

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...od-is-odd.html
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''

Last edited by Nafi; June 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket