You see, their views are totally contrary to mine. As a man, I do not just pay for myself. I also pay for wife, children, subsidies and allowances to extended family, and charity to neighbours in the wider community. I cannot imagine seeking to ask for freebies from other men. The idea alone is horrifying to me. Other men don't owe me anything. I simply do not want to live in a country with that kind of freebie mentality. — alcontali

Well, consider yourself blessed that you weren’t a failed abortion attempt with parents that cycled between abuse and neglect, and that you were taught and learned all the right things before you were thrown out into the world. Some people need freebies because they didn’t have the foundation you had and weren’t ready or prepared to face the world. Also, consider yourself blessed for your good genes. Not everyone is as awesome and holy as you.

Do woman get freebies by becoming wives?

Are beautiful porn stars getting freebies too in this society? I bet they make more money than many on this forum.

Some men think they worship Allah when they really worship themselves.

If you are so smart and consider religion an intellectual en-devour, why not become Christian, since they have a stronger case in the historical and miracle department. I for one reject all miracles that imply a God, while accepting all the other incredible things that happen strangely in this world because you can't accept all of them. We are free to reject some, and Muhhameds stuff and Jesus's resurrection I just don't believe in. I believe most of the rest of history though. This is just an offer for you to have greater intellectual honesty. When assessing other people, you have to do it as a case by case situation

Inheriting wealth is a freebie (Trump). Winning the lottery even is a freebie. People get mad when it's the government who takes their money and helps others with it. Who is to say who works harder, the tax payer or the recipient? Who is the judge of who works the hardest? You must be some kind of saint or something alcontali to be so demanding about how society should treat you

you were taught and learned all the right things before you were thrown out into the world — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I wasn't. I had to discover things by myself. I grew up surrounded by a wider environment of what later turned out to be cultural Marxists.

Some people need freebies — Noah Te Stroete

Charity is a core tenet of Islam. Either you are strong enough to pay it, or else, you are a legitimate recipient. There is no problem or shame in being a recipient of charity, if you truly need it. If I were truly needy, I would also accept charity.

Do woman get freebies by becoming wives? — Gregory

In Islam, it is the husband's job to keep the household funded. The wife does not need to fund it. If she makes her own money, she can spend it on anything that are not standard household expenses. As a husband, I do not need to provide a more expensive lifestyle than I can afford. For anything over and beyond that, a wife can seek to make her own money, if she wants to. Otherwise, she can also choose to be satisfied with what the husband can afford. Furthermore, in my own personal opinion, I do not want to encourage useless or meaningless materialism.

If you are so smart — Gregory

Thinking that you are smart is a telltale sign of not being smart. According to the Dunning-Kruger research, the less someone is intelligent, the more he will believe that he is:

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1] — Wikipedia on Dunning-Kruger

So, that defines the term 'intelligence' as 'knowing when you do not know'. I think that their 1999 study, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" is one of the few really good contributions of psychology to the world. It certainly resonates with me.

I for one reject all miracles that imply a God, while accepting all the other incredible things that happen strangely in this world because you can't accept all of them. — Gregory

Even though there are no miracles in Islam, the Quran does not reject them either. That is also my own view on the matter.

Inheriting wealth is a freebie (Trump). — Gregory

Islamic law regulates the principle inheritance for Muslims. Therefore, I do not see why someone would not inherit from his father. I will certainly not complain about that, as it is part of religious law. His father did not work for me or someone else to inherit his assets. He took care of his own children and that is the way it is supposed to be.

public-school indoctrination camp — alcontali

large-scale imbecilization factories — alcontali

But what exactly is knowledge? — alcontali

I call bullshit.

