That's not at all true Berooz jaan. For all intents and purposes modern humans have been on this planet for at least 50,000 years - meaning for at least that long we've had language and have had to live in small communities/societies with one another and learn to co-operate to survive. You think for the 1st 48,000 years, there were widely circulated copies of modern law and ethics books or people were reading Athenian philosophy on their computers?! Of course not. Certain moral and ethical groundworks were established over time and in various human colonies and passed down orally from generation to generation, until proto-writing and later true writing systems were created.
If you research the topic objectively, you'll notice that where proto-writing and later true writing systems were created, is exactly where these "religous" writings started. Except, that they were not religions, the way you and many others are looking at, rather the written form of the same instructions or moral and ethical groundwork that existed in these various societies. You think someone just sat down 2,700 years ago and dreamt up "thou shalt not kill" in a philosophical breakthrough for mankind? No, that's the instruction that had been passed down for generations in that particular society and as soon as a writing system was available and a medium was created for recording those instructions and those stories (i.e. history) of our ancestors, that's exactly what was done. Had you and I been living in that time period, and I wasn't doing construction on my house and you weren't gardening
we may very well have helped the group that finally collected and recorded these esthical writings!
As the human population grew and the interactions between the various groups increased, each society added their own set of instructions or stories or chose to dismiss certain other instructions or stories from other groups. The further development of these writings can be a very useful tool in tracing the interactions between these societes that were becoming larger all the time and therefore overlapping with one another, and the reasons for accepting or dismissing certain aspects of other societies' teachings can be deducted from studying these books giving a historical account of our ancestor's lives not just for the past 2500 years, but for the past 50,000 years. It's rather unfortunate that the proponents of religion look at these writings as an absolute yes and the opponents look at them as an absolute no. The truth my friend always lies somewhere in between.
Now, in the spirit of finding the truth somewhere in between, you have to study each set of writings with an open mind and understanding that it may very well include adulterated sections. Afterall, they were all written by men (and I don't mean man as in mankind) and mankind is fallible - that's the very essence of every book, isn't it? And keeping in mind that each section of the writing can not contradict the essence of the writing, you can easily tell which sections were adultrated. For example, if you feel that Judaism talks about killing and raping women, that's obviously an incorrect interpretation of a piece of writing that from its very beginning says thou shalt not kill or even earlier than that talks about punishment handed down from "God" to Cain for murder. In fact, the very first story of all the Abrahamic faiths is about the nature of mankind turning it to greed, decpetion and envy and how we lost favor with "God" because of those things. You can not read any further sections of any of these books without first understanding the very essence of the message in its purest form when it was first written down and without any future adulterations. I suspect that you agree that deception, envy, greed are the very problem you have with religion to this day?
How these writings turned into organized religions is not the point of my argument. Organized religions all contradict the very essence of these writings and the concept of "God". My point is that for much of history and for all of pre-history, these are the instructions some of our ancestors lived with. Most of the basic conepts from then (like thou shalt not kill or steal or covet...) are timeless and they're still falling on death ears despite all the great laws and ethics you think we've developed in the last 100 years. Our societies are still driven by greed, envy and all modern human civilizations are still obcessed with creating better weapons to kill. So, as much as you can blame this on religion, you can blame it on human nature. The essence of these writings was to humble mankind and define its role on this planet, a message that is unfortunately falling on as many death ears now as it did then. The issue that I hd with your post is that you said there's nothing meanigful or useful in the Quran - to me that's the exact same argument as every thing in the Quran is meaningful and useful.
If you research the topic objectively, you'll notice that where proto-writing and later true writing systems were created, is exactly where these "religous" writings started. Except, that they were not religions, the way you and many others are looking at, rather the written form of the same instructions or moral and ethical groundwork that existed in these various societies. You think someone just sat down 2,700 years ago and dreamt up "thou shalt not kill" in a philosophical breakthrough for mankind? No, that's the instruction that had been passed down for generations in that particular society and as soon as a writing system was available and a medium was created for recording those instructions and those stories (i.e. history) of our ancestors, that's exactly what was done. Had you and I been living in that time period, and I wasn't doing construction on my house and you weren't gardening
we may very well have helped the group that finally collected and recorded these esthical writings!As the human population grew and the interactions between the various groups increased, each society added their own set of instructions or stories or chose to dismiss certain other instructions or stories from other groups. The further development of these writings can be a very useful tool in tracing the interactions between these societes that were becoming larger all the time and therefore overlapping with one another, and the reasons for accepting or dismissing certain aspects of other societies' teachings can be deducted from studying these books giving a historical account of our ancestor's lives not just for the past 2500 years, but for the past 50,000 years. It's rather unfortunate that the proponents of religion look at these writings as an absolute yes and the opponents look at them as an absolute no. The truth my friend always lies somewhere in between.
