Neat Video Explaining the Evidence of Our Relationship To the Other Great Apes

[Looncall]

No. Take for example Saudi Arabia:
A deal was struck between the House of Al- Saud and a sheikh called Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Wahabi would be allowed to implement his extreme form of Islam in return for allowing the House of Saud to rule as a Kingdom. This led to women's rights being limited, banned from driving etc.

Remember the Prophet pbuh was married to a women who ran her own business, had her own income and travelled about freely.
Another of the Prophet's wives was the first Scholar of Islam

The Qur'an explains women are free to work and keep their income to spend as they please. It's up to them if they want to contribute towards the house hold expenses, as many elect to do. However it's actually the man's responsibility to work and provide for his family.

There have been Countries in the Muslim world that had female rulers of state, women drive, go to university and run their own businesses too. This is why you can't point to people and write off a religion based on their actions.

In the Indian subcontinent, culture is mixed with religion. Women are attacked for dishonouring the family name. The Qur'an forbids a Muslim from hitting the face of a combatant, and utterly condemns mutilating a body. How much more so for people who attack with acid? Incidentally acid attacks are on the increase amongst non Muslims here in the UK.

Acid attack hospital admissions have almost doubled in last 10 years

There is also no compulsion in religion.

People could point out BMW is a rubbish brand of car as people are always crashing them. Blame the driver, not the car is what any sensible person would say.

The Qur'an grabs people by the heart and manifests itself as divinely true.

Like Lauren Booth, why ARE modern British career women converting to Islam? | Daily Mail Online

People from all walks of life embrace Islam every year. Intelligent people from comfortable backgrounds recognise the truth behind the concept of Worshipping One God, a simple way to pray and connect to the divine. A simple way of life, that explains we are only here on a short journey before we return to our Creator.

When I return to God, will I be asked to explain acid attacks, women being mistreated, apostates being killed etc etc? Of course not. I can only sign petitions and email various embassies.

I follow Islam in the way it's been laid out in the Qur'an. My children have educations, wife has her own income, and despite me showing clear evidences to my children and explaining the religion to them, they are free to follow what they like when they are older. Every soul accounts for their own actions.

Only irrationality leads a person to reject something without first checking the information for themselves.

And if you have read the sources for yourself and concluded it's not for you, then again we have mutual respect for our individual ways of lives, and leave it at that.

People converting to islam means only that it is an effective scam, as one would expect of a scam honed over centuries. It tells one nothing about the truth of islam. That must be addressed separately.

Lazy people are apt to outsource their thinking to plausible scoundrels. That keeps religions going.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Nope. The laws of physics are not completely random. There are random aspects and ordered aspects. Even random aspects have order when averaged.

As for purpose, you overstate the case. What promoted survival tends to survive. That is a triviality. But at the same time, we as humans, and as part of a society of humans, can choose goals to promote humanity. And there is more to humanity than simple survival: knowledge, the arts, music, not to mention love, caring, freedom, and compassion. Whether those promote our survival in the long run remains to be seen.

But I am not simply an atheist. I am a humanist. I believe that morality is, ultimately, about human compassion, human thoughts, and human fulfillment. Even if a deity exists, that doesn't mean the goals of said deity align with fulfillment of humans. And where they differ, I support humanity over deities.

I can see the Humanism is a response to try and address the issues pertaining to purpose of life, and provide answers related to objective morality for mankind. Be good to one another, put trust in science to answer questions, not to believe in God, the afterlife or a soul.

So really the only difference between believers and humanists is the unseen. I see signs all around us pointing to the Creator, and you can try to explain them all with science. Science can't explain the why, it only gives us the how, and that is open to change. Science is brilliant, but the wrong tool to answer questions related to the supernatural.

“The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

Two collections of beliefs and BOTH bound by the Laws of GOD:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt be good to thy neighbour
Thou shalt not bear false testimony
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (a day of rest in your faith)
Honour thy father and thy mother
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. (Swap out servant for nanny, personal trainer. Swap out ox/donkey for car/van)

Both groups are completely bound by the constraints put on us by God. The need for food, sleep, need to relieve ourselves, the need affection, and the need for answers. God has limited our years and death is inescapable.

“This is one of man's oldest riddles. How can the independence of human volition be harmonized with the fact that we are integral parts of a universe which is subject to the rigid order of nature's laws?”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

You would have thought If man is a evolving creature that adapts to his environment, we would have less need and reliance upon resources that are declining, water and naturally grown food. We add increasing amounts of chemicals to the food chain, yet our bodies largely reject these, allergies, illnesses, diseases, obesity, drug addiction etc

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

As more people turn to Atheism, the more consumerism and attachments to possessions take precedence, the faster the Planet fails to sustain human life. I personally thank God the majority of the World's population see this life as a short journey, a stepping stone to the unseen.

