Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[muhammad_isa]

Well, people with the same conditions in the past were ignored or killed off..

Some people have/had physical abnormalities.
That is not what I am referring to.
It is a modern psychological phenemena in Western society.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Most people prefer the old fashioned way. But test tubes are a possibility for those who can't.

At least women have a choice whether to get pregnant or not by using contraceptives. I think that for the most part, the majority of women are no longer being used as baby factories with no control over their own bodies in a male-dominated marriage. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women who are still trapped in male-dominated marriages and in a fundamentalist cult-like religion. It's one of the reasons I'm an advocate for battered women and children.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sure, women are expected to be adults and work just like men. They are not children to be taken care of. They are independent, full adults with the same rights and responsibilities.

Islam gives women better treatment. A married woman is not expected to work.
..just as in Western society before the pill, the husband is expected to provide for wife and children.

And when it comes to taking care of children, men are just as qualified (in general) as women. They just refuse to take responsibility too often.

I was breast-fed, myself.

 

[Polymath257]

Some people have/had physical abnormalities.
That is not what I am referring to.
It is a modern psychological phenemena in Western society.

And, again,st psychological phenomena were ignored until recently. In particular, questions about sexuality and gender were pretty much ignored or seen as illness. Fortunately, that has changed.

 

[Polymath257]

Islam gives women better treatment. A married woman is not expected to work.
..just as in Western society before the pill, the husband is expected to provide for wife and children.

Thereby keeping the woman in the status of a child. A real adult works and is allowed to have independence and freedom.

I was breast-fed, myself.

Breast milk is yummy. But it is possible to pump and have men deliver. That gives the woman options and allows her to get away from the children occasionally. Which is better for everyone.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And, again,st psychological phenomena were ignored until recently..

One can't ignore mental illness if it becomes widespread.
Treating it is not easy, and not always successful.
Prevention is better than cure.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Thereby keeping the woman in the status of a child.

And often used as baby factories.

A real adult works and is allowed to have independence and freedom.

I've been a stay-at-home mom for 29 years and a homeschooling mom for 18 years, but I chose to stay home and educate my children. My husband and I decided together, but he said that the final decision was mine since I would be the primary caregiver and teacher of our children. And now I am unable to work outside the household due to my deteriorating health, but I volunteer for several charities and am an advocate for battered women and children.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A real adult works and is allowed to have independence and freedom.

Having children, caring for them, and looking after the house is work.
If a couple decide they will both work, Islam does not prevent it.

Many couples can't afford the child-care, or work is not available, or doesn't pay very well.
Somebody has to pay for subsidy .. high tax or low tax .. single person or married etc.

But it is possible to pump and have men deliver..

Scream-Screech-Waa I want my Mum!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not really .. everything we do has an intention behind it.

I had written, "Holy is a meaningless word in the literal religious sense, just like sin, blasphemy, divine, grace, and salvation. None refer to anything real if the god associated with them doesn't exist." I don't see a rebuttal there. Our two comments don't contradict one another. We can both be correct, which isn't the case with rebuttal (counterargument, falsification)

Not really .. unless of course you want to judge a man or a woman by whether they have experienced divorce.

Sorry about your troubles, and no, I can't and don't judge you just for having a divorce. And I won't ask you what went wrong with your marriage, or who left whom or why. But there's a giant elephant in the room now. I'm betting it wasn't over squeezing the toothpaste in the middle of the tube.

why should "society" [the public purse] support it then?

Marriage?

how can you be so sure?

He wrote, "good contraception allowed far more freedom in this. And that was a good thing." How can we be sure? How does anybody make such a judgment about anything? Because we've seen what resulted and approve. Anything that increases options for people without diminishing the options for others is a good thing.

I am saying that the fact that women were able to reduce the chance of getting pregnant, encouraged promiscuity. This in turn has changed the nature of society, and the attitude towards marriage.

Yes, it did, and for the better, and just in time for my generation to fully avail itself of the experience of free love, but that's according to my humanist values and agenda. I grew up in southern California, became a teenager during the Summer of Love in 1967, and was shaped in large part by the hippie movement. I'm a Deadhead, if that means anything to you. Bell bottoms and paisley were the rage. We all hated Nixon together. Those were wonder years, and they were instructive. We grew up to question authority (especially government) and tradition.

But back to the sexual revolution. My college years in the dorm were biblical in the sense of talking snakes, asses, and bushes featuring prominently. I really screwed up the breakup with my first regular sexual partner and hurt her. The mistakes I made with her left me feeling guilty, and I learned to do better because of that ham-handed experience, and that's a good thing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He wrote, "good contraception allowed far more freedom in this. And that was a good thing." How can we be sure? How does anybody make such a judgment about anything? Because we've seen what resulted and approve..

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Yes, it did, and for the better, and just in time for my generation to fully avail itself of the experience of free love..

There's no such thing in reality..
Everything has a "price", eventually.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

..the absence of a need for a god to account for anything…

And right here, you are assuming things not in evidence.

There’s no evidence that mindless natural processes, without guidance, can originate any type of simple life (if there is such a thing), let alone the complex interactions within & between living organisms themselves.

But the comment was directed at the myths of Genesis and Exodus, which have been discredited by the sciences.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Barry Taff?

