Religious Beliefs

Release_Me

phunkymunky wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

I was referring to myself to make a point. What really is the need for morals if this worldly life is all I have?

this angers me. i understand the fact your were using yourself to put forward a point, but the logic is so flawed...

sorry, i'm not attacking you, but to say that you can only have morals in this world if sourced by religion is insulting.

religion may have formed the basis for current morality, but the morals taken straight from the scriptures in our modern world are archaic, lacking and are not reflective of the more secular nature of todays humanity.

Sorry if I offended you, but my point was simply to state that morals wouldn't be a need in such a case. We've had too many examples in this world that show people can get by fine without bothering about morals. It disgusts most of us because thankfully we aren't like that. I have acknowledged again and again that every human being is born with a conscience that guides him, so I'm not saying religion is the source of our morals, human nature is. The Quran reinforces this fact.

Your assertion that morals taken straight from the scriptures are archaic are based on the assumption that everything you hear and see is truly reflective of a particular religion. I won't talk about other religions, but I can safely say that the morality presented in the Quran is as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago.

phunkymunky

you didn't offend me. its the logic of morals only come from the scriptures that angers me. this argument gets used time and time again and it's insulting.

i'll definitely have to read and understand more about islam, my knowledge is limited as most of my knowledge is of catholic/christianity or judaism.

definitely need to agree to disagree on the source of the creator...:-)

although PJ come out here often, it's still not often enough ;-)

catefrances

iluvcats wrote:

to those saying they are agnostic or aethiest (I really don't know the difference.)

I'm curious. When you were growing up, did your parent/guardians take you to church or teach you about God?
or was God or a higher being not mentioned? I'm not trying to start a fight, just curious. one of my friends used to be Lutheran and she told me she stopped believing in God when she was 13.

I believe in God and I believe in Jesus. You aethiests are being prayed for, I hope you know

please dont pray for 'us atheists'. you are wasting your time and it is disrespectful... i hope you know.


my father was educated within the catholic school sytem. and yes we discussed God. he is an atheist. i was baptised but not til my younger brother was. we were born 26 months apart and my question has always been had he not been born, would i have been baptised??? i made my first holy communion and was confirmed. we never went to church so why i partook in holy communion and canfirmation is quite beyond my understanding. the best i can figure it is my parents were conforming to what was expected. i recall going to palm sunday celebrations at leat once cause i remember coming home from the catholic church on the corner with palm fronds. i remember attending religion classes in my first year of high school, i was 11. and i remember being thrown out of class more than once for asking question brother john felt he didnt need to answer... or more to the point.. he couldnt answer. it was during this time i came out as an atheist. im not sure if i believed in God before then or if i was just agnostic. in the ensuing 35 years, i have never questioned my conviction.
none of my children were baptised, nor is my grandchild. they are well aware of my beliefs and i have never encouraged their religiosity. however... when my youngest would come home from school with things her friends had told her about God, i would ask her questions.. logical questions and we would discuss this God thing.

Release_Me

I, for one, definitely won't use that argument because I know for a fact that it does not hold any weight. We are born with an innate ability to distinguish between good and evil, it is for this reason that the Quran calls man as 'his own witness'. He knows when he has done wrong, his conscience constantly pricks him about it. Yet, there are people who just don't give a damn.

I may get the chance to see them live someday, but very unlikely

redrock

phunkymunky wrote:

religion may have formed the basis for current morality,.

Only for a certain morality for certain people. Some morality issues based on religion have absolutely no bearings on 'humanity' type morality.

catefrances

Release_Me wrote:

I, for one, definitely won't use that argument because I know for a fact that it does not hold any weight. We are born with an innate ability to distinguish between good and evil, it is for this reason that the Quran calls man as 'his own witness'. He knows when he has done wrong, his conscience constantly pricks him about it. Yet, there are people who just don't give a damn.

I may get the chance to see them live someday, but very unlikely

oh absolutely wo/man is her/his own witness. i consider my conscience my soul. weird concept for an atheist to speak of... having a soul?? i dont think so. i answer to myself not some entity some feel may exist, or definitely feel exist.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

one thing about catholicism that I always found really ridiculous is being absolved of sins through confession to another human. isn't this just a "way out" after doing something wrong? a priest tells you you are forgiven for whatever you have done wrong, and BANG, your conscience is clear! magic!

hey, fatha, I, um.....killed my brutha.........I'm so sorry.......

say 18,000 hail mary's, the Lord forgives you, my son. and don't worry, I can't legally tell on you, so you're home free!

:?

Release_Me

catefrances wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

I, for one, definitely won't use that argument because I know for a fact that it does not hold any weight. We are born with an innate ability to distinguish between good and evil, it is for this reason that the Quran calls man as 'his own witness'. He knows when he has done wrong, his conscience constantly pricks him about it. Yet, there are people who just don't give a damn.

