both posts imply religion is source of morality. You are free to prove it otherwise. Deal with it man, want to see your rational argumentation skills!
Deal with it? Really?
Your post comes across as arrogant and misguided. Rational "argumentation"? What is that? I don't need to "prove" anything to you. "Deal with it, man".
original premise is, religion is the only and ultimate source of morality be it abrahamic religion or other religion Allah sent upon humanity..
What do you mean by other religion "Allah sent upon humanity"?. Some do not believe in Allah. What about those who worship Rama? And Krishna? And Indra? And Zeus?
No. Actually I don't know allah meas God to ALL. My grandparents and parents use Narayana, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva and other names to refer to God. Hence my question to OP.
Then we're pretty much in agreement. Of course morality was always there because Allah swt has made us capable of both good and bad. Remember, Prophet saw didn't know anything about religion up until he was 40 years old. But still, throughout his life as a merchant, he was a moral person. He was known as Al-Amin (the trustworthy) and Al-Sadiq (the truthful) and the Quraysh used to consult him as an arbitrator. And this was years before his prophecy was declared so this goes to show that even without religion, even during times when immorality was at an all time high, that some good people still existed. But you cannot say that the society at large was perfectly fine and there was no need for religion. Pre-Islamic Makkah was anything but moral. Humans have a habit of going astray, hence the need for several reminders through several prophets and scriptures. Do you think all those merchants suddenly grew a conscience on their own and started doing trade honestly just like that because of their good nature? Or was it religion that guided them back to the right path? And since you agree that yes, religion can teach people morals then we're on the same page. This in no way means that disbelievers in religion are immoral.
We are agreed that religion can teach morals to some people, but their true nature still shines through. And society still has immorality, even with the existence of religion. Anyway, good talk.
There were about
124,000 Prophets, 25 with name are mentioned in Quran. 5 Prophets out of 25 mentioned in Quran came before Hazrat Ibrahim (A.S). Most of the religions were true, obviously would have been sent in its original form. Maybe later on distorted and corrupted by it follower. And it is illogical to assume that some follower had amended the scripture to include the morality part.
So we cant just decide which religion was corupted to which extent.
The concept like budhism is mix of different religious belief. To be accurate, Buddhism is a religion and Buddhists are worshiper, just check the wikipedia!
Actually, technically, Buddhism doesn't address God. It is simply a philosophy. Technically, one can be both Muslim and Buddhist.
Actually, technically, Buddhism doesn't address God. It is simply a philosophy. Technically, one can be both Muslim and Buddhist.
No, Rebirth concept of budhism contradict with islamic teachings, Devas and barhams in Budhism are translated as gods which tells this is a religion and it also contradict with islamic teachings. hence techinally it is not possible for one to be both Muslim and bhudist.
Budhist believe in cause and effect(everything is predetermined) philosophy, and other powerfull, non-human and long-lived figures, I think they compel morality through this concept, do think that is rational?
I am yet to see some rational arguements from you all guys for the possiblity of morality wihtout religion.
What do you mean by other religion "Allah sent upon humanity"?. Some do not believe in Allah. What about those who worship Rama? And Krishna? And Indra? And Zeus?
Is this an example of "rational argumentation"?
No. Actually I don't know allah meas God to ALL. My grandparents and parents use Narayana, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva and other names to refer to God. Hence my question to OP.
My parents didnt tell me that names either you mentioned here.
I think it is not you parents that told you word God.
You have mentioned "Guruvayurappa" instead of "God" several times, as if you have some exclusive rights on forums.
P.S: I am observing you are quoting me by removing some part of my posts. If you do not understand some of texts of my posts do ask me, i will explain it for you as many times as you ask me. Furthermore, if you don’t want to bother to ask me, just highlight/bump up the text you want to respond to.
My parents didnt tell me that names either you mentioned here.
I think it is not you parents that told you word God.
You have mentioned "Guruvayurappa" instead of "God" several times, as if you have some exclusive rights on forums.
P.S: I am observing you are quoting me by removing some part of my posts. If you do not understand some of texts of my posts do ask me, i will explain it for you as many times as you ask me. Furthermore, if you don’t want to bother to ask me, just highlight/bump up the text you want to respond to.
Why should my use of Guruvayurappa bother you? How is second sentence remotely connected to what we are discussing?
You spoke about religion being necesssry for morality.. And by religion, inseveral posts Islam was mentioned. As if that is default religion. And for God, allah mentioned. As if default God has been set for ALL.
As for highlighting, I never do that. I know there is a b character I have to insert before and after. Easier for me to delete text.
There are several ways to fo things. I delete text to show relevant parts. You may choose another way. Just like there are several religions. You may choose one. I another. Third none.
So please don't instruct me about how to quoteyou, OK? My goal was to quote ONLY relevant parts. If you don't agree with my approach, that is OK by me.
Guruvayurappa rakshikamme. (May Guruvayurappa protect us all).
