I can only say, I myself am responsable for my own actions, not for anyone else´s, I can only control my actions and not what everyone else does. I would like this world to be a better place, and for that, I can only give my brick of the wall, I can only offer my own actions, not everyone elses. And this being said, I say to you, I rather d¡e than go to war and kill people, I rather be hanged by the government, whatever they want to do, I will kill nobody.
Who mentioned hatred? Soldiers rarely hate the enemy. And studies done in the 60s/70s suggest that men are capable of fighting for limited objectives and then "shaking hands", all done, all forgotten: whereas women take longer to get "annoyed" (and for differing resaons), but tend not to stop the fight/ grudge until the threat is eliminated. SOmething to do with protecting their offspring/ potential offspring. The conclusion of the study was that if women were in charge then wars would most likely ALL be conducted until the other side was wiped from the face of the Earth...
...but the OP assumes they are the same thing, so for the sake of argument, we should aswell. Assumin God is omniscient and eternal, who or what could punish him or tell him what to do? Unless you're not assuming this, then nevermind. Of course there wasn't total imoorality before religion. What's common sense. Isn't that ad populum something or other. Truthfully, stealing is pretty apealing. So is fornication. Other than that, yes on the second question.
VitalOne convolves atheism into something it isn't. That does need correcting, but yes, if we go with his second paragraph, and concentrate on divine retribution etc, it just boils down to the 'what happened before religion' question. Stealing is quite appealing, and so is killing the person that stole from you. I think this is how co-operation and morality evolve, a sense of proportion, and risk vs benefit, personally, and that of the community.
Do you seriously think killing people is an act of love? Is nothing but hatred. Probably, the moment you go to war you don´t hate. But when you see people dying, and attacking your own, hatred is necessary to kill.
Have you read any combat reports? Hatred is not a necessity. How about love for your family forcing you to do something? Love of country/ way of life etc? Hatred is very rare in combat.
Nah I don´t buy it, is not love for your family that makes you go to war, or love for your country, or maybe that is true in special cases. But that is second news after you see your friends get killed. People go to war because they are afraid, afraid of whatever the government has told them to be afraid of: terrorist are going to kill you, terrorists are going to rape your family, terrorists are comming to invade the country. Those are all BS lies, I´m sorry but thats how I feel. Fear is the best way to manipulate people, it is incredibly effective, and it has worked like a charm throught history. First, is the fear of going to hell, or fear of terrorists, or fear of nuclear bombs. It all comes down to fear, and that is the best (if not only) way into conving people on going to war. People that are afraid of living are easily manipulated, it is sad to see such ignorance. USA is daily fed with anti-terrorism propaganda, in order for you to be afraid, be very afraid. That will make you come out of your house, go across the world and kill people. But excuse me, I will never fall into believing that killing could be an act of love, is nothing but hatred. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side...
So people join the army after friends or loved ones are killed? Must be hell for recruiting officers... Or people go to war to halt a perceived tyranny, or to help friendly nations that have been invaded, or... Then you have much to learn.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I like this FATWA very much. Don’t you like it? [1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016504.php [2] http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/05/23/egyptian-fatwa-promotes-adult-breastfeeding/ [3] http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309 [4] http://www.iranunited.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4177 [5] http://www.collegefanatics.com/boards/showthread.php?p=710774 [6] http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070521/twl-uk-egypt-fatwa-d59542a.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
there are indications that the standard understanding of christianity was a little different pre-constantine given the works of origien
You are right. Wrong from the moral code of the individual. There are no moral absolutes. For example - I find war mongering is always wrong. I think slavery is always wrong. You once told me I am wrong to take such moral absolutes and found a way in which to justify war-mongering and slavery. In the end you justified the conquest of Persia and the enslavement of Persians thus justifying mass murder. You once said the conquest (read mass murder and enslavement) of polytheistic Arabs was justifiable because their beleif was wrong, needed to be corrected and a whole host of other justifucations. While I am sure you would not consider killing or enslaving someone - from the comforts of a history book or a religous text I'm sure it all made good moral sense. Michael
But you support the war in Afghanistan. PS. I see you remember things the way you see them, or perhaps you read them that way too. Thats an interesting aspect of atheist morality.
atheism is simply LACK of belief in gods,it gives you no moral guidance but we NEED others to survive,so we have to get along with others,we even have to tolerate the religiously deluded ones. like they say what goes around comes around so if you do bad shyt it will come back at you sooner or later.. Stalin(who was Russian orthodox btw) never killed anyone IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM unlike the religious fanatics ...get your facts straight! wrong, read above maybe those atheists living morraly right and honest get reincarnated,..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
“ Originally Posted by Michael I find war mongering is always wrong. ” dont wanna speak for Michael but,would you rather see Taliban scumbags with their rules of terror,Heroin production and export to whole world, and opression of people ,rule in Afganistan??
Then you shouldn't have removed the secular communists, wot? As for the heroin, how do you think Pakistan/Afghanistan became a world leader in heroin production? http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/97-08 AUG/ciacovert.html And if medieval Muslims are such a pain, why support the Sauds and Pakistan, or for that matter the Shia government in Iraq?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway this thread is about morality and atheism.
I am not against counter-attacking the people who declared war on and attacked the USA - whether they happen to live in Afghanistan or live in Michigan. I do not support invading and occupying some other people, stealing their natural resources and destroying their culture. That is simply wrong in my book. I am against the Iraq War. I don't see what's so "atheistic" about that? Didn't you spend like 6 pages justifying the Xian Crusades using such examples as the "Xian" Renaissance? Oh ... .... wait a minute ... ... that was the Islamic Invasions of Persia and the "Islamic" Golden Age. I sometimes get the two confused Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael PS: Are we in agreement that all War of Conquest is evil? Are we in agreement that Institutionalized Slavery is evil? Or are my "Atheistic" moral codes screwed up????
:bawl: Nobody comments on this very IMPORTANT fatwa. Therefore, I have to comment on it myself! At first sight, the fatwa of Suckling appears ludicrous and absurd. Nonetheless, it plays a central role in the context of the Islamic law. Let’s illustrate that by a simple example. Suppose that a (married Muslim man & married Muslim woman) cheat on their spouses and have a daughter as a result of their secret affair. Suppose, also, that the wife of the infidel man has given birth to a son around the same time. 23 years later, the daughter & the son fall in love and decide to marry. Now, the TWO 'old cheating' crooks have a big trouble. How can they inform the son and the daughter there’re actually a (brother & sister)? It’s here that the importance of the Rule of Suckling becomes clear. In accordance with the Islamic law, the old infidel woman tells the judge that when the son of the infidel man was a baby he shared the suckling with her baby daughter. And so, these two youths are a (brother & sister). The proposition of marriage, therefore, is off. Infidelity has won! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