 

[Looncall]

I can see the Humanism is a response to try and address the issues pertaining to purpose of life, and provide answers related to objective morality for mankind. Be good to one another, put trust in science to answer questions, not to believe in God, the afterlife or a soul.

So really the only difference between believers and humanists is the unseen. I see signs all around us pointing to the Creator, and you can try to explain them all with science. Science can't explain the why, it only gives us the how, and that is open to change. Science is brilliant, but the wrong tool to answer questions related to the supernatural.

“The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

Two collections of beliefs and BOTH bound by the Laws of GOD:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt be good to thy neighbour
Thou shalt not bear false testimony
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (a day of rest in your faith)
Honour thy father and thy mother
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. (Swap out servant for nanny, personal trainer. Swap out ox/donkey for car/van)

Both groups are completely bound by the constraints put on us by God. The need for food, sleep, need to relieve ourselves, the need affection, and the need for answers. God has limited our years and death is inescapable.

“This is one of man's oldest riddles. How can the independence of human volition be harmonized with the fact that we are integral parts of a universe which is subject to the rigid order of nature's laws?”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

You would have thought If man is a evolving creature that adapts to his environment, we would have less need and reliance upon resources that are declining, water and naturally grown food. We add increasing amounts of chemicals to the food chain, yet our bodies largely reject these, allergies, illnesses, diseases, obesity, drug addiction etc

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

As more people turn to Atheism, the more consumerism and attachments to possessions take precedence, the faster the Planet fails to sustain human life. I personally thank God the majority of the World's population see this life as a short journey, a stepping stone to the unseen.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Belief in gods and an afterlife lead people to neglect the real world. Some climate change deniers explicitly leave the problem to their god and refuse to take steps to reduce that effect.

I see no reason to expect religion to lead to concern for the health of the world. Entirely the reverse, I think.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As more people turn to Atheism, the more consumerism and attachments to possessions take precedence, the faster the Planet fails to sustain human life.

Are you trying to make consumerism an atheistic position, absolve theists of that practice, then blame the atheists for causing the planet to sustain human life? Have you seen the Christians at Christmas?

The planet would be in better hands with humanists running it than apocalypse-welcoming, science-denying theists:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

Here's what a prominent humanist had to say:

• "It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ ... Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. " –Sam Harris

 

[Muslim-UK]

Are you trying to make consumerism an atheistic position, absolve theists of that practice, then blame the atheists for causing the planet to sustain human life? Have you seen the Christians at Christmas?

The planet would be in better hands with humanists running it than apocalypse-welcoming, science-denying theists:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

Here's what a prominent humanist had to say:

• "It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ ... Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. " –Sam Harris

Christianity is a trump card up the sleeve of you humanists. I can't really argue against it to be honest. Let's hope between Science and Prayers we can all get along and save the Planet in the process. God willing

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Christianity is a trump card up the sleeve of you humanists. I can't really argue against it to be honest. Let's hope between Science and Prayers we can all get along and save the Planet in the process. God willing

In this Hope--you and I can agree whole-heartedly. The cause for the individual motivation to try to preserve Earth for Future Generations doesn't matter in the end, if the results are a Livable Planet for those who come after you and I are dust.

Whereas I am hopeful for a Engineering Solution to various climate problems? I do not count on that happening in time.

There is no "Second Earth" waiting in the wings, if we fork this one up.

And I also agree that any solutions? Are up to us Humans; we really need to stick together, as everyone lives on the same planet after all.

Looking at the incredibly huge (to our perspective) Pacific Ocean? And seeing how there are place in it, that are miles and miles of floating rubbish?

The Earth isn't nearly as big as we think...!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree, one group feels it's right, the other group feels it's wrong >> Subjectivity

You missed what I was trying to say. Morality is subjective in the sense that each person has their own moral preferences, but it can be objective in the sense that in a given situation there are decidedly "right" and "wrong" actions to take when we are concerned with human well being. And as I said, that's what I think morality boils down to. At least in my view, the subjectivity comes from the people actually exercising the morality rather than from some far removed place, and we have a basis on which we can start building objective moral principles.

Religion doesn't escape the subjective, by the way. Your morality is just as subjective as an atheist's morality is; you just claim that it comes from a higher source. That means your morality is subject to the whims of the God you worship. And not only that, but individuals within any religion differ on their views on morality from others in the same group. There are thousands of different sects of Christianity and several different sects within Islam, that I am aware of. So clearly there’s a high degree of subjectivity and personal preferences going on in your view as well. Religion doesn’t solve the problem – we’re all in the same boat on that one.

And it's subjective.

See above.

How do you decide what's right and what's wrong? You say we are like a herd having evolved from the animal kingdom. There are few rules, though we see animals rarely turn on their own kind. Other animals see something they like and just take it.