Now, in the spirit of finding the truth somewhere in between, you have to study each set of writings with an open mind and understanding that it may very well include adulterated sections. Afterall, they were all written by men (and I don't mean man as in mankind) and mankind is fallible - that's the very essence of every book, isn't it? And keeping in mind that each section of the writing can not contradict the essence of the writing, you can easily tell which sections were adultrated. For example, if you feel that Judaism talks about killing and raping women, that's obviously an incorrect interpretation of a piece of writing that from its very beginning says thou shalt not kill or even earlier than that talks about punishment handed down from "God" to Cain for murder. In fact, the very first story of all the Abrahamic faiths is about the nature of mankind turning it to greed, decpetion and envy and how we lost favor with "God" because of those things. You can not read any further sections of any of these books without first understanding the very essence of the message in its purest form when it was first written down and without any future adulterations. I suspect that you agree that deception, envy, greed are the very problem you have with religion to this day?
How these writings turned into organized religions is not the point of my argument. Organized religions all contradict the very essence of these writings and the concept of "God". My point is that for much of history and for all of pre-history, these are the instructions some of our ancestors lived with. Most of the basic conepts from then (like thou shalt not kill or steal or covet...) are timeless and they're still falling on death ears despite all the great laws and ethics you think we've developed in the last 100 years. Our societies are still driven by greed, envy and all modern human civilizations are still obcessed with creating better weapons to kill. So, as much as you can blame this on religion, you can blame it on human nature. The essence of these writings was to humble mankind and define its role on this planet, a message that is unfortunately falling on as many death ears now as it did then. The issue that I hd with your post is that you said there's nothing meanigful or useful in the Quran - to me that's the exact same argument as every thing in the Quran is meaningful and useful.
Last edited:
Behrou jan, but we know that according to these religions, their book was not written by men or at least not thought out by men, but they were sent down from god (allah). You and I are logical enough to understand these writings and who and what they are about, but try conveying this point to people of faith who beat the drum of morality and ethics.
My point is that we don't need to dress morality in religion. Religion as we know it has contributed nothing of significance to mankind and I say this in all seriousness having thought about it long and hard.
My point is that we don't need to dress morality in religion. Religion as we know it has contributed nothing of significance to mankind and I say this in all seriousness having thought about it long and hard.
ببین ژنرال
نه اون موقعی که به قول خودت اتییست و خدا نشناس بودی می***فهمیدی چکار میکنی*** - نه حالا که مثلا خدا شناس دین دار شدی پدر جان.
برای رسیدن به عرفان و معرفت قبل از هر چیز باید خرافات و مقدسات را بریزی دور......بهشت و جهنم، آدم و حوّا، هابیل و قبیل،.....همه رو بریز دور. دوم باید قبول کنی*** در کائنات بسیار است ورای علم امروز بشر....یعنی بیخودی نه چیزی را قبول کن نه چیزی را منکر شو. سوم، به دنبال ارتباط بین تمام جاندران از انسان گرفته تا حیوان و نبات بگرد.....آان وقت است که شاید بفهمی که "ما از خدا هستیم" یعنی*** چه. آن وقت است که به حرف زرتشت در مورد خرد جمعی پی*** می***بری. اونجاست که برای رسیدن به حقیقت احتیاج به هیچ چیز جز شعور و منطق نیست.
