Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.
So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.
* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best. — Xtrix

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me.

Interesting point but stating religious morality as the only alternative is a little reductive dont you think. Morality is much more complex than a two path ideological frame work. There are other debates intrinsically woven into this discussion that arent present in a religion only base of morality. — LuckilyDefinitive

I don´t see how "morality" works without a religion. Maybe you are referring "ethics", which is similar but not the same. Atheist morality is not possible, atheist ethics is. I know the difference is often ignored, even in dictionaries, alas. But if look at the contexts where the terms are used, it becomes clear.

The Mufti of Jerusalem was obviously trying to create alliances left and right with a view on preventing the creation of the apartheidsstate of Israel. That does not mean in any fashion that he subscribed to the Nazi ideology, which is simply not compatible with Islam. — alcontali

There was no concept of Israel at the the time. However, there was the ongoing holocaust, which the mufti admired. And he expressed his point of view clearly:

"The friendship between Muslims and Germans has become much stronger because National Socialism corresponds to the Islamic world view in many respects. The points of contact are: Monotheism and unity of leadership. Islam as an organizing force. The struggle, the community, the family and the offspring. The relationship to the Jews. The glorification of work and creation."
Muhammed Amin Al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, Berlin, October 1944

You see, some Muslims may have fallen for Hitler's propaganda. — alcontali

Not just some muslims. The Mufti of Jerusalem was in Germany during WW2, advising Hitler on the Jewish issue and raising muslim troops for the Nazis. And Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the muslim world even today. I think the source you found tries to whitewash that a bit.

https://thepeoplescube.com/images/images_working/Hitler_Muslims/Mufti_Hitler.jpg

what are the person's credentials? — ZzzoneiroCosm

The credentials of the people are given under the quote, and the quotes speak for themselves. I do not have the time to get bogged down here for hours, which would not change your made-up mind anyway.

So, according to you the inspiration for Mein Kampf was the Quran? Or something like that? — alcontali

I don´t know what the inspiration for Mein Kampf was, and I said nothing about that.
I was pointing out to you that contrary to what you claimed, Hitler admired islam, that influential muslim figures did and do support nazism, and that that nazism is popular in the muslim world even today, There is no need to misquote me.

These clerics are not as close as you or me to what happened in the 1930ies and 1940ies in German-occupied Europe. They would never advocate things like "All the Gypsies have to die". — alcontali

I don´t know what you are trying to say. I am pointing to the deep connection between islamic ideology and nazism, and you keep writing obscure denials.

As soon as they would get to know the details of his true nature, they would repudiate and disavow him. — alcontali

Oh really now. Would that include Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Yussuf Al-Qaradafi, its current head cleric?

When a person writes a complete book, such as 'Mein Kampf', that only shit talks about other people and nothing else, then what are we supposed to think about the author? Seriously, he does not say anything good about absolutely anybody in that book. It is one long rant about everybody he hates. Sorry, but I have no respect for that kind of people. — alcontali

Well, that is good for you, however keep in mind that Hitler was and is vastly popular in the muslim world, so a lot of your co-religionists disagree with you there.

[quote="alcontali;383682"Yeah, maybe Hitler will like too, That is the only use it has. Seriously, it is idiots writing bullshit for other idiots.[/quote]

Ah, I forgot to mention: Both Nietzsche and Hitler were fond of islam.
So you do have some influential voices on your side. However Nietzsches brain was affected by Syphillis, and Hitler... well, maybe you count him among the great philosophers, but I do not.

That is just a typical western ethnocentric view on philosophy. If you ask a Chinese, an Arab, or an African about Schopenhauer, they will all say that he is just a filthy piece of shit. — alcontali

Oh really now. Do you have a source for that? How many Chinese, African, or non-muslim Arabs have you asked about that? None of the philosophy students that I know would call Schopenhauer a "piece of shit".

Do you also think Voltaire is a "piece of shit"?