I believe I already explained how to decide what is right and wrong. With the goal of human well being in mind. And some empathy, which most of us have.

I didn’t mention anything about a herd and I’ve never suggested we should behave as other animals do. But we are all forced to share a planet with one another, so it’s in everyone’s best interest to care about human well being and to exercise our morality to the best of our abilities. I’m not sure whether you noticed or not, but all societies have a great many rules.

Because it's subjective when left for us to decide amongst ourselves.

It’s subjective whether one is religious or not. But like I said, with human well being as the goal there will be objectively right/good and wrong/bad actions to take in any given situation.

Leaving morality up to a god that has little idea what it’s like to be human and does not live on the planet with the rest of us is rather arbitrary, in my opinion. Never mind that it could be downright dangerous if a god decreed tomorrow that murder is good. Or even if someone just thought that a god decreed that murder is good. Especially when it’s so apparent to me that we decide our own morality. With God on one’s side, a person can be capable of justifying anything. Heck, I’ve seen people justify slavery!

I really don’t see how picking and choosing verses from old books is any less subjective than what I’m talking about. Or how following the orders of some supernatural being is any less subjective that what I'm talking about.

Yes and I'm sure animals look around and think, there was no need to kill that defenceless deer, and then carry on eating their meal, or going back to sleep. Is that how humans should be?

I’m sorry but I’m not sure how this relates to what I said.

Yes someone that is outside and looking in has put in place a balance. Gifted us with wisdom, the sense to think and elect to follow a superior moral code.

Someone who doesn’t know what it feels like to be human and doesn’t have to dwell in the same place that us humans dwell. I’ll pass.

Subjective. You see good, whilst someone else may not agree. You praise and love someone and someone else hates that person and wants to kill them.

You specifically stated that I can’t “praise brotherhood, equality and love as good.” You still haven’t told me why I can’t.

I can certainly state as much and give my reasons for thinking they’re good, rather than just saying “Well God says they’re good, so they are.” Then I can find people who also think they’re good and build a society with them. The people who build societies based on the idea that murder is good wouldn’t really last very long, now would they? It benefits neither the individual nor the group. See how we can talk about that objectively and try to come up with the best course of action?

Millions thought it a horrendous crime against humanity, Millions more saw nothing wrong with it. From a naturalistic view point, it's objectivity again.

I’m coming at it from a humanistic viewpoint. I’ve never suggested that we should act like lions or cheetahs or something. We should act like humans.

The Nazis are gone now. Defeated by the group that could see that it is extremely harmful to human well being to torture and murder human beings en masse.

America sat on the sidelines not initially wanting to get involved. Subjectivity again.

There’s more to the world than America.

I live in a country that fought from the start of WW2 until then end.

But it's ok to impose sanctions on innocent people? It's ok to tell democratically elected people, they are not allowed to rule? It's ok to invade other Nations for their resources? Sounds quite subjective to me.

I don’t recall saying any of that.

Doesn't that same God warn people who oppress and kill, they will be held accountable, will pay for eternity? The Nazis would have to show God commanded them to kill the innocent Jews.

They could just say that god told them to. Who’s to say that didn’t happen? I hear from religious people quite often that their god speaks to them.

The Nazis tried to use the excuse that they were just following orders. Thanks to the Nuremberg trials, we now recognize that for the bull**** it is. Following the dictates of some god’s supposed words from an old book without question sounds eerily similar. It sounds arbitrary and potentially dangerous to me.

I don’t believe for a second that the reason you (or anybody else) don’t go around murdering people all over the place is simply that you’re trying to avoid an eternity of punishment. You don’t really mean to tell me that, do you? You don’t really believe that we couldn’t figure out that murder is wrong without threat of eternal punishment behind it, do you?

Yes great, and people waved banners in protest during the Korean war, Vietnam war, Arab Israeli wars, Angolan war, Momzambican civil war etc etc

Yes, thank you.

I'm sure the victims would find your words comforting.

They’d probably agree. As did the people who stood up for what was right and won that war.

Ask 100 people and get 100 opinions. How do you decide?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the issue, most likely. And there may be more than one right or wrong action to take. But it’s the most objective way I can see in going about it. How is this problem solved by your religion?

The Christians in their Millions were killed by non believers like Stalin. He used his moral subjectivity and decided Religious people had to go in their Tens of Millions.

How is this problem solved by your religion?

As we can see, this is why mankind needs morale guidance from outside, from someone who knows best, otherwise you can not move forward.

We have moved forward, and it has been no thanks to any religion I’m aware of.

Indeed you have no right to tell animal what to eat, when, how etc

Okay then, your God has no right to tell me what to do.