It is Allah's punishment for adopting false, pagan beliefs. If these people refuse to accept the truth, then [...] — alcontali

"the truth"?
If, in your head, you have accountability to an imaginary friend rather than your fellow people, then what should others expect of you?
Exemplified by the Slender Man stabbing in 2014 resulting in decades-long sentences, and principally comparable to allegiance/accountability to someone/something rendered by faith and/or textual narratives alone. (Fortunately, such folk are rarely entirely consistent (non-hypocritical) in such a sentiment, or they would have forfeit autonomous moral agency.)
We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. Whatever dictum has been set out, every one of us still has to personally figure out whether to follow it or not, and no manner of stories/faith can absolve that.

NP. Out of curiosity I checked it out. On first glance I couldn't tell if it was a satire site or genuine. But his books are on sale at Amazon and have verified buyer reviews. So if it's a hoax, it's pretty elaborate.:smile:

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

When you say "laws are supposed to be moral", you are comparing two descriptions, i.e. the description of a law versus the description of morality, in order to decide whether such law is moral or not.

Where is the description of morality that you use for this purpose?
Can you post a link to that document?

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

Confusing morality and ethics? Morality is based on scriptures, while ethics is a code for good and bad behaviour agreed on by society. At least that is how I understand the terms, although maybe not all dictionaries agree.
But we do have secular ethics, while I have never heard of secular morality.

Morality is based on scriptures, while ethics is a code for good and bad behaviour agreed on by society. — Nobeernolife

There is actually a procedure in which they will double-check new laws in quite a few countries. They will check a new law against the constitution in order to determine whether it is constitutional or not. So, if we change the phrase "laws are supposed to be moral" to "laws are supposed to be constitutional", it would actually work.

There is, however, no document that describes "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society". In that sense, the whole idea of ethics is just fantasy, i.e. some kind of "imaginary friend" ! ;-)

I only addressed the question of education. It is not hard to become a worthless idiot of whom the stupidity is certified by a worthless degree along with spectacular student-loan debt. So, the question of education is not necessarily simple. Should children spend their childhood in public-school indoctrination camp and then acquire a worthless degree in a dumb liberal-art subject? Maybe or maybe not. That is certainly debatable. I do not send my children to public-school indoctrination camp. I do not believe that they could ever benefit from that. When I look at that kind of large-scale imbecilization factories, I even wonder why they exist in the first place? — alcontali

Blah, blah, blah.

When are you going to answer the question?

I asked about the predisposition of people against getting an education, are they or are they not predisposed to avoid getting an education.

But what exactly is knowledge? Do we even agree on that matter? Memorizing phone books replete with trivia does not amount to acquiring knowledge. On the contrary, that is utmost worthless. Furthermore, not even one of the culturally-Marxist beliefs that children learn in public-school indoctrination camps can be considered justified in epistemological terms. Again, all of that is worthless, and often even dangerous.

So, what the indoctrination camps teach, is usually not even knowledge. Still, even when the subject matter really is knowledge, I still do not support the practice of memorizing such knowledge databases. As far as I am concerned, either you use the machine, or else you build the machine, because in all other cases, it is you the machine. — alcontali

I did not ask for your opinion of the education system, I asked about the predisposition of people against getting an education.

I pay for the education of my children, but under my terms. — alcontali

No you don't, you pay under the terms of the place you choice to educate your kids. Nowhere do you get to chose anything more than what is being offered by the different school. Think about it, do you really go to the school and tell them how to educate the kids and what to teach them? Of course not, all you do is chose which of the terms being offered you will accept. EXACTLY the same as the people that CHOSE to pay student loans.

I am completely opposed to freebies. As I have said already, I do not want a ministry for the provision of gratis clothes to the populace. For a long list of reasons, too long to enumerate here, clothing should not be free of charge. The same is true for education and healthcare. I simply do not share that kind of culturally Marxist beliefs. — alcontali

Again, I did not ask for your opinion of of political systems, I asked how many islamic countries have free educational systems. I will make it easier for you. How many islamic countries have college level education systems that anyone can get financial help to study in?