At the end of the day Beroooz jaan, it's counter-productive to constantly disagree with people. It creates a serious disconnect that seves no one's interests. I find it much more constructive to agree with the parts that I agree with and focus on those rather than trying to change people's minds right there and then. Over time, it's much easier to change minds and hearts this way and find commonalities and agreements than by telling people they're idiots. Imagine, how much could be achieved over time if these small steps were repeated every day by like-minded people. You're not going to change the opinions of 1/2 the world, but one person at a time, you can change how people view themselves in this crazy world - that they're not alone if they choose not to be on one side or the other.
It's hard to yank the rug out of someone and expect them to be okay with it, before giving them a solid place to land IMHO. I bet you anything a large majority of the people here that are so gong-ho against God grew up around some form of religous teachings and traditions in their families and not a single one of them changed their mind because people around them told them they were idiots. Some have found a solid footing and a happy medium that takes into account where they came from and some simply went to the exact opposite side and stand on just as shaky grounds. One day they're praising Cyrus and Ferdowsi, Hafez and Khayyam and they're the cultural ambassadors of a 7000 year civilization and the next day they forget the very essence of Cyrus's cylinder or Ferdowsi Bani Adam or Khayyam and Hafez's vast knowledge of the Quran. You have to appreciate that there's a disconnect there and as long as that disconnect exists, there's a serious weakness that can and will be exposed in any secularist discussions re: Iran.
It's hard to yank the rug out of someone and expect them to be okay with it, before giving them a solid place to land IMHO. I bet you anything a large majority of the people here that are so gong-ho against God grew up around some form of religous teachings and traditions in their families and not a single one of them changed their mind because people around them told them they were idiots. Some have found a solid footing and a happy medium that takes into account where they came from and some simply went to the exact opposite side and stand on just as shaky grounds. One day they're praising Cyrus and Ferdowsi, Hafez and Khayyam and they're the cultural ambassadors of a 7000 year civilization and the next day they forget the very essence of Cyrus's cylinder or Ferdowsi Bani Adam or Khayyam and Hafez's vast knowledge of the Quran. You have to appreciate that there's a disconnect there and as long as that disconnect exists, there's a serious weakness that can and will be exposed in any secularist discussions re: Iran.
Behrou jan, I am not able to agree to something that insults my very existence the way that religion and its teachings do. If you can then you are a much better person than me. I urge you to listen to this clip from Christopher Hitchens. I let the master speak for me.
Please listen to the end.
[video=youtube;7nIRJVmZ4K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIRJVmZ4K8&feature=g-vrec[/video]
Please listen to the end.
[video=youtube;7nIRJVmZ4K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIRJVmZ4K8&feature=g-vrec[/video]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
What people like you take for granted as inherent morality (i.e. commonly accepted moral behavior) of human beings is really the moral guidance of religions engraved in to most people's belief system by the ethical teachings of religions throughout history. Otherwise, human beings in general are not born by moral compass but rather with inherent behaviors that would ensure their survival. And to that end, in fact, cheating, lying, bullying, and selfishness are the inherent predisposition and behavior of most human beings as evident by the behavior of most human children which is designed and naturally selected to ensure their survival.
Do you think when resources are limited the human that is selfless, doesn't lie, cheat, or bully has more chance of survival or the one uses whatever means necessary to get the limited resources for him/her self?
What people like you take for granted as inherent is in fact taught to you and most children by their parents and the society as they grow up. It is repeated so much to a child that by the time he/she becomes an adult some mistakenly think that they were borne with these moralities!
Look at any human toddler or kid. Almost 99.99% of them are selfish (for example want to hold on to their toys and don't know the concept of sharing). The majority of kids that can start to think semi-independently and can talk have no concept of right or wrong and if not told and taught otherwise will find nothing wrong in lying to get what they want or to cheat their siblings or friends their own age in to getting things from them that they want. It is only because of the teachings of parents, teachers, and society that a human child grows to learn and believe that concepts such as sharing, and telling the truth are “good” things and that selfishness, greed, cheating and lying are "bad" things.
So where do these ethical teachings and moral concepts come from if they are counter to the idea of survival of the fittest and counter to the inherent nature of humans? Throughout the ages various thinkers, philosophers, and scholars may have come to the same conclusion that it is in the best interest of human society for all individuals to be less selfish, more cooperative, fair, honest and so on. But none of such individuals have ever had enough followers that one can credit them with being responsible for having so many humans follow such moral values.
