Are atheists discriminatory towards theists?

DeeCee

07-04-06, 01:50 PM

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 02:06 PM

Yup you got it thanks

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 02:31 PM

Here's my take on the deal.

To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination.

Theists hold irrational beliefs. Period.
Are you suggesting that rational people can hold an irrational world view?
How does that work?
I don't discriminate against irrational people BTW.

So your judgement of theists is based on a limited definition of rationality?

From wikipedia:

In philosophy rationality and reason are the key methods we use to treat the data we gather through empiricism, which stands for the experiences, the observations which our senses are used to collect.

A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,

I am cold
If I close the window I will not be cold
Therefore, I close the window
We should note that standard form practical syllogisms follow a very specific format and are always valid if constructed correctly though they are not necessarily sound. There are several notable implications of such a definition. First, rationality is objective - it exists only when a valid practical syllogism is used. Second, a choice is either rational or it is not - there is no gradation since there is no gradation between valid and invalid arguments. Third, rationality only applies to actions - i.e. shutting the window is a rational thing to do if you are cold (assuming it is cold outside). Evidence bears on belief but not on rationality. All that is required for an action to be rational is that you believe that X and that that if X then Y so you do Y. Arguments about belief are couched in the terms valid and sound - logically you must believe something if the argument supporting it is sound. In some cases, such as religious belief, the argument may be valid but its soundness cannot be known for the truth of its premises cannot be known.

I do not mean the extreme theists here

At what point does a theist become an extreme theist. Do they take a test or something? I suspect that what you mean to suggest is that theists are rational apart from the ones you personally consider 'extreme'.
They obviously overstep the bounds of what you consider to be rational.

Interesting. So your definition of extremism is based on my defintion of rationality. Does that mean that since, in YOUR opinion, theists are irrational, they are all extreme? Please clarify.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists?

The theist promotes fantasy while the atheist promotes rationality.
Obvious really.

Ah! Obviously no discrimination here at all!

As for freedom of belief
There is only one atheist position but many and varied theistic ones.
What made you choose Islam over Hinduism BTW and which theists do you suggest I allow myself to be converted by, the catholics? Or maybe the Rastafarians? Scientology seems popular at the moment perhaps I'll try that one.

What do the words "freedom of belief" mean to you?
And why would you presume that you must be converted to one of them?

This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.

Nope.
We pick and mix beliefs just like theists do.
Only difference is we are not obliged to choose the same moral positions as our peers.

So there are differences in atheists as to what is considered right and wrong?
And if all atheists have individual moral positions not controlled by peers, what is the basis for morality in atheism? Who decides what is right?

1. Abortion

If a woman wants it then thats ok by me.

At any time? Under any circumstance? At what point in the pregnancy would you say its too late? Or is that question moot?

2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage

Gays are fine by me but marriage as a religious undertaking is irrational. Gays should have the right, however, as I don't see why only the heteros should have to suffer.

In other words, your opinion is that marriage being a theistically sanctioned relationship is irrelevant in the current social context? (I like this one, actually) :)

3. Capital Punishment

Generally against. Whats the point in killing people? It don't stop criminality and you just end up killing people for ever.

What about pedophiles who murder their victims? serial killers? mass murderers and terrorists?

4. Immigration

If I'm allowed to live there then they should be allowed to live here.
I do have reservations about the importation of cheap labour but it's no big deal. I guess somebody has to flip my burgers and tidy my garden.

So you view immigrants as cheap labor? What about the educated ones, who want a better standard of living for themselves and their families? Are they allowed to come as well and compete for your job?

5. Ideal social system

Don't ask for much do you?
Err Communist utopia through free energy technology...
(just read that on a psudoscience thread)
Either that or a dictatorship run by me.
or maybe small community feudalism.
Gee I just don't know.

:eek:

As for the "Islamic threat" I think reasonable first step would be to find out what these dudes actually want then take it from there.

I'm with you there. :D

There you go.
Dee Cee

Thanks.

Sam

q0101

07-04-06, 03:47 PM

Abortion – No one should have the right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with their body. I can understand why some men would have a problem with abortions. They don’t have to experience all of the pain and misery that women experience during childbirth. Unfortunately religions like Catholicism do not condone abortions. (I don’t know how Muslims feel about the subject) Did you ever hear about the girls and women in South American countries that are forced to have a child after they’ve been raped?

Homosexuality And Gay Marriage – Two consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they want to do with each other. Two men or women that love each other should have the same legal rights as two members of the opposite sex. Unfortunately most Christians and Muslims believe that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that their imaginary god created men with brains that respond to male pheromones. God also created transsexuals. Is it a sin for a transsexual to have sex with a man or is it a sin for he or she to have sex with a woman?

Capital Punishment – An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Unfortunately most religious people don’t think about the positive things that were written in religious books when they are angry. (Love thy neighbor, love the your enemies, be compassionate, Ect.)

Immigration – I don’t have a problem with immigration, but I do have a problem with illegal immigrants. I would actually like to live in a world without borders. I’m a Canadian citizen, but I don’t like to think of myself as a Canadian. I’m an earthling.

Ideal Social System – I would describe myself as a socialist that believes every man and woman should have the right to acquire as much wealth and power as they can. But I do believe that capitalism is the source of many problems in the world. I can't ignore the fact that poverty exists in this world because the rich and powerful allow it to exist.

The socialism that I would like to see in the future is different from the communist and socialist policies of the past and present. I don't think a political party can be successful if it tried to force the wealthy individuals in the world to give up the privileges that their money has given them. It is in our nature to be greedy and selfish. The spread of democratic socialism through out the world would have to be a slow voluntary process.

I don’t think a socialist movement can be successful if the leaders of the movement can only think about the needs of the poor, the working class, and the middle class. They will also have to think about the needs of the rich. It is unfortunate that most people are incapable of thinking about the needs and desires of everyone on this planet. Everyone is looking out for their own interest. We take care of our own. The socialists are no better than the capitalists. There are very few people that are capable of thinking outside of their box. There are very few people that are trying to think about a solution that can make everyone happy. The ideal system is a system where everyone’s basic needs are taken care of. It is a system where there is less pain and suffering and more pleasure and prosperity in the world.

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.

How can we reduce or eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Step 1, The United Stated military has to become a defensive military instead of an offensive military. In other words they have to mind their own business. They have to pull all of their troops out of the Middle East.

Step 2, The U.S government and many other governments around the world has to give financial support to Muslim groups that want to create secular societies within Islamic countries.

Step 3, Once again the U.S has to mind their own business. Most American citizens don’t realize that Muslims are the number one victims of Islamic terrorist. Islamic sects spend more time killing each other than they spend killing Americans or Jews. Americans have to mind their own business and let the Muslims kill, rape, and torture each other until they have grown tired of all of the misery. The only thing that the U.S government would have to do is make sure that a nuclear war does not begin between two Islamic countries.

Step 4, Reduce the worlds dependence of oil. There are many ways to accomplish this goal. I am sure that most of you know about the alternative sources of energy. I would like politicians to take things one step further and force automotive companies to make all of their cars more fuel-efficient. I don’t think people should have to sacrifice their comfort to save the environment, but no one needs 300 or 400 horsepower car. I personally don’t like small cars because I am a tall person, but that doesn’t mean that a big car can’t be fuel-efficient. There is no reason why every new car on the roads today should not be a hybrid gas electric car. The various governments around the world could compensate any losses that the automotive companies might have by reducing or eliminating their taxes for a couple of years.

Scientists are also currently working to develop solar panels that are much more efficient. These solar panels could be powering all of our homes and businesses in the near future.

Step 5, The Jews and the Palestinians have to put the past behind them and create one country. They have to create a secular country where they respect each other’s religious beliefs.

Islamic terrorism could become a thing of the past if all of these steps are implemented in the near future.

KennyJC

07-04-06, 03:52 PM

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them.

Correct.

To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas.

Descriminiation to have no respect for a persons irrational beliefs? Fine call it that if you want. I also have no respect for a persons irrational belief that there is a teapot circling the sun. Imagine the damage to a society where this was common belief? Would I stand by and respect this belief? Absolutely not.

I put all theists in the same basket. From apologists to fundamentalists, neither are good for a society.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?

No secularism gives people freedoms. Also, you can not parallell the 'beliefs' of atheists to that of harmful religious dogma. Obviously you can not see that which is why apologists like yourself are dangerous.

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.

Yes. Atheists could teach theists a thing or two on morals. Is this news? What makes you think moral beliefs are created by religion? At least atheist morals are grounded in rational enquiry.

1. Abortion

Legal. If the law were to be changed it would have to be when politicians listen to people who are qualified and make judgement that is based in reason rather than what their sky fairy says.