The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others. Murder as a legitimate means of spreading and maintaining this devil's doctrine. It denigrates women, divides people into classes and demands blood and more blood. (VOLTAIRE)

What Schopenhauer was doing, was something completely different. He was rather interested in shit talking other people by incessantly using infinite regress, fake blank pages, and other system-less bullshit. — alcontali

Schopenhauer is one of the great philosophers of all time (and you are not).
Schopenhauer studied the content of islam critically (and you obviously did not.)

By the way, all great thinkers who studied islam came out with similar warnings. Of course, today in the current PC climate, they would all be accused of "islamophobia" or similar BS.

All of the quotes need to be set in the context of each speaker's personal history and reputation — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ah here we go. No argument, so we go straight to attacking the messenger.

The problem is that islamic morality is pretty abhorrent. So while I am not in principle against a religious society (sharing a religion is good for society), in this particular case we should be careful.

"Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism."
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

es, religion, quite unfortunately in my opinion, doesn't stand up to scrutiny e — TheMadFool

We should not generalize about "religion", just like we should not generalize about "ideology". There are very different ones out there, with very different outcomes for society. Some of them do not even have a god or gods, so they do not even tangent the whole atheism debate.

But good-faith research, clarifying the minutia of the bureaucracy in question, is crucial to avoid a broadbrush cynical view of bureaucracy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In this case, we have people from inside the bureaucracy confirming that we should not mistake the IPCC as a scientific body. Did you the quotes I posted above? There are plenty more moments of truth like that.

The argument seems to go this way:

1. The methodology of every bureaucracy is dominated by a will to survive
2. Therefore, a bureaucracy dependent on influencing policy debate will do whatever it takes - lie, mislead, fudge or falsify data - to influence policy debate. Whatever it takes to survive.
3. Any bureaucracy whose survival is dependent on having an influence on policy debate is not to be trusted. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. When you evaluate the statements of a bureaucracy, you should always keep that aspect in mind. E.g. why do you think the military is constantly asking for more money to counter existing or non-existing threats?

Reading from a vast array of biased and unbiased sources can ease the dizzies. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree. Here are some quotes for you:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
(Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
(Timothy Wirth, President, UN Foundation)

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
( David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth)

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (and) “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
(Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
(IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer)

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
(Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme)

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
( U.S. Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, Rio Climate Summit)

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
(former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996)

“There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate ‘narrative.’ Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.”
(Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace)

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
(Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration Undersecretary of State)

Mike Hulme was not and is not a lead author for the IPCC. — Benkei

He was. And I am not interested in getting bogged down in another climate debate. I am simply pointing out that the IPCC is a political body, set up by governments, with a political agenda. Look at it this way: If the IPCC declared that there is no point for governments to enact "climate policy", it would lose its reason to exist. Ever heard of a bureacracy that committed suicide?

I am not actually against using religion as a basis for morality. In principle, religion is philosophy of idiots (since it gives ready-made answers to complicated questions), and since most people are in fact idiots, that is a working solution for society. However, we have to pick which religion we choose. In particular islam with its its Sharia is a horrible choice. If a society chooses to base its morality on i.e. Bahaism, Zoroasterism or Buddhism that is fine with me.

If it is possible, then why don't you do it? (construct an ethical code without referring to religion)
And if you did it, then where is it documented? — alcontali

It is possible, I did it, and actually most humans do it inately (principles like fairness, empathy, and compassion do not need some religious books, they are inate to humans).

If you want documentation, again, read Sam Harris.

There wouldn't have been any Jewish flight from Muslim counties but for the various Zionist atrocities, surely? I see no reason that colonists should steal other people's countries and get away with it, never mind how long their occupation lasts. — iolo

Err, yes there would. Persecution of Jews under islamic rule existed before Israel and will continue to exist in case Israel is destroyed. Read the Koran. Read what it says about the Jews. And read up on the content of Shariah and the treatment of Dhimmis.