Prophets and religions throughout history on the other hand, are the one that have been able to not only assemble masses but also to have them accept, adhere and follow such concepts and moral ideas. And in fact any sane and mentally sound person needs to feel some sort of fear of a higher authority or unknown punishment or extreme love in order to go against his own inherent feelings of self-preservation and survival instincts and instead act selflessly, honestly, and such.
The majority of true religions throughout ages have come and told their numerous followers that certain behaviors and concepts that are completely against human instinct such as honesty, fairness, selflessness, and such are “good” things and majority of humans have gone along with these ideas either because of fear or love of a God, Gods, hell, heaven, reincarnation or such. And thus these concepts now seem so obvious and basic to us that some people take it for granted and think that they were simply borne with them.
You want to know what happens to the behavior of mankind when the fear or love of God, heaven or hell (or such) goes away then simply look at a free-market, monopolies, business interactions, and such.
What people like you take for granted as inherent morality (i.e. commonly accepted moral behavior) of human beings is really the moral guidance of religions engraved in to most people's belief system by the ethical teachings of religions throughout history. Otherwise, human beings in general are not born by moral compass but rather with inherent behaviors that would ensure their survival. And to that end, in fact, cheating, lying, bullying, and selfishness are the inherent predisposition and behavior of most human beings as evident by the behavior of most human children which is designed and naturally selected to ensure their survival.
Do you think when resources are limited the human that is selfless, doesn't lie, cheat, or bully has more chance of survival or the one uses whatever means necessary to get the limited resources for him/her self?
What people like you take for granted as inherent is in fact taught to you and most children by their parents and the society as they grow up. It is repeated so much to a child that by the time he/she becomes an adult some mistakenly think that they were borne with these moralities!
Look at any human toddler or kid. Almost 99.99% of them are selfish (for example want to hold on to their toys and don't know the concept of sharing). The majority of kids that can start to think semi-independently and can talk have no concept of right or wrong and if not told and taught otherwise will find nothing wrong in lying to get what they want or to cheat their siblings or friends their own age in to getting things from them that they want. It is only because of the teachings of parents, teachers, and society that a human child grows to learn and believe that concepts such as sharing, and telling the truth are “good” things and that selfishness, greed, cheating and lying are "bad" things.
So where do these ethical teachings and moral concepts come from if they are counter to the idea of survival of the fittest and counter to the inherent nature of humans? Throughout the ages various thinkers, philosophers, and scholars may have come to the same conclusion that it is in the best interest of human society for all individuals to be less selfish, more cooperative, fair, honest and so on. But none of such individuals have ever had enough followers that one can credit them with being responsible for having so many humans follow such moral values.
Prophets and religions throughout history on the other hand, are the one that have been able to not only assemble masses but also to have them accept, adhere and follow such concepts and moral ideas. And in fact any sane and mentally sound person needs to feel some sort of fear of a higher authority or unknown punishment or extreme love in order to go against his own inherent feelings of self-preservation and survival instincts and instead act selflessly, honestly, and such.
The majority of true religions throughout ages have come and told their numerous followers that certain behaviors and concepts that are completely against human instinct such as honesty, fairness, selflessness, and such are “good” things and majority of humans have gone along with these ideas either because of fear or love of a God, Gods, hell, heaven, reincarnation or such. And thus these concepts now seem so obvious and basic to us that some people take it for granted and think that they were simply borne with them.
You want to know what happens to the behavior of mankind when the fear or love of God, heaven or hell (or such) goes away then simply look at a free-market, monopolies, business interactions, and such.
^^^ None of what you just said proves that there is a god, or that we need organised religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) in order to be good. This is the topic of this thread.
So humans are afraid of death. This is something we agree on. Let's also agree that as long as we are afraid of death and the unknown we want to believe in a higher being, let's call it god for argument's sake. What vehicle is there that takes us to this god? Ah...I know RELIGION.
Have a read of my post on the last page and I think I gave the gist of the matter on that post.
You can go back as far back as Socrates in Ancient Greece who revolted against the Olympian gods that the Athenian society believed in. He was killed for blasphemy, for "corrupting the youth" by rejecting those gods. Was he immoral? Was he a murderer? A lier or a thief? In fact, Socrates wasn't even a soldier in his youth because he was against wars while those who believed in the gods (religion of the time) waged wars and killed and destroyed cities and lives. Where did Socrates get his morality from?