2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage

Give them the same human rights as you and me.

3. Capital Punishment

Wrong. Innocents killed. Doesn't solve anything. Adds to a climate of violence typical of religious societies.

4. Immigration

Nothing wrong with it, especially since I will be an immigrant soon.

5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

Take a good look at Europe. You won't see a healthier lack of religion anywhere else in the world. The only thing I would change would be the indoctrination of children in school.

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.

13% of UK Muslims believe the 7/7 bombers should be regarded as martyrs. Isn't it odd that Muslims (a sizable minority) think this way? Both the religious nature of the attacks and the religious nature of those who support it speaks volumes. You are a fool samcdkey, if you think it has nothing to do with religion. How the fuck could an atheist ever support such a thing? They wouldn't.

All this stemming from the religious nature of the USA and George Bush who decided to go to war due to their fanatic Christian methods... and so the war of dogma simply goes round in circles whilst atheists sit and shake their heads at how silly everyone is.[/QUOTE]

AAF

07-04-06, 05:05 PM

...To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas....
.

:)

'Irrational', 'ignorant', 'stupid', 'nuts', and so on
are tossed around all the time by everybody
against everybody else.

So, for sure, it is not fair to single out only the atheists
and criticize them for making use of those very good 'insults'!
That is a 'flagrant discrimination'.
Right?

:D

wsionynw

07-04-06, 05:25 PM

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

1. Legal, although the time at which it can be carried out needs to be looked at further.
2. Same rights as everybody else.
3. No need for it, it simply dosn't work to reduce crime. The punishment for the more serious crimes such as rape and murder should mean long term if not permanent imprisonment, since a life destroyed should mean your freedom is taken away from you.
4. All for it, with controls against people that are potentially harmful to society, such as convicted criminals. Having people from various ethnic backgrounds all living in the same society can only be a good thing.
5. The UK seems pretty good to me, although our justice system needs an overhaul.

What is your position Samcdkey????

SkinWalker

07-04-06, 06:07 PM

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

I think a common misconception among the religious is that atheists automatically do not think as they do about the topics above. I know many atheists that have varied opinions about each. Indeed, I can think of several conservative atheists who nearly mirror the religious on the topics above.

Moreover, disagreeing with the religious on the above issues in no way implies that atheists are thus immoral or less moral. That would imply that the religious opinion of the above is the only opinion that is moral when good arguments have been made for each.

I'm a largely conservative atheist.

I'm personally opposed to abortion in general. However, not having a womb of my own, I feel less than qualified to offer an opinion on it beyond that.

I do not fear homosexuals and same-sex marriage and, as a conservative, I recognize the economic advantage to having legalized gay-marriage. Two people have a larger buying power than one and are more willing to spend together if they know their estates will be secured for their spouse.

Immigration is a big and broad topic, too complex to offer a single opinion on.

The ideal social system is one that allows both freedom of and from religion as well as a free market for the individual to succeed in. The so-called "American Dream" has been largely successful. People should be free to dissent from the government's opinion and to seek their own prosperity as long as it doesn't unfairly impede the prosperity of their neighbors. In short: a democratic but capitalist government. But I'm not opposed to some "socialist" attributes as well. As a conservative, I recognize the economic payback that a good health-care system can offer and I'm not afraid to pay taxes to get social programs that are sensible and worthy. This, I find to be my patriotic duty to my country.

What offends me is when the religious pretend to be oppressed and persecuted in this nation. A nation where anyone who ever attempted to run for a public office and admitted they were atheist would never have a chance. A nation where churches outnumber fastfood restaurants and gas stations. A nation where the President attends regular prayer breakfasts and speaks at churches.

I'm further offended to be accused of discriminating against religious nonsense that completely deserves inquiry, question, and criticism if only because of the wild, speculative claims they make -which are completely unfounded in reality. Claims which are made by cult leaders who profit greatly in their televised superstitions that scroll toll-free numbers where their marks (aka, the flock) can send donations (Visa, MC & Discover accepted).

When the time comes that you can get a ticket for having a religious bumper sticker; or zoning regulations prohibit more than one BFC (Big Fuckin' Church) per 10 square miles; when employers refuse to allow bibles at their employees' desks; when religious programming is banned from the airways on both radio and TV; when it becomes a jailable offense to go door to door, inviting people to worship at the local cult center; when cross-shaped headstones are removed from cemeteries; and when it becomes illegal to wear a crucifix to school and work... then talk to us about religious discrimination.

Until then, "to judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is" genuine criticism if those beliefs are nonsense, superstitious, without any merit, or based on bronze and early iron age nomads of desert nations that no longer exist. Religious nutters who belong to cults that make unsubstantiated claims deserve both criticism and ridicule.

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 06:51 PM

What is your position Samcdkey????

My position right now is reading all these posts!!

Come on guys and gals, don't hold back!

Tell me what you REALLY think!!! :D

superluminal

07-04-06, 07:39 PM

I have a question for all the atheists in this forum:

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them.
Hi sam.

I think many of us have a bigger picture in mind. Let us just say that theism is an ideology, yes? One that can be thoroughly exploited by the unscrupulous, due to the strong nature of religious feelings in many people. Deep, visceral feelings. Any ideology that advocates mass acceptance of doctrine without serious question, and that desires to affect the lives of so many people, is, in my opinion, dangerous and detrimental to human progress.

Atheism is not an ideology. No more than aFSMism is an ideology. Atheist is just a word that describes people who let the observable facts of the universe speak for themselves.

To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas.
I think most of us would say that the person is not necessecarily irrational, but that the belief is irrational. It's very hard, given the implications of the word "rational" to argue that religious belief is not irrational. However, I have an irrational belief that the combination of chololate and toffe is the best possible flavor/texture combination in an infinity of possible combinations. No one can prove me wrong.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?
Yes. Of course.

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.
I think you made this one up. :D Of course we think that atheism is superior to theism. See my first response up there. But all those other implications for morality and common morals, and not allowing for differences in people? Nah. No way. :m:

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

1) Abortion should be an option for a woman until the fetus develops a functioning central nervous system, IMHO. One broad implication of atheism is that there is no "soul" or special essence that gives people more value that they already have. Therefore, abortion and when to allow it becomes a pragmatic decision based on a common moral code. You figure it out. Good luck.

2) It's absurd to disallow a pair bonded couple the financial and social advantages that other pair bonded couples enjoy, based on their gender. Bah.

3) A dumb idea for two reasons:

a) Mistake are made
b) Deterrance of crime is a poor substitute for preventing it. Get at the root cause and fix the problem.

4) I'm all for opening the borders to all nations. Unfortunately, that would probably destroy the economy and fragile stability of the whole world. Other than that, you figure it out. Good luck.

5) No such thing. Modern capitalist democracies have tended to have the highest "happiness" quotients as reported by their citizens. Other than that, well, you know... :cool:

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.
Hoo boy. I would say the same way a theist might. The differences between theists and atheists, given the practical realities of the world, are suprisingly small.

What is your position on:

1) Saving a drowning child
2) Protecting your family from harm
3) Holding the door for an eldrely chap
4) The consequences of bloody war
5) Racial hatred
6) Totalitarian governments
7) Donating blood
etc...?

PsychoticEpisode

07-04-06, 08:04 PM

Tough to discriminate against a majority. That can only happen when the minority rules. In North America atheists are by no means in the majority and are not making the rules. In fact everytime any gov't makes rules based on a religious ideology it is the atheist citizen that is being discriminated against. The fact that the atheist minority speaks against such treatment is testimony to their plight. Theists commit religious profiling against atheists everyday. Gov't can stop this discrimination against atheists the same way they did with racial discrimination. Do you think they will?

Abortion: no question...go for it
Homo & Gay Marriage: Who cares?
Capital Punishment: I'm ok if taxes go towards building more prisons
Immigration: Do it legally. If you don't like it then go back.
Ideal Social System: anything with a constitution that does not allow religion to mix with politics

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 08:05 PM

super:

"you figure it out. Good luck."

- hey its the atheists turn to "figure it out". Tax those grey cells some!

baumgarten

07-04-06, 08:07 PM

1. Personally opposed, but it's not a decision I would have to make.

2. Sure, why not? I should point out that the original intent of marriage is both to bring two families together and to raise children. I don't see why two men or two women could not do this.