It is Allah's punishment for adopting false, pagan beliefs. If these people refuse to accept the truth, then they will still have to accept all consequences of doing so. Unfortunately, it is the very same people who engage in irresponsible behaviour who will later on demand that other, more responsible people bail them out. I can almost guarantee that these born idiots will not even pay off their student loans. They will again want freebies instead. I utterly despise these irresponsible freebie retards. — alcontali

So, let's look at an imaginary scenario and try to put your way of thinking in context.
I am too poor to pay for my smart kid's education.
He has a dream of becoming a physicist and then going on to work to build cleaner energy systems and help make the world a better place.
The government offers him a loan so that fulfill his dream.
So allah will punish him for not accepting the truth that he is too poor to study and indulging in irresponsible behavior?
And then someone like you automatically labels him a born idiot that only wants to leech off the responsible people like you that are lucky enough to have enough money to pay for their kids.

I would like to see the statistics that you have used to decide that people that use student loans are all born idiots and never pay back the money, could you please supply a link to that information.

You see, their views are totally contrary to mine. As a man, I do not just pay for myself. I also pay for wife, children, subsidies and allowances to extended family, and charity to neighbours in the wider community. — alcontali

So because their views are contrary to yours they have to be wrong. Why do you give charity to the community, is that the same as the freebies you so despise? You don't you insist on them paying their own way just like you do?
Saying that there should be no freebies for anyone then giving to charities makes you a hypocrite.

I cannot imagine seeking to ask for freebies from other men. The idea alone is horrifying to me. Other men don't owe me anything. I simply do not want to live in a country with that kind of freebie mentality. — alcontali

It is obvious that you have never been and I sincerely hope that you never become poor.
Because as a poor person you will usually have only 2 options;
1. learn to beg, borrow and steal to get what you need.
2. Die a sad death.

I don't usually stoop to these levels of argument but I think the question is valid here.

If, as you say, allah provides for all that follow his rules, then why are there sooooo many hungry muslims?
Could it be that they were/are all born idiots.

Religions make us think to do bad things...isnt?
pakar seo | jasa seo

There is, however, no document that describes "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society". In that sense, the whole idea of ethics is just fantasy, i.e. some kind of "imaginary friend" !

Why is a document needed? If there were a document written up, what would validate it?

Think about it, do you really go to the school and tell them how to educate the kids and what to teach them? — Sir2u

Yes, I do. I took my kids out of school for a whole year, appointed an (excellent) Filipina tutor for their English instead. Next, we travelled all together around SE Asia for the whole year. The result is that my kids are now fluent in English while their current classmates are absolutely not. So, I simply changed the priorities.

You see, the schools over here are truly clueless. They make exactly the same mistake as in France or in Germany. If you don't speak English fluently, you are professionally not going to get anywhere. You would just be able to find a job cleaning the bathrooms. In a serious coffee shop, you will not even be able to sling coffee, because even for that job they require English.

How many islamic countries have college level education systems that anyone can get financial help to study in? — Sir2u

Saddling an entire generation with usury-infested student-loan debt? Wow. Do you want a revolution, or yet another insurgency, or what?

By the way, saddling someone with usury-infested loans is not the same as giving that person "help".

In that case, you are not helping the student. Instead, you will be helping the banksters that will originate these loans and who will make endless amounts of money from charging usury on them. You will also be helping the universities who will be able to pay million-dollar salary to their principal and faculty deans. The students? Not so much. With their worthless degree they will, more likely than not, end up in a dead-end part-time job slinging coffees at Starbucks.

You really do not seem to understand the student loan crisis, do you?

Every day, there are news stories about the college tuition crisis. But what is the crisis we are seeking to solve? Is it the staggering amount of student debt? The rapidly rising cost of higher education? The interest being collected on student loans? The high default rate on student loans? Or all of the above? — hbr.org on 'What Will It Take to Solve the Student Loan Crisis?'

You seem to think that your simplistic way of reasoning is solving a problem. No, it is creating problems! If you want to learn how to solve problems, then study some engineering instead of your liberal-art nonsense. Do something "hard" for a change! As I have told you earlier, your simple minded views do not solve the problem. No, they are the problem!