Do you think invisible spirit life, let alone the ability to interact with it, has been “discredited by the sciences”?

 

[F1fan]

Economic freedom? Is that what makes women happy?
I doubt it .. not in the long run, in any case.

It makes them happy to not be a slave to a husband who may disresepect her enough to rape her. And having few options she might feel trapped. So freedom of financial independence means more Muslim men will have to live alone and suffer their own sexual frustration because they weren't taught to be proper gentlemen in the 21st century.

 

[ChristineM]

I am aware of that..
I live in a devolved Kingdom, and am aware of its history.
"commoners" had a poor education, and "common law" treated them differently to
the educated gentry.

Good so why day otherwise?

 

[ChristineM]

@muhammad_isa

And i see that you have once again missed giving your answer to the fact that under Islamic law women need twice the testimony required by men.

But don't worry, I won't ask again, i realise the question is an embarrassment to you

 

[Valjean]

And right here, you are assuming things not in evidence.

There’s no evidence that mindless natural processes, without guidance, can originate any type of simple life (if there is such a thing), let alone the complex interactions within & between living organisms themselves.

But there is -- lots of evidence. It's simple chemistry.

If not chemistry, what? God? There's no evidence God even exists, much less performs some kind of magic poofing. At least chemistry has demonstrable mechanisms. God has only magic, not even a proposed mechanism.
Is magic by a questionably existent, invisible magician really more likely than chemistry you can see with your own eyes, and do in your bathtub?

Yours is the extraordinary claim. Defend it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And i see that you have once again missed giving your answer to the fact that under Islamic law women need twice the testimony required by men..

In some instances, yes.
..but I do not wish to be sidetracked in this thread..
There are reasons.
..and it is not because God disrespects women or hates them .. on the contrary.

A constant battle between the sexes only causes division .. not happiness.

 

[ChristineM]

In some instances, yes.
..but I do not wish to be sidetracked in this thread..
There are reasons.
..and it is not because God disrespects women or hates them .. on the contrary.

A constant battle between the sexes only causes division .. not happiness.

Yes there are reasons, is it because you want to attack women and not allow for their legal disadvantages?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And right here, you are assuming things not in evidence.

There’s no evidence that mindless natural processes, without guidance, can originate any type of simple life (if there is such a thing), let alone the complex interactions within & between living organisms themselves.

This isn't true.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Barry Taff?

Have you ever heard of Dr. Stanley Miller or Dr. Harold Urey?

Do you think invisible spirit life, let alone the ability to interact with it, has been “discredited by the sciences”?

That idea is what we call "not even wrong." It isn't coherent enough to test scientifically. IOW, a claim that were scientifically disproven would have more merit than your claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

That was in response to "How can we be sure [that contraception was a benefit to society]? How does anybody make such a judgment about anything? Because we've seen what resulted and approve." It sounds like you are giving advice to a child. My chickens have hatched and had grandchildren. I'm pushing 70. Barring a last-minute, unforeseeable twist of fate, I can pretty much tell you how my life turned out now.

There's no such thing in reality.. Everything has a "price", eventually.

What a dour attitude, and undoubtedly of religious origin. That was a response to, "Yes, it [the sexual revolution] did [change society], and for the better, and just in time for my generation to fully avail itself of the experience of free love." Yes, they told you that people like me and my generation were sinners and that the path we have chosen leads to ruination, but that didn't happen. We've lived full lives. My in-laws are conservative Christian Americans, and they learned the same lesson, which is confusing now given that my wife and I broke all their rules but didn't pay the price you and they were taught everybody must pay.

you are assuming things not in evidence.

That followed, "the absence of a need for a god to account for anything." What am I assuming? Life is here, the laws of chemistry and the ingredients for life are here, and intelligent designers capable of creating it de novo aren't. It's the theist that is assuming if he assumes more than that is needed.

There’s no evidence that mindless natural processes, without guidance, can originate any type of simple life (if there is such a thing), let alone the complex interactions within & between living organisms themselves.

Life is here, and there's no evidence intelligence was needed or available.

Do you think invisible spirit life, let alone the ability to interact with it, has been “discredited by the sciences”?

That was a response to, "the myths of Genesis and Exodus, which have been discredited by the sciences." Science investigates reality and hasn't found any spirits or commented on the matter to my knowledge, but I have direct knowledge and experience that informs my opinions in that department regarding both what is called the human spirit or soul, and allegedly disembodied spirits.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Barry Taff?

No, but I Googled his name and read a synopsis of his career and a review of a book he wrote. Either he or others call him a parapsychologist: "Parapsychologist Dr. Barry E. Taff describes a bold new world where the paranormal becomes "normal"! In his exciting new book, Aliens Above, Ghost Below, he goes into depth on how parapsychology will lead the way into mankind's future. From ghost and poltergeists to aliens and spacecraft, Dr. Taff covers it all!" I'm assuming that you consider that or something else about him relevant to this discussion. If it has to do with spirits, I'm probably not interested if he doesn't have good evidence for them, and when do we ever get that?

 

[Audie]

And right here, you are assuming things not in evidence.

Almost like some of that irony, for a
"God"- believer to complain of someone
assuming facts not in evidence.