3. It's not "right," but it works in a pinch. I don't think we need it anymore.

4. Naturalization. Immigrants should assimilate to their new countries.

5. I like very small, informal, anarchic societies the best. There is no ideal social system.

Islamic terrorism is bad, but I do not know how to solve it. As for the perceived superiority of atheism, I believe that atheists are just as mistaken as theists. Our ideas about the universe are only ideas, and if any of them were absolutely true, then they would not be so constantly changing. When I'm active in the religion section of SciForums, I'm always admonishing other atheists who disagree with me about this. Since this is about the only time when I consider religion, it leads me to wonder if I am actually an atheist. It doesn't matter all that much to me. Atheists and theists are not very different.

superluminal

07-04-06, 08:07 PM

- hey its the atheists turn to "figure it out". Tax those grey cells some!
I wish!

superluminal

07-04-06, 08:17 PM

sam:

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.
Ok. Here's the reality. The west (US) are meddling in the affairs of the middle east. We have some private reasons for doing this that we can all guess at. The peoples of this region (largely muslims) hate this. The more excitable among them will use any means necessary to strike at us. We will never, ever change their culture to line up with our ideals of freedom and democracy and therefore will never "win" this silly "war on terror" as long as we interfere. Just the facts maam.

So, we (US) have three options:

1) Maintain the status quo, taking the occasional hit in the form of falling buildings, etc.

2) Leave the region and lead by example, defending our allies in the region as best we can until things settle down

3) Conquest, with the attendant eradication of the population that disagrees with us.

I choose door #2.

baumgarten

07-04-06, 08:22 PM

Door #3 leads to rapid cultural assimilation. Ask the Romans.

We'll all be distracted from the whole terrorism thing later this century anyway. As soon as the population gets high enough and we start going to war over food and water...

superluminal

07-04-06, 08:25 PM

Door #3
...and we start going to war over food and water...
We'll win. Unfortunate for the non-superpowers. :(

baumgarten

07-04-06, 08:27 PM

No we won't. No one will win. We will just keep dying until it isn't an issue anymore.

superluminal

07-04-06, 08:43 PM

No we won't. No one will win. We will just keep dying until it isn't an issue anymore.
Not really. There is plenty of food and water for those who can rip it from the grasp of others and hold it. That would be US.

baumgarten

07-04-06, 08:52 PM

superluminal

07-04-06, 08:55 PM

No one lets go of their food and water without dying for it. When the US takes conflicted areas, they will still be conflicted. No empire can stop that kind of desperation. If you want to discuss it in detail, though, we should make a new topic for it.
Right, we should. But I'm not that interested in discussing the bloody domination of the world by a modern day Rome posessing advanced weapons technology. SKind of sckens me.

Fraggle Rocker

07-04-06, 09:44 PM

What about pedophiles who murder their victims? serial killers? mass murderers and terrorists?"Capital punishment" is nothing more than a fancy name for institutionalized revenge. And revenge is evil. It is one of the most uncivilized of human emotions. It is hurting someone because they hurt you and that accomplishes nothing except to increase the total amount of pain in the world.

When you kill people you don't punish them. They are dead. They feel nothing. No pain, no regret, no humiliation. Nothing. To the extent that many sociopaths are in a deep pain that drives them to madness, killing them actually is a relief. Do they deserve that?

On the other hand, even sociopaths have children, spouses, parents, siblings, priests, therapists, old friends who have stuck by them since childhood hoping to help them heal. When you kill the sociopath you cause pain to everyone who loved him. They know he's a sociopath but love is not logical, love is hopeful, and you destroy the hope of people who have done nothing wrong except to hold irrational hope. Do they deserve that?

What about those children? If you put the sociopath in prison, his children visit him, and as they grow up they learn by talking to him why he is there. That personal understanding might help them grow up to be decent men. If you kill the sociopath, all his children know is that you're the bastard who killed their daddy. You do that enough times and some of those children will become so enraged from their grief that they'll vow to kill you to punish you for what they see as your "crime". They're kids, what do they know of justice?

After a few generations of this, you have a place where people are killing each other over things that happened hundreds of years ago, things they don't understand well enough to even explain articulately. A place where civilization has collapsed because of people giving in to the uncivilized emotion of revenge.

As a practical matter, of course, we have to consider the chances of a sociopath being turned loose to repeat his crimes. There's always a chance. The prison could be struck by a meteor. The government could run out of money and turn the prisoners loose and shut the prisons down. Politics could change and people who believe sociopaths are just misunderstood baby boys could come into power. The Mafia could need them for a mission and bust them out. So in the case of people who have absolutely no chance of reforming, I regrettably may opt for capital punishment as the lesser of two evils. I hate to bereave their families but I really don't want even the smallest statistical chance of them getting out. This applies to child molesters, serial killers, and rapists (not date rapists, many of them are dumb macho kids who can be saved).

And it applies to terrorists for a special reason. Their buddies will kidnap a bunch of your people and tell you they'll kill them if you don't give their buddy back. So not only do you end up turning the sociopath loose, but a bunch of your people have been traumatized already before he even gets his suicide bomber equipment back from the prison bailiff.

So I would execute terrorists, but still with great regret, because even terrorists have families who love them and children who do not understand why the are executed. In fact, I am contributing to the death spiral by being the bastard who killed their daddy and taking the risk that they will one day seek revenge. But it's of more immediate importance to eliminate all risk of the terrorist getting out, which is a much higher risk than that of a "normal" serial killer who doesn't have a network behind him.

BTW: Atheism is neither a religion nor a community. Notwithstanding some of the prior postings, we have almost nothing in common except the single belief represented by the word itself: We do not believe in a supreme being.

We are not all rational. We do not all reject everything supernatural. When you get into complex issues like abortion and immigration, we differ from one another as much as any population.

I suspect the opinions you're getting here are more representative of the SciForums community than of atheists in general. Don't go off thinking you understand all of us just because you got to know this particular crowd. :)

TW Scott

07-04-06, 09:59 PM

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 10:04 PM

Thanks Fraggle Rocker; let me say at the outset that I completely agree with all the sentiments you have presented here. I often feel after reading your posts that if I was half as eloquent as you are and as good as marshalling my thoughts and presenting them in an organized and comprehensible way, I would die happy.

That said, I do not believe the atheists at sciforums represent their community; that would be akin to saying the terrorists represent Muslims :D . No what struck me here is that you can identify the fears of so many people here ( with very rare exceptions ) by examining what they say to other people. Most people don't even need an opportunity to pick a fight, others provoke it and still others have no idea how to deal with it and resort to flames.

What's even more interseting is that on many occasions, there is really nothing to disagree about, both parties my actually agree on a whole lot of stuff but they have to wade through a lot of personal issues before it becomes evident and some of them lose patience and give up halfway.

I was just presenting them with an outlet to vent their feelings, that's all.
If I thought all atheists were like the ones on this forum, I'd lose all hope for humanity ;) ; and that would never do.

James R

07-04-06, 10:18 PM

samcdkey:

To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination.

How else can you judge a person's rationality?

Or are you saying it is wrong to make a judgment about whether a person is rational or irrational?

This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas.

Since when have atheists denied the religious the freedom to practice their beliefs?

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?

Yes.

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.

This is one possible atheist point of view. I agree it is invalid.

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

I would like to echo an earlier comment here.

Athiests only have in common that they don't believe in God. They can have different opinions on all kinds of other things, such as the issues you mention here. There's no Athiest Creed which all atheists are supposed to adhere to.

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.

Different atheists would no doubt go about this in different ways.

---

My personal views on the topics you mention are no secret to readers of this forum.

1. Abortion : I am pro-choice.
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage : I have no issues with homosexuality, and see no reason not to support gay marriage.
3. Capital Punishment : I am against this.
4. Immigration : Too wide a topic to comment. What issues, in particular?
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc) : This is also a big topic. Are we talking method of government, social justice, welfare, freedoms, or what?

spidergoat

07-04-06, 10:27 PM

To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination.
Yes, what's the problem with that? By what else should I judge you? Personal discrimination isn't institutional discrimination. Religious people are more organized, so they pose a threat to mostly disorganized atheists. On an internet forum, I can't really force you to do anything, so you can consider my anti-religious statements or ignore them.

I think atheism is only slightly superior to theism, we are both blind to the realities of existence, but I am somewhat less so. I think moral values are relative to the culture of a society.

1. Abortion should be the mother's choice.
2. Homosexuality and gay marriage are a personal choice.
3. Capitol punishment should be allowed, but only by the victim of the crime.
4. There should be no national borders.
5. The only ideal social system is an ant colony.

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 10:56 PM

samcdkey:

How else can you judge a person's rationality?

Or are you saying it is wrong to make a judgment about whether a person is rational or irrational?

I should have specified religious beliefs, or do you also believe that all theists are irrational? :)

Since when have atheists denied the religious the freedom to practice their beliefs?

This is my inference from the double talk I encounter on this forum: that everyone is free to follow their religious beliefs, however all theists are irrational and have no credibility whatsoever seeing as they believe in ( not God, no!) sky daddies, fairies, pink unicorns and what was it? oh yes flying unicorns.

