Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Audie]

So you can’t answer the question.

But you know for sure what didn’t cause it.

In the absence of any other plausible explanation, to adamantly discard the Noachian Deluge out of hand as an explanation (on top of all the other evidences supporting it), and attempt to belittle those who do accept it, reveals a bias that borders on hubris.

I hope we meet, one day… I’ll forgive you.

I know of a lot of things that
for sure did not freeze all the little
bunnies.
You dont?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The point I'm making is that it's not always carried out, is it?

Quite possible..
..but is that the fault of Islamic law?

There are a number of reasons I can think of.
The one you are thinking of is probably corruption amongst the police.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite possible..
..but is that the fault of Islamic law?

There are a number of reasons I can think of.
The one you are thinking of is probably corruption amongst the police.

Each one must come to his own conclusion about religion and what laws are there or not there.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are very few jobs that actually require a specific type of genitals.

That has little to do with women disrespecting their husbands.
There are many professional couples, that both work in hospitals etc.

There is no point in a marriage where a woman disregards her husband's wishes.
That does not mean that husbands should be unreasonable.
A woman is entitled to complain about her husband.
..but it is generally a family matter, and not the police.

 

[wellwisher]

Religiinism certainly leads directly to and or excuses
some of the worst behaviour imaginable, in many cases.

Observing that may contribute to a dubious attitude
toward religionism and it's practitioners.

We need an updated definition of religion that goes beyond the obvious organized religions. Freedom of Religion has allowed a new type of religion to appear. For example, the most divisive behavior in modern American History, was connected to the Trump Russian Collusion Coup conspiracy theory, where one political party and its propaganda wing; media, set out to brain wash millions of people to believe in an alternate reality fairly tale, leading to a very divided country. It was not based on facts, but often mythological claims like the prophesy of Trump being Hitler, incarnate, and him starting a nuclear war.

Atheists claim that religion is based on fairy tales and imaginary things that science cannot prove. The secular religion above, met all those criteria. Time would show that their claims were not based on science or fact, but was a wishful and a malicious religion connected to an alternate reality that promoted their cause.

After the truth was revealed, the two political sides stopped trying to find common ground, since the real enemy was pretending to be on the side of good, while being the opposite within their alternate reality. In that alternate reality the innocent are condemned and the crooks are not punished. How can you trust such a religion? There is no traditional religion in the USA, that has caused as much divisiveness, in such a short time, within a once great country. We need to update the definition of religion to include such secular alternate reality religions; upside down mirror of classic religion where evil is rewarded.

When former President Trump came up with the idea and slogan, Make America Great Again, this was a call for an American system restore, back to a time where the country was more united. During WWII and shortly thereafter, everyone was more unified. The same people who caused political division, due to their mythological deception, called this return to the unity of America, divisive nationalism. That did not even make sense to me. How can a system restore to more united time, then their alternate reality, be divisive or divide? Maybe they meant it would divide those in their alternate reality; those who seek reality. Those word games are part of the divisive nature of this secular mirror religion. It routinely tries to pit groups against each other; black vs white, male vs female, organic sexuality vs inorganic sexuality; etc.

Many of their religious propaganda arguments, against classic religion, appear to be a distraction away from their own real time divisiveness. They like to collect and feature the worse hits of the world religions, over thousands of years, to justify their position. However, they do not focus on some of their own real time actions, that have had more modern impact.

This religion that is not called a religion, reminds me a crook, whose lawyer tries to psycho analyze his victim, to show why the victim needed to be assaulted and robbed. This actually occurs in many Democrat run cities, where shadow criteria. that do not directly apply to individuals; reverse racism, are used to justify looting. We are not used to dealing with large Satanic Religions, whose religion allows the option to lie and steal, as well as game the system to avoid separation of church and state.

 

[Audie]

We need an updated definition of religion that goes beyond the obvious organized religions. Freedom of Religion has allowed a new type of religion to appear. For example, the most divisive behavior in modern American History, was connected to the Trump Russian Collusion Coup conspiracy theory, where one political party and its propaganda wing; media, set out to brain wash millions of people to believe in an alternate reality fairly tale, leading to a very divided country. It was not based on facts, but often mythological claims like the prophesy of Trump being Hitler, incarnate, and him starting a nuclear war.

Atheists claim that religion is based on fairy tales and imaginary things that science cannot prove. The secular religion above, met all those criteria. Time would show that their claims were not based on science or fact, but was a wishful and a malicious religion connected to an alternate reality that promoted their cause.

After the truth was revealed, the two political sides stopped trying to find common ground, since the real enemy was pretending to be on the side of good, while being the opposite within their alternate reality. In that alternate reality the innocent are condemned and the crooks are not punished. How can you trust such a religion? There is no traditional religion in the USA, that has caused as much divisiveness, in such a short time, within a once great country. We need to update the definition of religion to include such secular alternate reality religions; upside down mirror of classic religion where evil is rewarded.