Israel is of course a flashpoint in the islamic world... the creation of the Jewish state was never accepted. But it is not root cause of Jew hatred in the islamic world.

Something like this is probably the best we can do to out our biases. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Whoever compiled that media bias chart is simply demonstrating his/her bias. CNN "neutral/skews left"? That is just ridiculous.

Mostly MSNBC. — Noah Te Stroete

Yep, that figures.

I find them to be fair in their analysis of Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

LOL! You are not serious, are you???

You have “alternative facts” aka fictions. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, where do you get your facts from? CNN? MSNBC? Bloomberg? Huffpost? NYT? BBC? Young Turks? WashPost? Daily Beast? I must guessing here... can you append the list? Hoest question, I would be curious to learn.

It certainly seems you are firmly stuck in the TDS echo chamber. Would love to be surprised.

I did not claim that it was impossible. Can you quote me on that? — alcontali

You wrote:
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.

I understood that to be sarcasm and an argument for written scriptures. So you meant that literally?

"Believing" in a religion means that you accept the religion's moral rules as a matter of self-discipline. So, if an atheist accepts, for example, the moral rules of Christianity, then he is simply a Christian and not an atheist. The same is true for an atheist who keeps the moral rules of Islam, or any religion for that matter. — alcontali

Nope, that is a non sequitur. One does not follow from the other. And, as I pointed out, it is possible to construct an ethical code without referring to religion. Are you reading messages before responding to them?

*yawn* — Echarmion

"Claims such as '2500 of the worlds leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenious. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else (...) is unhelpful. It does not reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge."

Mike Hulme, IPCC lead author

.... its all very simple and clear, isn´t it.

Climate skeptics aren't skeptic but just stupid. — Benkei

What exactly is a "climate sceptic"? Your rant about something you don´t define.

I actually have a fear of an upcoming race war if Trump falls, instigated by the Neo-Nazis and other fervent Trump supporters. I am sincere about this, and I think Trump would probably welcome it. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh boy, and I thought TDS can not get more rampant.... do you even realize how bizarre rants like this sound to people who are not in your CNN echo chamber? (Rethorical question... of course you dont)

No-one has suggested we should. Unfortunately, this kind of straw-manning is all anyone ever seems to do in these discussions. — Echarmion

I am glad you agree the IPCC should not be taken too seriously. So why do we argue?

The hadiths are documented now. It does not matter today that they were initially transmitted orally. That only mattered in the period during which they were orally transmitted. That period is history now — alcontali

That period lasted for hundreds of years, so for an extremely long time, muslim morality was simply transmitted orally... something you claimed is impossible.

It does mean that there is no need for ethics in atheism, because it rejects all other, existing rules for ethics without proposing an alternative take on ethics. Therefore, from atheism necessarily entails a trivialist take on morality. — alcontali

You sound very confused here. By definition, atheism is simply a disbelief in good. It does not "reject" any ethical system, it simply does not address any. Atheism in itself is not a belief system, so it is meanigless to compare it to one.

Living in a society of ourse requires a code of ethics, and as I said it is possible to create one without referring to Allah, Yahwe, Neptune, Zeus, or Hoitsipotsli.

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. — alcontali

Apparently you have not heard of Sam Harris, who spends a lot of his time addressing precisely this issue. Check out his work and come back before posting more opinions.

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?

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.

? — 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.

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.

I did watch a documentary about the camps and it didn't appear that their culture was being extinguished, but rather that education was aimed at integrating them into a Chinese ideology. — Punshhh

Which is of course impossible with a muslim population, as its doctrine puts Allah above the party and Shariah above Chinese law. That is not compatible with the CCPs plan for total control of society. For the same reason, the Falun Gong and Christians are also persecuted. Though shalt not have another ruler but the CCP!

Congratulation to Brexit. I hope we soon have an Itaxit, Spexit, Swexit, Fixit, and more.
Let Merkel and Macaron enjoy their lovey dovey relationship in their shrunken empire.