Does this sound like freedom for belief to you? Sounds like freedom from belief to me.

I would like to echo an earlier comment here.

Athiests only have in common that they don't believe in God. They can have different opinions on all kinds of other things, such as the issues you mention here. There's no Athiest Creed which all atheists are supposed to adhere to.

I completely agree and this is also true for theists; they believe in God (several, in fact) but they too have opinions which differ from person to person. They are not one big lump of immorality.

5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc) : This is also a big topic. Are we talking method of government, social justice, welfare, freedoms, or what?

Well, this is also in response to some postings which equate religon with government policy; I am curious to know if atheists believe in a particular form of government as immune to the generation of social inequalities.

Cris

07-04-06, 11:28 PM

lightgigantic

07-04-06, 11:38 PM

sam,

There is no atheist position on these things. An atheist is defined as one who lacks belief in gods. What other things an atheist considers or believes has little to do with atheism.

An atheist could be the worst serial killer and another might be the perfect altruist imaginable.

You cannot categorize atheists for anything other than their lack of belief in gods.

then why does there seem to be a consensus amongst atheists that what the world needs to improve is strong leadership by atheists - if atheists are not characterised by anything particularly outstanding (apart from their before mentioned qualities of a disbelief in god) what is their qualification to being thrust to the forefront of world management?

(PS I would contend that an atheist could be the greatest altruist in the world - they tend to lack the ability to make great sacrifices due to a narrower vision of worth - at the very least your statement cannot be verified by any evidence)

S.A.M.

07-04-06, 11:39 PM

James R

07-05-06, 12:24 AM

then why does there seem to be a consensus amongst atheists that what the world needs to improve is strong leadership by atheists

I don't think such a consensus exists.

On the other hand, what's your opinion of countries run by strongly religious people (e.g. the US?)

Michael

07-05-06, 12:28 AM

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them. Try to imagine, you wake up one day. Everyone around you stopped believing in the One God Allah and started believing that the Moon was God. I mean EVERYONE. Everyday people prayed 10 times to the Moon God. They would scorn you for your belief in Allah.
"No no no – the Moon God is the True God!!"
Say some other people started to pray to the Sun.
Wars broke out.
Moon worshipping people killed Sun worshipping people.
How would you feel? You would probably say to yourself - "This is crazy". The Moon is not a God nor is the Sun.

You get the picture.

Well, that’s how I feel sometimes. I used to believe in Jesus et.al. (well the blue eyed blond haired one that iconicly looked kind of like me :) One day, while I was walking to my grad building, I had an epiphany. Figuratively, I suppose you could say, I realized everyone was worshipping either the moon or the sun.

Thus there is a desire to engage in debate.
Why?
I suppose it’s part of being social.
Encoded in our DNA like everything else.
I also find debate is a good way to learn and can be kind of fun.
To judge a person as irrational based on their beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. I agree.
Although, I think most Atheists recognize that Theists are rational in all things except their belief. That is the really interesting part.

If a person were irrational in all things, then debate wouldn’t be possible.

A Muslim student of mind said he likes to think of opening doors to new ideas and that we should be open minded in regards to religion. I jokingly asked if he was seriously considering Atheism. His face soured so quickly I laughed out loud! He said –that’s not what I meant, I mean there is one God and so we should all get along – like I think even Jews will go to heaven.

Haa! I Quote: “Even Jews will go to Heaven”.

I didn’t say anything, nodded and went back to it.

Huss knows I’m Atheist, he just finds it’s perplexing because it doesn’t fit into his World view. Which is OK. He can do some good work in the lab and that’s why he’s here. So I don’t think Huss is irrational. I think he believes as he was taught to and that’s that. Religion and Religious history is not so interesting to him. He believes in the True God, his Imam assures him he will be in Heaven, he loves his Mother and she taught him to love Allah. They will be able to see one another in Heaven. So he is happy and fine with that. Thus, there is nothing for either of us to debate.
(He may be right after all!)
I had the fortune of staying at a Temple for 3 months while in Japan. I think my hosts were great people. I mentioned I was Atheist. The Priest said I may be right. I guess he is supposed to say that because I am not a Buddhist, do not understand Buddhist doctrine and hence there is no need to engage in a debate on the topic. AKA: Maybe he is being nice :) And I guess with the Karma cycle maybe it ultimately doesn’t matter. (not to mention I can not speak Japanese so well).

This is how I like to think as well.

Can you see the similarity with the two stories?

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? None!

I know some Atheists that are as fanatical in their belief as some Theists. Perhaps it is part of the human psyche? The need to have an answer. The need to think: “I am right”. From A comes B?

A -> B damn it!!!

It’s obviously encoded in our DNA. Thus, Type II errors abound :)

Ironically enough, for me, the more I have learned - the more I realize I don’t know anything!

Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs? Yes. But when a person comes to a Science forum in the religion section it’s kind of understood that they are there to debate Religion from a scientific point of view.

Well, do you think it is OK to teach a child to believe in One God or Many Gods or Buddha or to be an Atheist?

Teaching a child to believe in a particular religion is similar to teaching a child to speak in a particular language. The child has no choice in which religion/language. And once learned, it’s almost impossible not to think within that religion/language.

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists. Morals/ethics are individual. For example, it used to be moral/ethic to own Slaves. Now most people think it is wrong. It is morally/ethically acceptiable to have multiple wives in some countries. It is morally/ethically unacceptle in AU/USA/Euope/China/Japan etc... It is immoral for a women to show a lot of flesh in KSA it is perfectly fine to sunbake topless at a beach in Sydney (that’s where I live).

SO morals and ethics are relative to the individual.

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc) These are my personal views:
1) Abortion – I am a man so I can not say, I will never have an abortion. But, I support women to make their own moral/ethical choice. 8/10 fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
2) Homosexuality and Gay marriage – Perfectly OK, I support men and women whom are gay to make their own moral/ethically choice on the topic. Sexuality has a gradient from classic male to classic female with all the greyness in-between. Some people are born phenotypically having both sexes – I suppose to be fair we should have at least a third category then.
3) Capital Punishment – Some heinous crimes can be dealt with using Capitol punishment. Child molesters come to mind.
4) Immigration – I have migrated from the USA to AU. I support immigration. I would like to see a day when people can immigrate anywhere. I know how much I hated it when I didn’t have citizenship here in AU, and I could be forced to leave at someone’s whim.
5) Ideal social system. Great question. I have no idea. Capitalism is pretty OK, but I think we should have free (a) medical (b) grade-high school (c) support for the disabled and elderly (d) minimum wage. People in their 20-40 should not be given to much social support. This is the most productive times of our lives. Most animals push their young out of the nest/pack at this age. We are animals - we should do the same! It’s good for them anyway.

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them. As a Muslim perhaps you were once told of how the Qur’an is miraculous book, more so than the others – which have been corrupted over time. Did you ever wonder who wrote it? What year was it finished? Who canonized it? What of the day of its completion? Surely that would be known? If not then at least the month? The year?
As "evidence" maybe you were told of the healing properties of Honey? That’s always a good one to point to. It’s often presented as evidence of God inspired revelation given to Mohammed from Allah via an Angle during a dream …
Maybe you were not told that honey was commonly used by solders in ancient Rome all the way over to ancient China. Honey has been used as healing agent in the ME for millennia, (certainly 1000s of years pre-Islam).

You get the point.

Think back to the religion/language.

samcdkey, did you really have a choice in your belief. There are 1000+1000+1000+1000x1000+1000+1000+1000 of religions if we take all time and space. I bet your parents happen to be closely aligned to your and/or societies belief? Surely your parents wouldn't believe in the Shinto Gods …… do they?!?!?! for you are not Japanese. If they did, I would be greatly surprised!!!

You get the point…. If I have guessed your parents as Muslim, and if all religions are to be taken as equally probably, I must be psychic!

(Sorry about that…. On to the question….)

So to answer your last question. My personal opinion is that Religious Archaeology should be taught in school. The connections with past religions should be made. In this way people will understand that most stories in Judaism Xianity and Islam are plagiarized works from earlier religions. The stories were not corrupted over time – they were incorporated by the new religious upstarts.
- The similarities between Mythranic belief and Xianity for example.
- Arab Nature worship and Islam.
- Sumerian epics copied verbatum into Judaism.
- Zoroastrian stories taken into Xianity and Islam.
Etc…

Hope that helps,
Michael

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 12:33 AM

:) Thanks Michael, I enjoyed your post.

Also I have written somewhere about the origin and development of the Quran. You'll have to hunt it I'm afraid; I don't remember which thread it was.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 12:35 AM

I don't think such a consensus exists.