Unlike you and other religious slaves, I do believe that humans are inherently good. I believe that religion and its teachings have been as much cause of evil as they have done good. Khomeini, a thoroughly religious man, was evil, but I guess in your book he was an angel and the very personification of morality! There are many other religious scholars of all faiths throughout history who have behaved just as evil, if not worse. This is where your theory falls flat on its face. I wonder why religious morality didn't help them when they sent thousands to their deaths! And what's more there are religious people who still support them and look up to them...(indeed there are one or two of their supporters right here on this forum)!
Tell me, do you not find it hard defending men of god who are the cause of so much misery, death and destruction?
So humans are afraid of death. This is something we agree on. Let's also agree that as long as we are afraid of death and the unknown we want to believe in a higher being, let's call it god for argument's sake. What vehicle is there that takes us to this god? Ah...I know RELIGION.
Have a read of my post on the last page and I think I gave the gist of the matter on that post.
You can go back as far back as Socrates in Ancient Greece who revolted against the Olympian gods that the Athenian society believed in. He was killed for blasphemy, for "corrupting the youth" by rejecting those gods. Was he immoral? Was he a murderer? A lier or a thief? In fact, Socrates wasn't even a soldier in his youth because he was against wars while those who believed in the gods (religion of the time) waged wars and killed and destroyed cities and lives. Where did Socrates get his morality from?
Unlike you and other religious slaves, I do believe that humans are inherently good. I believe that religion and its teachings have been as much cause of evil as they have done good. Khomeini, a thoroughly religious man, was evil, but I guess in your book he was an angel and the very personification of morality! There are many other religious scholars of all faiths throughout history who have behaved just as evil, if not worse. This is where your theory falls flat on its face. I wonder why religious morality didn't help them when they sent thousands to their deaths! And what's more there are religious people who still support them and look up to them...(indeed there are one or two of their supporters right here on this forum)!
Tell me, do you not find it hard defending men of god who are the cause of so much misery, death and destruction?
Last edited:
What are you talking about? The topic of this thread as evident by the very first post is denouncing of RELIGION and not proving or disproving the existence of god.
I have had no intention nor have any intention of proving that there is a god.
No we don't. There are numerous people who are not afraid of death and in fact welcome and look forward to it.
I have no idea what you're talking about here or what is your idea of god.
No, Socrates was not immoral, was not a murderer and was not a thief. So what?
The question to you is this: Based on what standard and code of conduct do you condemn those "religious" Greeks that waged wars and killed and destroyed others? Please do explain to me why someone who is stronger than others should not try to take things from others by force. Isn't that what natural selection and survival of the fittest is all about? Do you have a problem with the rules and laws of nature?
If you truly believe that "humans are inherently good" then how do you explain the existence of these so called religions? Where did such "evil" come from if not from "evil" humans? And if humans are inherently good then why do so many follow these evil religions? And how do you explain the faithless and godless people who do "evil"? Who forces them to commit acts of "evil"?
You claim there is no god and humans are fully capable of managing their own affairs and able to set their own standards of morality and ethics. I say fine. You are right. There is no god. Then who do we have to blame for all these bullshit religions and superstitions and crimes and pains and sufferings other than mankind himself? And then you have the audacity to sit here and tell us that humans are inherently "good"?
I have had no intention nor have any intention of proving that there is a god.
No we don't. There are numerous people who are not afraid of death and in fact welcome and look forward to it.
I have no idea what you're talking about here or what is your idea of god.
No, Socrates was not immoral, was not a murderer and was not a thief. So what?
The question to you is this: Based on what standard and code of conduct do you condemn those "religious" Greeks that waged wars and killed and destroyed others? Please do explain to me why someone who is stronger than others should not try to take things from others by force. Isn't that what natural selection and survival of the fittest is all about? Do you have a problem with the rules and laws of nature?
If you truly believe that "humans are inherently good" then how do you explain the existence of these so called religions? Where did such "evil" come from if not from "evil" humans? And if humans are inherently good then why do so many follow these evil religions? And how do you explain the faithless and godless people who do "evil"? Who forces them to commit acts of "evil"?