I may get the chance to see them live someday, but very unlikely

oh absolutely wo/man is her/his own witness. i consider my conscience my soul. weird concept for an atheist to speak of... having a soul?? i dont think so. i answer to myself not some entity some feel may exist, or definitely feel exist.

I don't think it's weird Human beings have a lot in common, most of all their nature. The question of believing in an unseen entity is a very personal one and ought not to be taken lightly.

Release_Me

Paul David wrote:

one thing about catholicism that I always found really ridiculous is being absolved of sins through confession to another human. isn't this just a "way out" after doing something wrong? a priest tells you you are forgiven for whatever you have done wrong, and BANG, your conscience is clear! magic!

hey, fatha, I, um.....killed my brutha.........I'm so sorry.......

say 18,000 hail mary's, the Lord forgives you, my son. and don't worry, I can't legally tell on you, so you're home free!

:?

To be honest, I haven't studied Christianity much, but this is one area where Islam and Christianity differ quite a bit. A Muslim who commits a sin and then feels badly about it is recommended to seek forgiveness from God, rather than revealing his sin to any living person. He has to take complete responsibility for his actions and there is no concept of having your conscience cleared by simply confessing to another person.

Islam likes that the otherwise virtuous people who have erred keep their sin a secret if possible. Since God is the only one who can forgive, it is only Him one should turn to. He may forgive any sin to whom He pleases, except shirk (ascribing partners with God, associating Divine qualities with any other being besides God. Approaching a priest in the hope of being absolved from blame would also fall under shirk). This of course applies as long as the crime isn't brought up in a court of law, where a person is obliged to speak the truth about his actions. Say a man and woman indulged in adultery, but then realised they had sinned. No one else is aware of what has happened. In this case, they shouldn't go up to the authorities and admit their crime, rather they should seek forgiveness from God and resolve to not commit the sin again. Even during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the only people who were ever punished for adultery were the ones who came up to the Prophet and confessed to their sin themselves.

In a crime such as murder where another party is wronged or harmed, the perpetrator should also seek forgiveness from the victim's family, who have the right to forgive him and reach a settlement, or ask for him to be punished according to the law. Even if he receives punishment in this world, he should still seek God's Forgiveness in any case.

phunkymunky

redrock wrote:

phunkymunky wrote:

religion may have formed the basis for current morality,.

Only for a certain morality for certain people. Some morality issues based on religion have absolutely no bearings on 'humanity' type morality.

perhaps i should have stated laws rather than morals.

Idris

catefrances wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

I, for one, definitely won't use that argument because I know for a fact that it does not hold any weight. We are born with an innate ability to distinguish between good and evil, it is for this reason that the Quran calls man as 'his own witness'. He knows when he has done wrong, his conscience constantly pricks him about it. Yet, there are people who just don't give a damn.

I may get the chance to see them live someday, but very unlikely

oh absolutely wo/man is her/his own witness. i consider my conscience my soul. weird concept for an atheist to speak of... having a soul?? i dont think so. i answer to myself not some entity some feel may exist, or definitely feel exist.

Everything in life is recorded, from our thoughts, intentions, words and actions. This is science, energy like that is not destroyed, but stored away in space time and beyond.

The entity is simply the truth, the reality of what is. When the usage of the word God is spoken, we lose sight of really what that means, God is nature, God is Life, God is everything from start to end.

Because of human nature, we often find the need to put a face to God, when we do that, we lose sight of the reality of God, which is everything. So indeed you answer to yourself only, which is part of the balance of nature. Your conscience keeps one in touch with nature, after all, if we recycle, we do this for nature, and our conscience, it's one. But again as humans, we like to split things.

Your conscience is your soul, then what is your conscience?

phunkymunky

MrAbraham wrote:

Everything in life is recorded, from our thoughts, intentions, words and actions. This is science, energy like that is not destroyed, but stored away in space time and beyond.

i'd like to think of this as your afterlife. not that you're going to some sort of heave/hell, but the memories of you and your actions, words, thoughts and intentions live on in others.

you're here in physical form for a short time, but the memory of 'you' lives on in others...that's how i'd like to think of it anyway

blondieblue227

there was a bunch of time that i was wasn't here and there's going to be a time where i'm not here again. big deal. heaven/afterlife is for egos or fear.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MrAbraham wrote:

Your conscience is your soul, then what is your conscience?

that's where I'm a viking!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Idris

phunkymunky wrote:

MrAbraham wrote:

Everything in life is recorded, from our thoughts, intentions, words and actions. This is science, energy like that is not destroyed, but stored away in space time and beyond.

i'd like to think of this as your afterlife. not that you're going to some sort of heave/hell, but the memories of you and your actions, words, thoughts and intentions live on in others.

you're here in physical form for a short time, but the memory of 'you' lives on in others...that's how i'd like to think of it anyway

yeah bro, it is like our afterlife. As We will reconnect with these energies, people who have put out more positive energies and people who put out mostly negative energies. That's one way to be 'judged', it's up to us.