On the other hand, what's your opinion of countries run by strongly religious people (e.g. the US?)

James has the US been run by religious peple since the last 200 years?( I don't know this). Because I recently realised that they have followed essentially the same policy (200 foreign interventions in 200 years) for that period.

Michael

07-05-06, 02:20 AM

:) Thanks Michael, I enjoyed your post.

Also I have written somewhere about the origin and development of the Quran. You'll have to hunt it I'm afraid; I don't remember which thread it was.Thanks :)

But, I wanted to know your opinion as well!
What do you think?

Michael II

the preacher

07-05-06, 03:21 AM

samcdkey:most that I agree with, has been said already, however I do have one issue.
I personal am of the belief, that all atheist have good sense, thus I believe, that there is a common morality amongst atheist, which is to not kill, as this life is all we have, it's therefore sacred, as is humanity.
I disagree totally with Cris, that a an atheist could be the worst serial killer, as that would irrational in the extreme, but I do agree that one could be, if not all the perfect altruist/s imaginable.

audible

07-05-06, 03:25 AM

amen to that, my thoughts exactly.

Athelwulf

07-05-06, 03:37 AM

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)
1. The issue of abortion is the ugliest issue I've had to decide on; in fact, I'm still sorta on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides of the argument. However, I do say that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point in the pregnancy, because a mere bundle of cells is a far cry from a self-sufficient, living organism, both of which occur in the uterus.
2. Absolutely nothing wrong with either. Love is love. Bottom line.
3. It's barbaric. There's justice, and then there's vengeance. Simple.
4. People should be allowed to live in whichever area of the world they choose. The concept of a country is a social construct.
5. My opinions of the economy aren't quite firmly established. I agree that the fundamental concept of communism, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", is a noble idea — but I also know that pure communism is so hard to make work. It's also not very adaptable to the changing wants and needs of society. Capitalism is economic freedom, and it adapts swiftly to the wants and needs of the people. Everything in economics has its time, and to me, it's just a matter of deciding correctly when that time is.

In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.
I would treat any terrorist — and only the terrorist — as a criminal, and I would do my best to focus all efforts solely on them and catch them. By no means would I go bomb the shit out of an entire country (or two or ten), nor would I treat people who shared a few mere physical characteristics with the terrorist with suspicion. By no means is terrorism unique to one religion, or indeed one group of any type.

lightgigantic

07-05-06, 03:52 AM

I don't think such a consensus exists.

On the other hand, what's your opinion of countries run by strongly religious people (e.g. the US?)

Maybe its a contentious consensus then - I have caught that thread more than once or twice on these forums, even if you are not personally possessed of it.

Sarkus

07-05-06, 04:26 AM

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them.My view is that for many religious people the structure of the religion itself helps them almost immeasurably, and for that must be applauded. I just find the whole concept of religion, and religious/irrational belief bizarre - and fascinating.

To judge a person as irrational based on their religious beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination.Likewise to judge a person as a serial killer based on the slew of victims they leave behind is flagrant discrimination?
Religious beliefs ARE irrational.
A person is thus IRRATIONAL in the respect of this aspect of their life if they hold such beliefs.
That is not to say that they are utterly irrational in all respects - but how does one know where a religious person will draw the line with their irrationality?

This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists.Atheists, taken as the "weak atheist" position of merely lacking a belief in God, does NOT HAVE BELIEFS! They therefore can not believe in the freedom to practice that non-belief.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?
See above.
Rationality is not a "belief".
Hopefully schoolroom teachers try and teach their pupils to think rationally. Are they then guilty?

Yes, "strong atheists" - those who believe in the non-existence of God - are, IMHO, "guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs". Both sides demonstrate irrationality (with the exception of those "strong atheists" who can clearly define the God that they don't believe in and provide logical rebuttals to that God's existence.)

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.Misconception.
Morals will not be the same from individual to individual - as we all have wide-ranging experience on which to draw - as well as different levels and types of intellect and, more importantly, different personalities.
However, at a fundamental level I think that they should all be the same for those that live in the same society.

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)
1. You will always get a split decision on this due to the highly emotive nature of the subject-matter. I actually waver between positions: mother's right to own her own body .v. the right of the life within the womb.
What I can say is that no amount of "preaching" or "guidance" from a priest, from books, from religious or scientific people will move me from this undecided state - until such time as I am far closer to the subjet matter.

2. No problem with it at all - and they should have equal rights, expectations and considerations as a heterosexual couple.

3. Do not agree with it at all - for many reasons: irreversibility of the decision, the "easy out" for the criminal, no possibility of repentence etc. I basically think there are far better options.

4. Immigration is an entirely economic decision. Everyone should have the right to choose where they live on this planet, but should expect to abide fully with the laws of the society in which they intend to live - including paying tax etc. Also, the society has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the current population, and to prevent it from being over-crowded etc.
This is obviously a different matter to Asylum.

5. Ideal social system: "Social Capitalism" - which is basically Capitalism (which does work OK) where everyone is free to pursue their own desires but with the ultimate aim of providing for the social needs of the society. So free education at all levels - free health care at all levels - free utilities (water, gas, electricity etc) to private households etc. Obviously this would require far higher taxation levels than you see at the moment. My view is that this will never work in practice due to the corruption and mess of bureaucracy - such that the additional taxes would be wasted on red-tape and middle management rather than meeting the social needs of the end-user. Just look at the UK NHS as a present day example - where additional funding does NOT equal better service!

water

07-05-06, 05:01 AM

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them.

To judge a person as irrational based on their religious beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?

I don't think the issue here is so much atheism vs. theism, but of certain personality traits.

Someone who has a very controlling or manipulating personality, be he theist or atheist, will act like a "fundamentalist", shoving his beliefs down everyone's throat, trying to control them in one way or another. His religion or worldview is quite accidental in all this.

Granted, there are worldviews and religions or doctrines that seem to particularly appeal to the controlling mindset and encourage it. (Like religions that have a strong policy towards converting.)

* * *

As for discrimination:
I think the term got a bad rep. We discriminate all the time. We don't associate with everyone, we don't eat just anything, we don't just do anything etc.. We are discriminating, our actions prove it. How this basic act of living is described in words, is another matter, though.

SnakeLord

07-05-06, 06:56 AM

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?

The one thing I can say is that I have never ever had an atheist knocking on my door telling me I must lack belief in gods.

You'll find it's generally the theist that will come along and force his belief upon the atheist - who then feels the need to defend himself from such intrusion.

Perhaps it's worth asking why you came to a science website instead of a muslims only website. Although yes, you do get the occasional atheist that will intrude upon a purely religious forum and rock the boat, it's usually the other way round.

1. Abortion

Upto the would-be-parents.

2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage

Upto the person that the penis or vagina belongs to.

3. Capital Punishment

I disagree with it.

4. Immigration

I see no issue with it if you come to work, to pay taxes and to support the country you have moved to. If you come to burn our flags, claim all our benefits and get free housing then I don't agree with it.

5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

Not overly bothered.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 07:30 AM

[QUOTE]The one thing I can say is that I have never ever had an atheist knocking on my door telling me I must lack belief in gods.

Well I've never had any theists knocking on my door so it must be a cultural thing

You'll find it's generally the theist that will come along and force his belief upon the atheist - who then feels the need to defend himself from such intrusion.

Nope never had this experience either.

Perhaps it's worth asking why you came to a science website instead of a muslims only website. Although yes, you do get the occasional atheist that will intrude upon a purely religious forum and rock the boat, it's usually the other way round.

I thought it was a science forum and I am a molecular biologist; that being said I got involved in the discussions because it would be cowardly to avoid them. I have the right to pursue and defend defend my beliefs as much as anybody else.

Why would I go to a Muslims only forum?

I wouldn't know about religious forums; I don't belong to any.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 07:32 AM

I don't think the issue here is so much atheism vs. theism, but of certain personality traits.

Someone who has a very controlling or manipulating personality, be he theist or atheist, will act like a "fundamentalist", shoving his beliefs down everyone's throat, trying to control them in one way or another. His religion or worldview is quite accidental in all this.

Granted, there are worldviews and religions or doctrines that seem to particularly appeal to the controlling mindset and encourage it. (Like religions that have a strong policy towards converting.)

* * *

As for discrimination:
I think the term got a bad rep. We discriminate all the time. We don't associate with everyone, we don't eat just anything, we don't just do anything etc.. We are discriminating, our actions prove it. How this basic act of living is described in words, is another matter, though.

Yes, but people often see their own faults as positive attributes.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 07:42 AM

Correct.