Why is a document needed? — BitconnectCarlos

In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?

Or we could just invent things on the fly without committing to them?

That would allow us to retract what we said when it suit us. Yes, agreed, there are indeed numerous benefits to not writing down anything.

If there were a document written up, what would validate it? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, indeed. That is an interesting question!

That is why I am on the floor laughing when I read about "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society". As I already have mentioned, that is obviously just fantasy. All of that is simply imaginary. There are no such agreements, let alone, documented ones, simply because there will be no way to validate them.

Do you really see Donald Trump agreeing with Elisabeth Warren on a thing like that?

In that sense, I am not the one referring to "imaginary friends", because the religious scriptures really exist, while the atheist fantasy of "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society" is just imaginary. It is obviously just fantasy!

In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?

Yeah, this wouldn't make sense in an illiterate society. However, in an illiterate society there are still social norms (which was what first came to mind for me when I read your point about "good and bad behaviors for society" needing a document which puzzled me a little.)

There are no such agreements, let alone, documented ones, simply because there will be no way to validate them.

We might think a little differently on this. For me, it's not so much a matter of "validation" as it is just that the rule itself exists.

For instance, I don't know if it's written down anywhere but it's a commonly accepted etiquette rule that if two men are in a public restroom you don't take the urinal right next to the other one. There's a ton of public restroom etiquette. I have no idea what "validates" it but I still consider it a social norm.

For me, it's not so much a matter of "validation" as it is just that the rule itself exists. — BitconnectCarlos

If the rule really exists, then it should be possible to write it down, no?
So, why don't they do it?

I think that it is obvious that the religious scriptures exist, links galore, while the atheist "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society" does not. We have documented rules while the atheists don't. Therefore, it is clearly the atheists who keep referring to their "imaginary friend" to make a point, and not us.

I don't find any use in religion. They fail to impart morality and they fail to substantiate all supernatural claims. So I say, it is reasonable to dismiss belief in such a thing until belief is warranted.

There is actually a procedure in which they will double-check new laws in quite a few countries. They will check a new law against the constitution in order to determine whether it is constitutional or not. So, if we change the phrase "laws are supposed to be moral" to "laws are supposed to be constitutional", it would actually work. — alcontali

Constitutions are written by people, so yes we are back to a definition based on society. As opposed to morality based on religion, which supposedly comes from god, so can not be discussed.

Don´t really see how what you write contradicts what I said.

If the rule really exists, then it should be possible to write it down, no?
So, why don't they do it?

Yes, you could write them down. However, there's a ton of these social norms and rules and they change according to the specific situation, but nonetheless you could write at least some of them down. I'm sure there's etiquette books available on the subject. As to which one of these etiquette books is the "validator" I have no idea.

If I'm not mistaken, this is how autistic people receive help. A lot of rules and social norms that neurotypical people are able to intuitively grasp autistic people struggle with and they need explicit reinforcement.

Social rules are different from morality though. When it comes to social rules everyday we just unthinkingly abide by many rules which are not explicitly written out which can be tricky for some people.

Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely disbelief in a God/Gods. There are no tenets or rules.

When it comes to Morality, Religion has provided zilch. Religion was just a venue for ancient humans to impose rules and create order. Through myths and stories. Morality already exists in Nature, as evolutionary beings we care about well being.

Clearly in this day and age, religious myths are not needed since the supernatural stories are superfluous. They provide no substance.