I just reread my post 62. I quoted the relevant portion. There was nothing out of context. And I DID ask you directly, as you suggest I should
1) I should quote ENTIREpost and BOLD relevant part
2) I should ask you directly ( which I did)
There are several here who refer to Allah and Islam in their posts, and I respect that. This thread is abt religion being pre-req for morality. The idea may be offensive to athiests (IMO). For this thread, use of Allah as default God and Islam as default religion implies that Islam is pre-req to morality. And that my friend may not be kosher to those who belong to other faiths, let alone athiests.
By the way, I have no problem stating Allah is God. And Allah is great. Look forward to you stating Guruvayurappa is God. Thank you.
I have given you explanation for this earlier several times…
Why it would be offensive? Cant you see how atheist on this forum post ideas against believers? And you are always the first one who approves them.
Just grow up, this is your turn to bring some rational arguments.
I see you have conveniently ignored the part “Guruvayurappa is God.”
You may or may not have given explanations about this being offensives to athiests “several times”. So just because you gave some explanation, it does not man the point does not remain. Using phrases such as “just grow up” is not something I intend to respond to. As for it being my turn to bring “rational arguments”, I have yet to see one rational “argument” from you.
Let me summarize this thread
hypothesis : you have to be religious to be moral
Allah is default God
Islam is default religion
So you have to believe in Allah and believe in Islam to be moral!
PS: it is when you find my arguments rational that I get worried!
I see you have conveniently ignored the part "Guruvayurappa is God."
You may or may not have given explanations about this being offensives to athiests "several times". So just because you gave some explanation, it does not man the point does not remain. Using phrases such as "just grow up" is not something I intend to respond to. As for it being my turn to bring "rational arguments", I have yet to see one rational "argument" from you.
Let me summarize this thread
1) hypothesis : you have to be religious to be moral
2) Allah is default God
3) Islam is default religion
So you have to believe in Allah and believe in Islam to be moral!
PS: it is when you find my arguments rational that I get worried!
Guruvayurappa, rakshikanamme!!
OK, for the sake of argument, i withdraw all my claims.
I just ask you to prove how morality is/was possible without religion?
Is it ok for you?
ajazali - i think the explanations from different members are escaping you so I would like to you to start explaining us what is your definition of 'Morality' is
ajazali - i think the explanations from different members are escaping you so I would like to you to start explaining us what is your definition of 'Morality' is
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
'concern' is key here.
To be noble for wrong someone did with you, to give charity, to save the child i mentioned for example in opening post are example of morality.
before moving forward you just tell me you aggree with the examples i give as morality or not?
Buddhism does not say anything about a God. And you’re right, rebirth would contradict religion, therefore, Buddhism is man made, and it teaches people morality. There’s your proof for morality without, what you would call, religion. And there have been plenty of arguments made for morality, you’re just choosing to ignore them, or are saying that the likes of Thor and Zeus were legitimate religions that were somehow corrupted. This is just grasping at straws. Your premise has been thoroughly discredited.
OK, for the sake of argument, i withdraw all my claims.
I just ask you to prove how morality is/was possible without religion?
Is it ok for you?
These are opinions, my friend. Cant be Provence or disproven.
I believe I have given you an example of how immorality is possible with religion. I have no interest engaging in circular arguments. It is my opinion that
Morality and immorality is possible with and without religion. So that is 4 possibilities.
I would encourage you to open up your (currently) closed mind and accept that morality and immorality resides in everyone. Ain't got notn to do with religion.
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
'
'concern' is key here. I AM CONFUSED. IS THIS CONCERN REFERRING TO THE WORD "CONCERNING" IN ABOVE SENTENCE?
To be noble for wrong someone did with you, GIVE AN EXAMPLE, KINDLY
to give charity,
to save the child i mentioned for example in opening post are example of morality.
before moving forward you just tell me you aggree with the examples i give as morality or not?
My comments in ALL CAPS ABOVE. ( sorry I don't know way to insert comments by breaking up a post)
I have 3 questions for you.
1) Bringing up animals during discussion of homosexuality, in a thinly veiled attempt to link the two - do you consider this moral behavior?
2) would you allow an old friend who turned gay to visit your house and stay few days. And not judge him?
3) since you named Allah as default God, would you accept Guruvayurappa as default God?
3a) Or Narayana?
This will allow me to gauge your morality. And correlate that with your religiosity.
I hope this post met your standard for rational debate.
which arguments are made for morality???
and budhist believe in long lived non-human being powerful figures. those figures can benefit bhudist(according to budhism). that is distorted Idea of God inherited from other religions.
and how morality is possible through budhism??? that will clarify that budhism uses the concept of other religions to bring morality to it followers.
While Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the “gods”. They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans.
above is concept of god in bhudism, from the link you mentioned.
And i can see, how you are grasping at straw by giving me the examples of Thor and Zeus. you mentioned these religions here, not me. I generally told you most of religions were true, later on corrupted and that is one of the reasons new religions came up further.
Adition:
And there is no proof of people had been believing in Thor’s religion and religion of Thor existed ever.