Descriminiation to have no respect for a persons irrational beliefs? Fine call it that if you want. I also have no respect for a persons irrational belief that there is a teapot circling the sun. Imagine the damage to a society where this was common belief? Would I stand by and respect this belief? Absolutely not.

I put all theists in the same basket. From apologists to fundamentalists, neither are good for a society.

You need to reexamine your motives; your first comment contradicts your second one.

No secularism gives people freedoms. Also, you can not parallell the 'beliefs' of atheists to that of harmful religious dogma. Obviously you can not see that which is why apologists like yourself are dangerous.

I thought the whole idea of secularism was freedom?

You are obviously delusional. Fundamentalists come in all shape and sizes and religion or non-religion is not a prerequisite. If you cannot see this, you have a lot to learn yet.

Yes. Atheists could teach theists a thing or two on morals. Is this news? What makes you think moral beliefs are created by religion? At least atheist morals are grounded in rational enquiry.

Baseless propoganda.

Legal. If the law were to be changed it would have to be when politicians listen to people who are qualified and make judgement that is based in reason rather than what their sky fairy says.

Yes all politicians being so selfless and compassionate and easily led by the nose.

Wrong. Innocents killed. Doesn't solve anything. Adds to a climate of violence typical of religious societies.

Obsessive

Nothing wrong with it, especially since I will be an immigrant soon.

Nothing like self interest to make things crystal clear

Take a good look at Europe. You won't see a healthier lack of religion anywhere else in the world. The only thing I would change would be the indoctrination of children in school.

And yet you are not moving to Europe.

13% of UK Muslims believe the 7/7 bombers should be regarded as martyrs. Isn't it odd that Muslims (a sizable minority) think this way? Both the religious nature of the attacks and the religious nature of those who support it speaks volumes. You are a fool samcdkey, if you think it has nothing to do with religion. How the fuck could an atheist ever support such a thing? They wouldn't.

You are obviously very susceptible to what the media dishes out and have yet to learn of an amzing process called critical thinking; foul language does not convince me that you are right, just that you are unable to discuss with civility.

All this stemming from the religious nature of the USA and George Bush who decided to go to war due to their fanatic Christian methods... and so the war of dogma simply goes round in circles whilst atheists sit and shake their heads at how silly everyone is.

I'm not surprised that you attribute motives to people based on your colored perceptions. American has been involved in 200 foreign interventions in the last 200 years. So by your logic its a nation beset with religious fanatics. Only 2% of the population is atheist and most of these keep it under their hats.

I would reconsider moving here if I were you.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 07:43 AM

:)

'Irrational', 'ignorant', 'stupid', 'nuts', and so on
are tossed around all the time by everybody
against everybody else.

So, for sure, it is not fair to single out only the atheists
and criticize them for making use of those very good 'insults'!
That is a 'flagrant discrimination'.
Right?

:D
Did I single anyone out? I thought the atheists deserved a ranting thread and I gave them something to rant about. :cool:

SnakeLord

07-05-06, 09:57 AM

Well I've never had any theists knocking on my door so it must be a cultural thing

You've been lucky. However, maybe it's worth doing a survey to find out how many people have had theists intrude upon them waving holy texts in their face in comparison to the amount of atheists they've had come round demanding they lack belief in gods.

Nope never had this experience either.

Didn't know you were an atheist.

I thought it was a science forum and I am a molecular biologist; that being said I got involved in the discussions because it would be cowardly to avoid them. I have the right to pursue and defend defend my beliefs as much as anybody else.

Why would I go to a Muslims only forum?

Right, apologies - that wasn't to mean 'you' specifically. It was an open 'you'. Happens a lot round here. The point was that many come here simply to preach their beliefs. It's no different to getting a knock on the door - with some fundamelist Woody preaching damnation and hellfire unless you believe what he says, and as long as you aren't gay, (those are open 'yous' as well - get used to them).

water

07-05-06, 09:58 AM

Yes, but people often see their own faults as positive attributes.

Yes, they do, but that was not my point.

You discriminate as well. Everyone does. Only that the politically correct word for that is "choose".

water

07-05-06, 10:01 AM

You are obviously delusional.

Yikes.

Talk about discrimination!

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 10:32 AM

Yes, they do, but that was not my point.

You discriminate as well. Everyone does. Only that the politically correct word for that is "choose".

I'm not sure I entirely agree; I might choose not to associate with certain persons because their personality is incompatible with mine; but I consider discrimination as being applied to a whole group of individuals based on a shared characteristic.

e.g. religion, race, gender, age, class, educational level, IQ, sexual orientation.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 10:33 AM

Yikes.

Talk about discrimination!

More like self-righteousness! See previous comment

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 10:38 AM

You've been lucky. However, maybe it's worth doing a survey to find out how many people have had theists intrude upon them waving holy texts in their face in comparison to the amount of atheists they've had come round demanding they lack belief in gods.

I guess its pretty bad here.

Didn't know you were an atheist.

Am not; which is why I never had the experience :)

Right, apologies - that wasn't to mean 'you' specifically. It was an open 'you'. Happens a lot round here. The point was that many come here simply to preach their beliefs. It's no different to getting a knock on the door - with some fundamelist Woody preaching damnation and hellfire unless you believe what he says, and as long as you aren't gay, .

Well everyone has free speech; you need not read the thread if it disagrees with your opinion.

(those are open 'yous' as well - get used to them)

Well I thought your open yous might look different somehow, since you always took mine very personally! :)

charles cure

07-05-06, 10:42 AM

I have a question for all the atheists in this forum:

Almost all the atheists declare that their grievances are against the religion; they do not hate or wish to convert the theists, they merely wish to point out the "irrationalities" of theism to them.

you mean almost all atheists discussing the issue in a public forum. i am an atheist and i don't go around all day walking up to people i think might believe in god and trying to convince them of their irrationality. if however, i find myself engaged in a discussion about the merits of religion or aspects of religious belief, i feel warranted in expressing myself.

To judge a person as irrational based on their religious beliefs is, in my opinion, flagrant discrimination. This when combined with the declaration that atheists believe in the freedom to practice their beliefs is illogical when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the theists. I do not mean the extreme theists here, I'm referring to those forum members who practice their religion peacefully and have no fundamentalist agendas.

who's judging? i have religious friends who i respect for their worth as people, whether they are religious or not. i think their belief is irrational and i think many of them cling to it out of fear or weakness or sometimes even nostalgia, but i'm sure we all do that from time to time. however, many of these people are only believers in name and not in practice. it is the growing contingent of radical religious (particularly evangelical) conservatives in this country (the US) who take money from their congregations and attempt to use it to influence policy decisions that favor allowing a particular religion undue representation or preferential treatment in the public sphere that really bothers me and that i think should be countermanded. that's not discrimination, its simply defending a long-standing policy seperating religion and the government by speaking out when you think someone is attempting to erode it.
i think that you have blurred the line between agreeing with something and tolerating it. atheists on here do normally seem to agree that there should be freedom to exercise religion, as long as the religion is kept private and does not bleed its way into public law. you can think that someone's beliefs are irrational and still support their right to believe as long as they don't try to force you to live by their rules. you also have the right to attempt to persuade people to abandon their irrational and potentially damaging ideologies through rational argument in a public forum.

So what is the difference between a fundamentalist theist who wants to force his opinion of religion on an atheist and an atheist who wants to force his notion of rationality on the theists? Are both of them not equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs?

the church that uses its vast financial resources to influence the making of laws to reflect their particular beliefs is wrong. the radical christian politician who refuses to consider scientific data, but wishes to outlaw abortion because his priest tells him that life begins at the moment of conception is wrong. there is no organized athesit effort to attempt to outlaw religion. there are very few, if any uncloseted atheist politicians in the US that currently hold office. even the atheists who most often declare the beliefs of the religious to be irrational still support their right to live by their own beliefs as long as they don't try to make everyone else live under the the onerous and often illogical rules of their particular god. so in short, no, they are not both equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose.

Another point raised by the atheists is that atheism is superior to theism because it ensures freedom to all; its morality supersedes theism since it is all-encompassing and does not allow for differences between people. This presumes that moral beliefs are common in all atheists.

i've never made that point, so i can't speak to it. although i do find your statment to be both inaccurate and somewhat suspect.

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
3. Capital Punishment
4. Immigration
5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

abortion - should be up to the potential mother/father

homosexuality and gay marriage - doesn't hurt anyone, and should probably be legalized.

capital punishment - two wrongs don't make a right.