When former President Trump came up with the idea and slogan, Make America Great Again, this was a call for an American system restore, back to a time where the country was more united. During WWII and shortly thereafter, everyone was more unified. The same people who caused political division, due to their mythological deception, called this return to the unity of America, divisive nationalism. That did not even make sense to me. How can a system restore to more united time, then their alternate reality, be divisive or divide? Maybe they meant it would divide those in their alternate reality; those who seek reality. Those word games are part of the divisive nature of this secular mirror religion. It routinely tries to pit groups against each other; black vs white, male vs female, organic sexuality vs inorganic sexuality; etc.

Many of their religious propaganda arguments, against classic religion, appear to be a distraction away from their own real time divisiveness. They like to collect and feature the worse hits of the world religions, over thousands of years, to justify their position. However, they do not focus on some of their own real time actions, that have had more modern impact.

This religion that is not called a religion, reminds me a crook, whose lawyer tries to psycho analyze his victim, to show why the victim needed to be assaulted and robbed. This actually occurs in many Democrat run cities, where shadow criteria. that do not directly apply to individuals; reverse racism, are used to justify looting. We are not used to dealing with large Satanic Religions, whose religion allows the option to lie and steal, as well as game the system to avoid separation of church and state.

It was the good old religion that was the excuse for the
hideous tortures if the inquisition. Justified
black slavery. Etc and blah.

Let atheists speak for themselves as you cannot.
Religion is based on, is a result of a number of things,
the so- called fairy tales are incorporated into religion
but hardly could cause religiinism.

Bur like your "collusion" bit that's wholly irrelevant to,
what I said about religious beliefs leading to atrocious
behaviour.

And you may try but wont succeed in redefining
religion to suit your needs.
That said your efforts to bring in
Trump or otherwise invent secular religion
will be ignored as irrelevant nonsense.

Likewise your invention of
base motives for noting the harm in
religion, on the part of persons unidentified.

Deal with the FACT, that religious beliefs
mainstream and otherwise have a wide deep
history of involvement atrocious behaviour.

And that, seeing that, some of us
are wary and suspicious of religious persons
their motives and actions.

Oh, and-

Is it something about religion that keeps
you guys from EVER getting it that science
never deals with proof?

 

[Polymath257]

That has little to do with women disrespecting their husbands.
There are many professional couples, that both work in hospitals etc.

There is no point in a marriage where a woman disregards her husband's wishes.

And can the husband disregard his wife's wishes? If he can, then that is an unfair and oppressive system.

And sure, both should take the wishes of the other into account (not completely disregard them), but neither should be *required* to obey the other in all cases.

This is *precisely* the point at which this system becomes oppressive to women.

That does not mean that husbands should be unreasonable.
A woman is entitled to complain about her husband.
..but it is generally a family matter, and not the police.

If one has to *always* obey the other, that is slavery. What you have just described is the slavery of a woman.

And that is morally wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You'd be surprised .. depends on which country you live in..
Nobody would have thought that a married woman was responsible for paying bills,
until the late 20th. century.
It seems "equality" comes at a price.

What price would that be?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And sure, both should take the wishes of the other into account (not completely disregard them), but neither should be *required* to obey the other in all cases.

..and we return to the issue of unreasonable husbands, yet again.

If one has to *always* obey the other, that is slavery..

No, it is not..
If a man does not love and cherish his wife, then why is she his wife?
She is free to "sack him" and choose another .. or have no husband at all.
..but the latter is not desirable.
The vast majority of women married to pious Muslims are happy,
despite your accusations.

 

[F1fan]

That has little to do with women disrespecting their husbands.
There are many professional couples, that both work in hospitals etc.

I'll bet that any professional couples, even if Muslim, will have social views different than yours and the husband will resvect his wife, unlike your view. Your view seems more in line with poorly educated and highly indoctrinated people. Didn't you say you were a convert to Islam, and were not raised that way?

There is no point in a marriage where a woman disregards her husband's wishes.

It's the 21st century, obsolete attitude.

That does not mean that husbands should be unreasonable.

Yet you fail to clarify that a woman has her own wishes that should not be disregarded by the husband, that is unfair. And who decides what is unreasonable, the husband? If so then nothing would ever be unreasonable to him, even if it is to the wife. How does that get resolved? Does what the husband say absolute, and the wife has no say?

A woman is entitled to complain about her husband.
..but it is generally a family matter, and not the police.