Constitutions are written by people, so yes we are back to a definition based on society. As opposed to morality based on religion, which supposedly comes from god, so can not be discussed. Don´t really see how what you write contradicts what I said. — Nobeernolife

My remark was concerning the following statement:

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

I was just pointing out that it would be possible to fix the last sentence by writing:

Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be constitutional. — Bug fix

Requiring laws to be moral (or ethical) requires the existence of a second document, which would be the benchmark of atheist morality (or ethics) and which is a fantasy that only exists in the imagination of atheists. That document is therefore their "imaginary friend". ;-)

? — alcontali

In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?
Or we could just invent things on the fly without committing to them? — alcontali

No, in an illiterate society, information is passed on orally. Which actually was the case for islam, where the Koran was passed on orally for 200 years, before someone put it to paper. Before that, it was all mouth to mouth. And yes, you are correct, it is reasonable to assume people added things to to it "on the fly".
The Haddith, the other leg of islamic morality, actually show this islamic telephone game clearly. It is all "as narrated by xxx who heard it narrated from yyy who heard it narrated from zzz" etc. So no, you do NOT need paper to pass on information, although of course it helps.

Yes, you could write them down. — BitconnectCarlos

No, I know for a fact that this is not true.

No matter how many times we have asked atheists to do that, they haven't, even though they perfectly well know that it is the Achilles heel of atheism. The truth is that they just cannot do it. Otherwise they would have done it a long time ago already.

No, I know for a fact that this is not true.

You can't write down every single social rule for every single social situation. You could, however, say, write down an article describing bathroom etiquette. They do exist out there.

In any case I don't see how something being written down now "validates it."

If I just listed a bunch of rules now those rules would be written down but I don't know how that would suddenly validate them.

Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely disbelief in a God/Gods. There are no tenets or rules. — Susu

Atheism may reject God's law, i.e. tenets and rules, but it clearly does not propose alternative tenets or rules. That entails that there would be no need for moral rules. Hence, according to the atheist view, all behaviour would be equally moral.

There are every serious problems with that view: this view is trivialist.

Trivialism (from Latin trivialis, meaning 'found everywhere') is the logical theory that all statements (also known as propositions) are true and that all contradictions of the form "p and not p" (e.g. the ball is red and not red) are true. In accordance with this, a trivialist is a person who believes everything is true.[1][2] — Wikipedia on trivialism

Trivialism occurs when the beliefs contain a contradiction:

The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it. This is known as deductive explosion.[2][3] The proof of this principle was first given by 12th century French philosopher William of Soissons.[4] — Wikipedia on the principle of explosion

Hence, there is necessarily an underlying contradiction in "We, atheists, reject all rules and tenets but we also do not propose any other ones either", because otherwise, it would not lead to asserting a trivialist result. Hence, the atheist take on morality is simply unsustainable.

Furthermore, I have never met an atheist who rejects the idea of "right and wrong", i.e. the existence of permissible and impermissible behaviour. Even atheists clearly believe that this distinction exists. However, they are not capable, not even to save themselves from drowning, to document what the rules could be for distinguishing between good and bad behaviour.

You see, (most) religious people still respect other religions, because in model-theoretical terms, such alternative religious theory often still has a model that satisfies their religious theory. Hence, it is potentially even a sustainable approach. Atheism, on the other hand, does not survive scrutiny. Their theory simply has no model at all.

I think that it is obvious that the religious scriptures exist, links galore, while the atheist "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society" does not. We have documented rules while the atheists don't. Therefore, it is clearly the atheists who keep referring to their "imaginary friend" to make a point, and not us. — alcontali

Since atheism is not a belief system in itself, just the absence of one, it is absurd to ask for atheist rules. However, if you are talking about ethics, yes, an atheist ethical system is possible, simply by starting with some basic rules that modern societies agree upon, such as the Golden Rule. Check out Sam Harris if you want to dive into that.
Religionists of course can bypass all that by simply referring to their scriptures. The problem with that is that a lot of those are problematic for modern societies. Islam is particular example for that.

Atheism may reject God's law, i.e. tenets and rules, but it clearly does not propose alternative tenets or rules. That entails that there would be no need for moral rules. Hence, according to the atheist view, all behaviour would be equally moral. — alcontali

That is a non sequitur. The disbelief in a god does not mean there is no need for ethics. In fact, an ethical code is necessary for any society.
Also, you seem to forget that religionists too are atheists.... in all religions except one. Or do you believe in Lord Shiwa or Hoitsuptsli?