Immigration - from where to where?

ideal social system - there is no such thing.
In addition since I am a Muslim and have heard a lot about Islamic terrorism, I would like comments on how the atheists would resolve this issue, if it were up to them.

without islam, islamic fundamentalism could not exist. however, i think that if one were to leave religion intact and attempt to diffuse the situation, it must necessarily be seen as far more complex than just a clash of cultures. i think that many muslims are angered by real or perceived greivances that they have with past US and western european foreign policy that has been destructive to their countries and cultures and people. however, another part of it is that they see western culture as prurient, sinful, and in need of cleansing on behalf of allah. that will exist as long as religion remains a dominant force in people's lives. the only things that will change are the perpetrators of religious intolerance and the victims of it.

(Q)

07-05-06, 12:46 PM

Did I single anyone out? I thought the atheists deserved a ranting thread and I gave them something to rant about.

Ah, then your invitation to come here to conduct an experiment was just another load of BS?

I thought it was a science forum and I am a molecular biologist...

Funny, you've not shown any hint of being such, in fact, you claimed not to know anything about evolution but now claim you're a molecular biologist? Even comments and questions most first year students should know appeared to escape you?

I'm smelling a lot of fish manure here.

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE]Ah, then your invitation to come here to conduct an experiment was just another load of BS?

Are you baiting me Q?

Grow up.

I asked you to look at this thread, that's all.

Funny, you've not shown any hint of being such, in fact, you claimed not to know anything about evolution but now claim you're a molecular biologist? Even comments and questions most first year students should know appeared to escape you?

What a very narrow mind you have.

My field is molecular nutrition and I do clinical studies on animals and use primarily molecular biology techniques; I'm specialized in advanced human nutrition, clinical nutrition, nutritional biochemistry and applied analytical biochemistry.
Can you think of any reason why I would do evolutionary biology?

I'm smelling a lot of fish manure here.

Still jumping in all directions except the right one, as usual.

You may not be aware of this, but there is an Ignore option in the threads. Why don't you put me on ignore and spare yourself my BS?

DeeCee

07-05-06, 01:08 PM

Been away for a day, time to pay catch up.

Sam

So your judgement of theists is based on a limited definition of rationality?

Don't take definitions from encyclopedias my life ain't long enough. My pocket dictionary works fine for me.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl) adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.
3. Of sound mind; sane.
4. Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

That was from dictionary.com because you can't cut and paste from a Collins pocket gem.

Now looking at that has made me modify my position just a little.
If you live in a Taliban held village for instance then embracing Islam seems like a pretty rational thing to do. If you belive in the existance of giant man swallowing whales, a six thousand year old earth, rising from the dead and the absolute right to life of fleas and ticks then I have to suggest that your rationality meter is poorly calibrated.
On the other hand not eating pork when you live in a hot country prior to the invention of the fridge is probably a rational decision. To persist with that practice following the arrival of the chest freezer is, however, open to question.

In some cases, such as religious belief, the argument may be valid but its soundness cannot be known for the truth of its premises cannot be known.

Sounds like a cop out.
We know what were talking about, lets go light on the semantics eh?
Keep this up and I'll change the word of the day from rational to ratiocinative..

in YOUR opinion, theists are irrational, they are all extreme? Please clarify.

Collecting beer bottle labels is IMHO irrational but I wouldn't descibe it as extreme. Seems to me that nobody adopts the label "extreme" they have it placed upon them by others. I think theists are irrational but I don't consider any of them extreme per se. It's just that some prefer the message whilst others worship the creed.
A case in point..
I am of course a member of the Church of England. I know I'm in the club 'cos it's written on my birth certificate. BTW the C of E is the only church I know that admits athiests :)
There's a bit of a kerfuffle within the church right now over the ordination of gay priests. Both sides in the dispute consider the opposite position as extreme.
Go figure.
Once you wave goodbye to rationality everything is relative.

Ah! Obviously no discrimination here at all!

None whatsoever. If living in fantasy land works for you then go girl!
Just don't expect me to join in.

What do the words "freedom of belief" mean to you?

It's strange expression thats for sure.
You can limit a persons practice but how do you stop a person from believing whatever they want?
How do you even know what they believe unless they tell you?
Even then they may be lying.

And why would you presume that you must be converted to one of them?

Well theists all claim to be heirs to a body of knowledge and understanding denied to mere atheists like myself.
I ought to join up out of curiosity if nothing else.
Besides perhaps I'm wrong in which case getting into god might buy me credits for the afterlife.

And if all atheists have individual moral positions not controlled by peers, what is the basis for morality in atheism? Who decides what is right?

Basis for morality?
A combination of selfishness and altruism tempered by personal experience.
Multiply that by the total population and you get social morality I guess.
Perhaps you could call it consensus morality.
Hows that?

At any time? Under any circumstance? At what point in the pregnancy would you say its too late? Or is that question moot?

I have a personal position but as a man it ain't worth a toss.
So I won't bore you with it.
One can only assume that women in general know what they are doing and should therefore be allowed to do whatever they think is best.

your opinion is that marriage being a theistically sanctioned relationship is irrelevant in the current social context?

Yup!
Nice sentence BTW. You should write textbooks.

What about pedophiles who murder their victims? serial killers? mass murderers and terrorists?

If you think methodically and cold bloodly killing people just because it suits your world view is a bad thing then consistancy dictates that capital punishment is a bad thing also.
For me personally, I formulated my opinions at a young age. I was a big reader as a kiddie and two names stick with me. Timothy Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans) and Derek Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley)
Putting aside my ethical concerns it takes a certain sort of person to be executed. I doubt we'll ever see OJ or Phil Spector on death row.
Good lawyers cost big money.

So you view immigrants as cheap labor? What about the educated ones, who want a better standard of living for themselves and their families? Are they allowed to come as well and compete for your job?

There are guys with degrees flipping burgers now. If you'd put your efforts into classical history instead of biochemistry where would you be now? The pubs and clubs of England are tended and swept by legions of twentysomething arts graduates. That maybe an exaggeration but I like the image and there is a debate to be had as to why that sullen guy stacking shelves in your local book store is a philosophy grad.
I'm sure well educated immigrants suffer the same hurdles.
I don't view migrants as cheap labour, they are cheap labour. All labour is cheap in a global economy. It's a competition thing.
BTW They can try for my job if they want but as I offer my services to the general public who are, by and large, racist. I will always be more popular.
Hooray for racism ;)
Besides I wouldn't make a dog do my job but it does pay well. It still feels like cheap labour though.

That all felt a bit scrappy. I've had a busy day and have been spraying text in 5 minute chunks.
My apologies
Dee Cee

DeeCee

07-05-06, 01:46 PM

For Mr Scott

So they are irrational just becuase you say they are?

No they're irrational because they make no sense.
Water into wine, Elephant headed gods, big floods, Supreme beings.
Whose gonna fall for that sort of nonsense?
Theists never offer any evidence and none of them can ever tell you where God came from. They can't even agree on how many Gods there are.

I said Irrational. Period because I couldn't be bothered posting the bleeding obvious not out of blind faith in the truth of the statement.

Hmmmm Interesting.

Well if it got you thinking then that's no bad thing.

When they act like Atheists and try to control anothers belief.

So how do you control anothers belief then? Do tell.
Perhaps you feed them to lions would that work?
Maybe all you can do is try. If so, then theists don't have much to worry about.

Again becuase you say so.

Are you really suggesting that some supernatural creature hangs about watching what were upto?
It's obviously fantasy. Go check out the bible. The first few chapters are a hoot. The special effects are a bit limp though but then it has been kicking around for a long time and can't be expected to capture the zeitgeist.

Seems you are having doubts.

Not really. Just hedging my bets.

Interesting you seem to encourage rewarding violent behavior.

Violent behaviour is rewarded. That's the lesson from history, far as I can tell.
When it comes to terrorism I suspect that the violence used used largely as a form of communication and it is up to us how we respond.

Nice to natter.
Dee Cee

(Q)

07-05-06, 02:05 PM

[QUOTE=(Q)]

Are you baiting me Q?

Grow up.

I asked you to look at this thread, that's all.

Here are your words:

"Hey Q:

I've started an experiment for you.

Look at the new thread on "are atheists discriminatory towards theists"

That doesn't look like you "thought the atheists deserved a ranting thread and I gave them something to rant about."

What a very narrow mind you have.

You really should shed that theist attitude of tossing out insults.

My field is molecular nutrition and I do clinical studies on animals and use primarily molecular biology techniques; I'm specialized in advanced human nutrition, clinical nutrition, nutritional biochemistry and applied analytical biochemistry.
Can you think of any reason why I would do evolutionary biology?

So, what you're claiming is that you work in the field of biology, yet don't understand evolution. That seems utterly ridiculous.

Perhaps its Islamic based biology? Animals that have been created from clay or dust, perhaps?

Still jumping in all directions except the right one, as usual.