Without God's guidance, everything is subjective. Just because you might not like something, doesn't mean it will stop it from happening. Look at the conflicts of the last 100 years. Were they the result of collective understanding and approval from mankind or were they decided by individual Countries driven by greed, disagreements and a sense to dictate to weaker nations?

With or without god, there is a subjective element to morality. Your religion does not solve the problem you are pointing out. With my point of view on morality, at least there can be objective actions to be decided upon or against.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You missed what I was trying to say. Morality is subjective in the sense that each person has their own moral preferences, but it can be objective in the sense that in a given situation there are decidedly "right" and "wrong" actions to take when we are concerned with human well being. And as I said, that's what I think morality boils down to. At least in my view, the subjectivity comes from the people actually exercising the morality rather than from some far removed place, and we have a basis on which we can start building objective moral principles.

Religion doesn't escape the subjective, by the way. Your morality is just as subjective as an atheist's morality is; you just claim that it comes from a higher source. That means your morality is subject to the whims of the God you worship. And not only that, but individuals within any religion differ on their views on morality from others in the same group. There are thousands of different sects of Christianity and several different sects within Islam, that I am aware of. So clearly there’s a high degree of subjectivity and personal preferences going on in your view as well. Religion doesn’t solve the problem – we’re all in the same boat on that one.



See above.



I believe I already explained how to decide what is right and wrong. With the goal of human well being in mind. And some empathy, which most of us have.

I didn’t mention anything about a herd and I’ve never suggested we should behave as other animals do. But we are all forced to share a planet with one another, so it’s in everyone’s best interest to care about human well being and to exercise our morality to the best of our abilities. I’m not sure whether you noticed or not, but all societies have a great many rules.



It’s subjective whether one is religious or not. But like I said, with human well being as the goal there will be objectively right/good and wrong/bad actions to take in any given situation.

Leaving morality up to a god that has little idea what it’s like to be human and does not live on the planet with the rest of us is rather arbitrary, in my opinion. Never mind that it could be downright dangerous if a god decreed tomorrow that murder is good. Or even if someone just thought that a god decreed that murder is good. Especially when it’s so apparent to me that we decide our own morality. With God on one’s side, a person can be capable of justifying anything. Heck, I’ve seen people justify slavery!

I really don’t see how picking and choosing verses from old books is any less subjective than what I’m talking about. Or how following the orders of some supernatural being is any less subjective that what I'm talking about.



I’m sorry but I’m not sure how this relates to what I said.



Someone who doesn’t know what it feels like to be human and doesn’t have to dwell in the same place that us humans dwell. I’ll pass.



You specifically stated that I can’t “praise brotherhood, equality and love as good.” You still haven’t told me why I can’t.

I can certainly state as much and give my reasons for thinking they’re good, rather than just saying “Well God says they’re good, so they are.” Then I can find people who also think they’re good and build a society with them. The people who build societies based on the idea that murder is good wouldn’t really last very long, now would they? It benefits neither the individual nor the group. See how we can talk about that objectively and try to come up with the best course of action?

I’m coming at it from a humanistic viewpoint. I’ve never suggested that we should act like lions or cheetahs or something. We should act like humans.

The Nazis are gone now. Defeated by the group that could see that it is extremely harmful to human well being to torture and murder human beings en masse.



There’s more to the world than America.

I live in a country that fought from the start of WW2 until then end.



I don’t recall saying any of that.

They could just say that god told them to. Who’s to say that didn’t happen? I hear from religious people quite often that their god speaks to them.

The Nazis tried to use the excuse that they were just following orders. Thanks to the Nuremberg trials, we now recognize that for the bull**** it is. Following the dictates of some god’s supposed words from an old book without question sounds eerily similar. It sounds arbitrary and potentially dangerous to me.

I don’t believe for a second that the reason you (or anybody else) don’t go around murdering people all over the place is simply that you’re trying to avoid an eternity of punishment. You don’t really mean to tell me that, do you? You don’t really believe that we couldn’t figure out that murder is wrong without threat of eternal punishment behind it, do you?



Yes, thank you.



They’d probably agree. As did the people who stood up for what was right and won that war.



Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the issue, most likely. And there may be more than one right or wrong action to take. But it’s the most objective way I can see in going about it. How is this problem solved by your religion?




How is this problem solved by your religion?

We have moved forward, and it has been no thanks to any religion I’m aware of.

Okay then, your God has no right to tell me what to do.

With or without god, there is a subjective element to morality. Your religion does not solve the problem you are pointing out. With my point of view on morality, at least there can be objective actions to be decided upon or against.

Hi, you've been away for a couple of days. The discussion moved on somewhat to a conclusion, starting with my understanding of humanism in post 322 above.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hi, you've been away for a couple of days. The discussion moved on somewhat to a conclusion, starting with my understanding of humanism in post 322 above.

Um okay. So no response from you on my post?