Complain to whom? In your system ongoing sexual assult isn't a crime, and the wife just have to cope, or leave. Does she even have any access to money? Will her family say "too bad"? This doesn't happen in civilized nations. Women have rights.

 

[Polymath257]

I wonder why..
Of course, we all know, don't we .. it is about the virility of the male.

No, it is about the physical strength of the male. Rape the other way does happen, but is far less common.

 

[SkepticThinker]

..and we return to the issue of unreasonable husbands, yet again.


No, it is not..
If a man does not love and cherish his wife, then why is she his wife?
She is free to "sack him" and choose another .. or have no husband at all.
..but the latter is not desirable.
The vast majority of women married to pious Muslims are happy,
despite your accusations.

So do you believe that if someone loves and cherishes you, that you are obligated to obey them?

 

[F1fan]

..and we return to the issue of unreasonable husbands, yet again.

Do you think it is unreasonable for a husband to honor his wife's wishes, like refusing sex?

No, it is not..
If a man does not love and cherish his wife, then why is she his wife?

Because he wants sex, and doesn't want to be flogged. So that piece of paper gives him the right to sex any time he wants. The woman (girl) might have been sold into marriage by her father, yes?

Child Marriage in the Muslim World

wikiislam.net

Do you think it's reasonable for a Muslim man to marry a child? There are some Muslim theocracies that have passed laws to raise the minimum age to 16, do you think that is consistent with your interpretation of the Quran?

She is free to "sack him" and choose another .. or have no husband at all.
..but the latter is not desirable.
The vast majority of women married to pious Muslims are happy,
despite your accusations.

Then the vast majority of Muslim men are reasonable, unlike your attitude. Do you think women who get forced into sex have reasonable husbands, and are happy? Why else would she leave?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And can the husband disregard his wife's wishes? If he can, then that is an unfair and oppressive system.

And sure, both should take the wishes of the other into account (not completely disregard them), but neither should be *required* to obey the other in all cases.

This is *precisely* the point at which this system becomes oppressive to women.

If one has to *always* obey the other, that is slavery. What you have just described is the slavery of a woman.

And that is morally wrong.

The very idea that a woman should obey her husband is ridiculous. It's not only ridiculous, but it's also patriarchal, male-chauvinist bull**** that should be completely rejected and exposed for the misogynistic rubbish that it is. That isn't a relationship based on mutual love, trust, and respect. It's a relationship that a woman should avoid. I've been in an equal marriage for thirty years, and the idea of a woman being required to obey her husband disgusts me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Does she even have any access to money? Will her family say "too bad"? This doesn't happen in civilized nations. Women have rights.

You're very smug, aren't you.. not all countries are wealthy.
..or STAY wealthy!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then the vast majority of Muslim men are reasonable, unlike your attitude. Do you think women who get forced into sex have reasonable husbands, and are happy? Why else would she leave?

That's it .. blame all the sins of bad men on me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're very smug, aren't you.. not all countries are wealthy.
..or STAY wealthy!

That's not an answer to the question.

 

[F1fan]

You're very smug, aren't you.

Oh the irony. Answer my questions.

. not all countries are wealthy.
..or STAY wealthy!

Irrelevant. Human rights are tied to integrity and wisdom. Didn't you say you converted to Islam?

That's it .. blame all the sins of bad men on me.

I didn't, but you seem defensive on this issue as you post highly biased views against women's human rights. And you avoid hard questions as if you are one of these "bad men". Guilt? Why can't you clarify what my questions ask?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Husbands have the right to expect to have sex with their wives. They do not have the right to engage in any kind of physical force, verbal threats of force, verbal humiliation, or other abusive behaviors to gain the fulfillment of that expectation.

To me, the word "rape" is meaningless within the terms of a marriage. What is at issue is sexual assault, sexual abuse, violence of any sort, verbal threats and abuse, and so on. Because marriage or no marriage, these are not acceptable behaviors among and between human beings. And I have no doubt that Muslim men refrain from, or engage in these behaviors just as do the men of any other religion or nationality.

What gives you the impression that a husband has the right to expect sex from his wife? In your opinion, where does that "right" come from? And despite your personal opinion on the definition of rape in a marriage, if a man forces himself on his wife and has sex with her without her consent, then he can be arrested, charged, and convicted of spousal rape (marital rape) and possible other charges as well. In other words, the law disagrees with you, and thank the gods for that. As a woman, a survivor of abuse, and a rape victim myself, I vehemently support prosecuting and convicting any man (who is obviously a sexual predator) who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is his wife. He should go to prison, and he can rot in prison as far as I am concerned.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Irrelevant. Human rights are tied to integrity and wisdom.

How can it be irrelevant in answering the question "Does she even have any access to money? Will her family say too bad?"

NEWS FLASH: Lots of people in the world don't have access to money.