Our memory living on in others is the continuation of the balance and algorithm of life. Like a pebble dropped in a large pond, it ripples. From this, comes that.

Like from the big bang, the singularity, energy, expansion, if it was a fraction hotter, colder, more powerful or less, life would not exist. What would be?

From mans evolution in Africa, to the cosmic battle of matter and antimatter. The balance that was created.

fuck

Release_Me wrote:

The notion that the Quran has verses which say that Muslims of today should slay the unbelievers is a complete myth. The Quran has certain verses which discuss the various battles which occurred during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). For understanding them, one needs to understand a very basic principle of God: He sent his Messengers to earth from time to time to bring people to the right path whenever they had gone astray. A lot of the time, these Messengers were rejected by their people and were not able to gain much of a following. Everytime a Messenger was sent, God gave the people a certain deadline to accept His message, failing which they were subjected to God's wrath in the form of natural calamities, e.g. the Great Flood during the time of Noah. In the case of Muhammad (pbuh), the difference was that most of the people had accepted Islam, the few who had not accepted God's message were subjected to His wrath, which in this case was to die by the sword on the battlefield. The verses which tell Muslims to slay the unbelievers were revealed in this particular context and were applicable to this specific era, when the God ordained deadline had passed. The word unbeliever or kafir refers to those specific people only, who were the direct addressees of God's Messenger and had rejected His message despite it having being made absolutely clear to them by the Prophet (pbuh).

most of your points I agree with but I just wanna add to this from a lot of what I've read, though I have not particularly made sure this point is 100% accurate, that that verse was also revealed after the Prophet's enemies had broken their treaty that they had signed with the Prophet about a year or two prior, by killing some Muslims from another clan. After violating the treaty, war was declared on them. It's funny that so many people find it convenient to cite that verse from the Qur'an but inconvenient to mention the fact that the Prophet had first signed a treaty with them. That even when the Prophet eventually conquered Makkah he did it without shedding a single drop of blood, and that his commanders were shouting to their soldiers, as they entered the city, not to harm anyone, and that anyone who stayed in their house was safe.

Additionally, as a general point for this thread, I think it's useless to discuss "Religious beliefs" in such a general manner. I mean, every religion is actually very different from the other--their rulings, their take on morality, their take on man/woman's relationship with God, etc. Thus you have many people bringing up grievances they have with "religion" when in fact it's only a grievance they have with Christianity, and so on. I personally have no problem with those who are disenchanted with religion. And in fact, I wouldn't even say it's incumbent on them to do research to which religion they feel they belong to. If you feel that you have made the right choice in not believing in a religion then that's fine, but I think it's very disrespectful for those who don't believe in a God, or a particular religion to insult those who do. Respect is necessary I think. I hate to get into this primitive of a conversation on religion (and by primitive, I just mean it's arguing the essentials, like God, etc), because I'm usually of the opinion that everyone could easily share their beliefs without it affecting the other. "To you your religion, and to me mine." But those atheists who say 'I have no respect for someone who believes in something that OBVIOUSLY isn't real' (and how one could be so sure that something doesn't exist eludes me, but I guess the same could be said of those who do believe in something they can't see) are clearly only looking for trouble. Especially since one who believes in a God is not necessarily contributing to any ills plaguing our world, or at the very least if one who does believe in God is contributing to anything, it is not because of that. This is proven very easily by the fact that people who do and who do not believe in God commit crimes alike. Thus, what is the common factor allowing everyone to commit crimes or moral compromises? it's their humanity, which gave them way to make bad decisions. And obviously this goes the other way with religious people being disrespectful toward those who do not believe in God/religion.

Idris

___________ wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Additionally, as a general point for this thread, I think it's useless to discuss "Religious beliefs" in such a general manner. I mean, every religion is actually very different from the other--their rulings, their take on morality, their take on man/woman's relationship with God, etc. Thus you have many people bringing up grievances they have with "religion" when in fact it's only a grievance they have with Christianity, and so on. I personally have no problem with those who are disenchanted with religion. And in fact, I wouldn't even say it's incumbent on them to do research to which religion they feel they belong to. If you feel that you have made the right choice in not believing in a religion then that's fine, but I think it's very disrespectful for those who don't believe in a God, or a particular religion to insult those who do. Respect is necessary I think.

Religion, most of them started off with the same basic truth/s, through out time many of them have been corrupted, the truth has been covered, or misunderstood, take Hinduism, the avg Hindu looks at giant battles of golden purple people with arrows flying in the sky and 8 legged whatever doing this and that, all these idols that they revere and worship They covered up the truth with all these things. Often problems people have with Christianity are based on misunderstanding of the religion, modern Christianity is covered with things made up years later or misunderstanding of what the religion is suppose to be and teaches. we need to get back to the basics.