You claim there is no god and humans are fully capable of managing their own affairs and able to set their own standards of morality and ethics. I say fine. You are right. There is no god. Then who do we have to blame for all these bullshit religions and superstitions and crimes and pains and sufferings other than mankind himself? And then you have the audacity to sit here and tell us that humans are inherently "good"?
The only thing sophisticated and interesting about this Hitchens character is his accent. Otherwise, I'm amazed at how the audience puts up with his utterly childish logic. He seems to have his own interpretation of God and religion, which I admit many people may also share, and then stands up there and by attacking that one interpretation tries to question the entire fundamental idea of God and religions altogether. This is like someone trying to dismiss the entire science of cosmology by simply questioning the validity of one of the theories and interpretations of a dark matter.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. In my previous post on the last page I said exactly this, that sure faithless humans are perfectly capable of evil and there are many examples of this. Likewise, religious people are capable of unspeakable evil. Which leads to the ultimate question. If both scenarios are true, then we don't need religion. There is no utopia or perfect system. Humans are capable of being good without religious mandate just as they are capable of being evil.
In the western world we have come to achieve some level of equality between races, gender etc through secularism, not through religion. If we were to live by "the holy book" there would still be slavery.
How do you come to this conclusion? It's like saying some sick people who don't take antibiotics die and some patients who do take antibiotics also die so we don't need antibiotics! What kind of a rational and line of reasoning is that?
Again read my other post. In the West whatever minimal equality and headway has been made in terms of ethics rests purely on the shoulder of mass teachings of religion before secularism.
As an atheist and secular person if you can explain to me why a stronger, smarter and more coning person should not take or steal from someone weaker, slower and dumber then I would grant you that atheist and seculars can manage ethics and personal morality by themselves.
Again read my other post. In the West whatever minimal equality and headway has been made in terms of ethics rests purely on the shoulder of mass teachings of religion before secularism.
As an atheist and secular person if you can explain to me why a stronger, smarter and more coning person should not take or steal from someone weaker, slower and dumber then I would grant you that atheist and seculars can manage ethics and personal morality by themselves.
This is completely WRONG and goes against every historical fact and account. A simple look through the ages will show you that when religion dominated in Europe there was more inequality and injustice. Look at the history of Catholicism in the UK. Look at Islamic countries today where religion dominates, Afghanistan, our own Iran which is a Islamic Republic. Look at the inequalities there.
There is so much evidence I wouldn't even know where to begin. If you even deny this simple evident fact then there is no point continuing with this discussion anymore. This of course is your kind of tactic. You keep denying the bleeding obvious until your opposite side simply gives up!
There is so much evidence I wouldn't even know where to begin. If you even deny this simple evident fact then there is no point continuing with this discussion anymore. This of course is your kind of tactic. You keep denying the bleeding obvious until your opposite side simply gives up!
Why are you dodging the question?
I already said I will grant you that there is no god. And let’s assume that all religions are man-made and BS. Now I don't believe in any god and don't believe in any morals or codes of conduct written in any religious book. You claim humans are smart enough to figure these things out for themselves and don’t need the shackles of religion and fear of the supernatural to keep them ethical. I say OK, “in gooy o in ham meydoon”:
Now, why don't you convince me why I should not cheat on my wife when I think I can get away with it? Why shouldn't I steal if I know I won’t be caught? Why shouldn’t I kill someone and take their stuff when I can get away with it? Why shouldn’t I lie to save my own skin? Why shouldn’t I try to take advantage of someone who is weak, desperate or in need? Or why should I follow any other set of moral codes you might happen to believe?
^^^ LOL.
Because you are told by religion that you will go to hell if you do all those things. You wouldn't know right from wrong any other way. You happy now?
Oh deary me!
Because you are told by religion that you will go to hell if you do all those things. You wouldn't know right from wrong any other way. You happy now?
Oh deary me!
No I'm not happy because you didn't answer the question. You didn't because you simply can't. In fact, no one on this board will be up to the challenge.
Next time you might want to at least acknowledge your incapability or at least offer the possibility of rethinking your position instead of simple sarcastic remarks which make you appear even more ignorant. ;-)