You may not be aware of this, but there is an Ignore option in the threads. Why don't you put me on ignore and spare yourself my BS?

That makes no sense as it wouldn't help me to expose your BS, would it?

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 02:12 PM

[QUOTE]Here are your words:

"Hey Q:

I've started an experiment for you.

Look at the new thread on "are atheists discriminatory towards theists"

That doesn't look like you "thought the atheists deserved a ranting thread and I gave them something to rant about."

I invited you to come rant here, didn't I?

You really should shed that theist attitude of tossing out insults.

Tomayto Tomahto

So, what you're claiming is that you work in the field of biology, yet don't understand evolution. That seems utterly ridiculous.

Dare I say, most respectfully, that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Perhaps its Islamic based biology? Animals that have been created from clay or dust, perhaps?

Bully for you!

That makes no sense as it wouldn't help me to expose your BS, would it?

Ah! The Resident Moral Policeman.

(Q)

07-05-06, 02:43 PM

I invited you to come rant here, didn't I?

You're dictionary appears to be somewhat different then mine, which does not show a relationship between 'experiment' and 'rant.'

Tomayto Tomahto

I'll take that as a no and will expect to see more of the same.

Dare I say, most respectfully, that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Uh, Biology 112 is a prerequisite for every biology student: Evolution and Genetics with Lab. Yet, you know nothing about evolution. Curious...

Fishy... smell...

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 02:48 PM

You're dictionary appears to be somewhat different then mine, which does not show a relationship between 'experiment' and 'rant.'

Yes I've some experience of your "dictionaries"

I'll take that as a no and will expect to see more of the same.

still jumping.

Uh, Biology 112 is a prerequisite for every biology student: Evolution and Genetics with Lab. Yet, you know nothing about evolution. Curious...

Biology 112? Are they offering it in India? Must've missed it.

Fishy... smell... Froggy....jump

scorpius

07-05-06, 07:16 PM

I

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion
its a womans choice,did ya know that a hungry child dies somewhere in the world every three sconds?
do we need more children then? dont think so.

2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
why the fuck should this even be discused,whats it to you who marries whom?

3. Capital Punishment
only for those who deserve it,and only if we are 100% sure they done the crime.Sadam Hussein. for example..fry the bastard or maybe its more humane to let him sit in the slamer for the rest of his life?

4. Immigration
people want to make a better life and theres plenty of work here,I say welcome.

5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)
something like a Star trek society where they dont need money,sure would eliminate lot of crimes,or www.technocracy.org
but then majority of people are too unevolved to even consider this ..yet!

Michael

07-05-06, 07:42 PM

samcdkey,

Wow these threads do follow entropy – that’s for sure :)

Yesterday I was reading along and fine. Today it seems like the tone has changed? Yeah atheists tend think to theists are irrational in regards to the religious portion of their belief. So what? Strong atheists are irrational in their belief as well.

Is there really that much difference between Agonistic Atheists and Agnostic Theists?

Are you an agnostic Muslim?

I think being happy without harming others in the process is really the most important. viva la Happyness!
(I’d rather be a happy Muslim than a sour Atheist.)

Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts were on:

- 1. Abortion
- 2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
- 3. Capital Punishment
- 4. Immigration
- 5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

And my own question:

- 6. Do you believe in race?

I don’t. To me race is meaningless. Yet, I know some atheists that do believe “vehemently” in race. Why I have no idea? They are irrational to me. They seem to think I am irrational!? That can not be...... :D

Cheers,
Michael

S.A.M.

07-05-06, 07:42 PM

Hi Michael

Try to imagine, you wake up one day. Everyone around you stopped believing in the One God Allah and started believing that the Moon was God. I mean EVERYONE. Everyday people prayed 10 times to the Moon God. They would scorn you for your belief in Allah.
"No no no – the Moon God is the True God!!"
Say some other people started to pray to the Sun.
Wars broke out.
Moon worshipping people killed Sun worshipping people.
How would you feel? You would probably say to yourself - "This is crazy". The Moon is not a God nor is the Sun.

You get the picture.

Actually I woke up one day and found out that God had been transformed to a sky fairy and I thought "This is crazy!"

Well, that’s how I feel sometimes. I used to believe in Jesus et.al. (well the blue eyed blond haired one that iconicly looked kind of like me :) One day, while I was walking to my grad building, I had an epiphany. Figuratively, I suppose you could say, I realized everyone was worshipping either the moon or the sun.

Are you spiritually inclined, though?

Even if you are not religious?

Thus there is a desire to engage in debate.
Why?
I suppose it’s part of being social.
Encoded in our DNA like everything else.
I also find debate is a good way to learn and can be kind of fun.

Oh I'm all for debate. I've been opinionated and argumentative ever since I was born. I was a little taken aback at the degree of viciousness on this forum, though.

Although, I think most Atheists recognize that Theists are rational in all things except their belief. That is the really interesting part.

There is a rather large assumption at play here, you know. For example, I would say that atheists are alright except for their lack of faith.

Can you see the similarity with the two stories?

Don't rock the boat?

I know some Atheists that are as fanatical in their belief as some Theists.

It’s obviously encoded in our DNA. Thus, Type II errors abound

Yes, I know what you mean :rolleyes: I've met some major Type IIs here.

Ironically enough, for me, the more I have learned - the more I realize I don’t know anything!

But you're open to discussion, at least.

Yes. But when a person comes to a Science forum in the religion section it’s kind of understood that they are there to debate Religion from a scientific point of view.

So does science eschew morality?

Well, do you think it is OK to teach a child to believe in One God or Many Gods or Buddha or to be an Atheist?

Teaching a child to believe in a particular religion is similar to teaching a child to speak in a particular language. The child has no choice in which religion/language. And once learned, it’s almost impossible not to think within that religion/language.

So what do you think about the children of the present generation?

They have considerable more freedom of choice as compared to the previous.

What is your objective assessment of them?

Morals/ethics are individual. For example, it used to be moral/ethic to own Slaves. Now most people think it is wrong. It is morally/ethically acceptiable to have multiple wives in some countries. It is morally/ethically unacceptle in AU/USA/Euope/China/Japan etc... It is immoral for a women to show a lot of flesh in KSA it is perfectly fine to sunbake topless at a beach in Sydney (that’s where I live).

Yet people constantly impose their morals on those who belong to a different society or culture. What is your opinion about that?

These are my personal views:
1) Abortion – I am a man so I can not say, I will never have an abortion. But, I support women to make their own moral/ethical choice. 8/10 fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
2) Homosexuality and Gay marriage – Perfectly OK, I support men and women whom are gay to make their own moral/ethically choice on the topic. Sexuality has a gradient from classic male to classic female with all the greyness in-between. Some people are born phenotypically having both sexes – I suppose to be fair we should have at least a third category then.
3) Capital Punishment – Some heinous crimes can be dealt with using Capitol punishment. Child molesters come to mind.
4) Immigration – I have migrated from the USA to AU. I support immigration. I would like to see a day when people can immigrate anywhere. I know how much I hated it when I didn’t have citizenship here in AU, and I could be forced to leave at someone’s whim.
5) Ideal social system. Great question. I have no idea. Capitalism is pretty OK, but I think we should have free (a) medical (b) grade-high school (c) support for the disabled and elderly (d) minimum wage. People in their 20-40 should not be given to much social support. This is the most productive times of our lives. Most animals push their young out of the nest/pack at this age. We are animals - we should do the same! It’s good for them anyway.

Very PC

As a Muslim perhaps you were once told of how the Qur’an is miraculous book, more so than the others – which have been corrupted over time. Did you ever wonder who wrote it? What year was it finished? Who canonized it? What of the day of its completion? Surely that would be known? If not then at least the month? The year?

That's been done to death in another thread.

As "evidence" maybe you were told of the healing properties of Honey? That’s always a good one to point to. It’s often presented as evidence of God inspired revelation given to Mohammed from Allah via an Angle during a dream …

All the verses were revelations and the honey one has actually been quoted not so much for the "healing properties" but the fact that it is only the female bees which produce the honey. I'm not really sure about this, since I haven't actually looked at the Quran for confirmation of scientific evidence, but this was a fact apparently unknown until very recent.

So to answer your last question. My personal opinion is that Religious Archaeology should be taught in school. The connections with past religions should be made. In this way people will understand that most stories in Judaism Xianity and Islam are plagiarized works from earlier religions. The stories were not corrupted over time – they were incorporated by the new religious upstarts.

- The similarities between Mythranic belief and Xianity for example.
- Arab Nature worship and Islam.
- Sumerian epics copied verbatum into Judaism.
- Zoroastrian stories taken into Xianity and Islam.
Etc…

Well there are some things I could say to that, but you would call it propaganda :)