Respect is necessary as you say, but it makes sense not to respect things that are false, and if it is false, it's natural for it to not make 'sense', as we see in many religions, because they have been corrupted and/or misunderstood.

But the basic truths do make sense, and those should be respected, for that will bring us to the reality.

phunkymunky

___________ wrote:

But those atheists who say 'I have no respect for someone who believes in something that OBVIOUSLY isn't real' (and how one could be so sure that something doesn't exist eludes me, but I guess the same could be said of those who do believe in something they can't see) are clearly only looking for trouble.

i quite agree, to each their own... everyone is entitled to believe what, and more importantly 'how' they want without being persecuted. respect for others is a basic principle which is sorely lacking in this day and age

Release_Me

___________ wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

The notion that the Quran has verses which say that Muslims of today should slay the unbelievers is a complete myth. The Quran has certain verses which discuss the various battles which occurred during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). For understanding them, one needs to understand a very basic principle of God: He sent his Messengers to earth from time to time to bring people to the right path whenever they had gone astray. A lot of the time, these Messengers were rejected by their people and were not able to gain much of a following. Everytime a Messenger was sent, God gave the people a certain deadline to accept His message, failing which they were subjected to God's wrath in the form of natural calamities, e.g. the Great Flood during the time of Noah. In the case of Muhammad (pbuh), the difference was that most of the people had accepted Islam, the few who had not accepted God's message were subjected to His wrath, which in this case was to die by the sword on the battlefield. The verses which tell Muslims to slay the unbelievers were revealed in this particular context and were applicable to this specific era, when the God ordained deadline had passed. The word unbeliever or kafir refers to those specific people only, who were the direct addressees of God's Messenger and had rejected His message despite it having being made absolutely clear to them by the Prophet (pbuh).

most of your points I agree with but I just wanna add to this from a lot of what I've read, though I have not particularly made sure this point is 100% accurate, that that verse was also revealed after the Prophet's enemies had broken their treaty that they had signed with the Prophet about a year or two prior, by killing some Muslims from another clan. After violating the treaty, war was declared on them. It's funny that so many people find it convenient to cite that verse from the Qur'an but inconvenient to mention the fact that the Prophet had first signed a treaty with them. That even when the Prophet eventually conquered Makkah he did it without shedding a single drop of blood, and that his commanders were shouting to their soldiers, as they entered the city, not to harm anyone, and that anyone who stayed in their house was safe.

Additionally, as a general point for this thread, I think it's useless to discuss "Religious beliefs" in such a general manner. I mean, every religion is actually very different from the other--their rulings, their take on morality, their take on man/woman's relationship with God, etc. Thus you have many people bringing up grievances they have with "religion" when in fact it's only a grievance they have with Christianity, and so on. I personally have no problem with those who are disenchanted with religion. And in fact, I wouldn't even say it's incumbent on them to do research to which religion they feel they belong to. If you feel that you have made the right choice in not believing in a religion then that's fine, but I think it's very disrespectful for those who don't believe in a God, or a particular religion to insult those who do. Respect is necessary I think. I hate to get into this primitive of a conversation on religion (and by primitive, I just mean it's arguing the essentials, like God, etc), because I'm usually of the opinion that everyone could easily share their beliefs without it affecting the other. "To you your religion, and to me mine." But those atheists who say 'I have no respect for someone who believes in something that OBVIOUSLY isn't real' (and how one could be so sure that something doesn't exist eludes me, but I guess the same could be said of those who do believe in something they can't see) are clearly only looking for trouble. Especially since one who believes in a God is not necessarily contributing to any ills plaguing our world, or at the very least if one who does believe in God is contributing to anything, it is not because of that. This is proven very easily by the fact that people who do and who do not believe in God commit crimes alike. Thus, what is the common factor allowing everyone to commit crimes or moral compromises? it's their humanity, which gave them way to make bad decisions. And obviously this goes the other way with religious people being disrespectful toward those who do not believe in God/religion.

Yes, I wasn't referring to any one particular verse, rather trying to explain the general context of such verses which apparently tell Muslims to 'slay the unbelievers'. Each verse could have an additional context as well, as you pointed out in the case of a particular verse revealed when the treaty was broken. My point was simply that isolating such verses and using them to assert that the Quran wants Muslims to kill all non-Muslims is just absurd.

Agreed with your point about the generalization of religious beliefs, it doesn't really work too well most of the time. People's grievances could be with a particular religion, or maybe with the actions of a group of people claiming to be followers of a particular religion. Also agreed with your points about respect being the most important thing in these discussions. Without it, we're just indulging in mud-slinging.