Free Will

Maryga wrote: Bro Ahmad Joyia, I admire your patience. 018.056:We only send the messengers to give Glad Tidings and to give warnings: But the unbelievers dispute with vain argument, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat My Signs as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned! 018.057:And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord, but turns away from them, forgetting the (deeds) which his hands have sent forth? Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance.

Why?  All I see is someone who, no matter what is said can only believe all non believers morals are still born from religion.  Pure folly.. the notion that man can be good without a god should be considered.

p.s i meant to hot edit but hit reply instead.  Was to lazy to edit.

Edited by Ketchup

"Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't." That is what you believe. You offer no evidence, a) that you have a creator, b) that you stand on higher grounds of morality BECAUSE if you had proof there would be no 'test'. As you believe that a supernatural god set the test that substitutes for proof, you end up going round in circles. This is your 'faith' which I have not desire to take from you, but it is a faith that denies the primacy of matter and humans in human affairs. You are the "non-believer" in the human capacity to develop, change, and improve 'morality'.

Angel wrote: SO you think you have more of a right to say what morals are ? because you believe in (a) God and have (a) religion ?

Nop! I didn't say that. Sis its not an issue of who has a right or no right. I only argued that, though may not be the customs/culture, but atleast, morality is one thing that can't evolve in vacuum, void of faith. Mind it, I have not categorized as what faith is, true or not true. (Its totally a different subject to argue as what faith is true and what is not). It simply implies, arguing theorectically, that in the natural discourses of social development in homo-sapiens, faith in some divine being must be the first step and then subsequently, development of morality, that too based upon that faith, must have taken place. Otherwise, its hard to imagine, why only among species of homo-sapiens that development of morality took place without the fear of rivaling members of the same species. One can call it a fear of a supernatural, may be a superstition as people may call it, but the point remains, that it was exactly this force, which factored in for the development of morality among humans.

ketchup wrote: the notion that man can be good without a god should be considered.

Ok. Very fine. Then please put forward your logical arguments and shall look into it. But mere emotional appeal for supereme human ego, can never be considered a legitimate way of looking at the picture. Isn't it? Please note that its Islam (don't know about others), which presents the concept of superiority of humans over all other creatures, simply because of the 'free will' i.e. to think logically and rationally. Is there any relegion (since I don't know), which appeals to the rationality of humans to under stand faith? I think, that is unique.

Tim wrote: "Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't." That is what you believe. You offer no evidence, a) that you have a creator, b) that you stand on higher grounds of morality BECAUSE if you had proof there would be no 'test'. As you believe that a supernatural god set the test that substitutes for proof, you end up going round in circles. This is your 'faith' which I have not desire to take from you, but it is a faith that denies the primacy of matter and humans in human affairs. You are the "non-believer" in the human capacity to develop, change, and improve 'morality'.

Now this is strange. I have presented you the logical arguments as how I believe as what I believe. Instead of refuting those arguments logically, I have been labled as "going round in circles". The proof for God, I admitted, can't be presented and but given a logical explanation of it from the overall perspective of faith that I believe in. On the same note, I did ask you to present the evidence of "no God". In the absence of such a proof, that I know as well, I am yet to hear any arguement from you to logically connect with over all concepts of what you believe. Secondly, I have given logical arguments of what I believe as how faith and morality are logically connected with each other. If you have anything to differ or any other view, kindly put forward and we all shall discuss it rationally.

In the end, I failed to understand as when did I ever say that morality can't be improved. On the contrary, I have been giving you the examples from since the era of homo-Sapiens the development of morality among humans. However, its hard to imagine as what tools do you provide, without the aid of faith, to improve upon the "morality"?

Thanks sis ketchup. No hard feelings. I guess, I have provided what all can be said from my side. Let the readers of this forum make up their own mind. Similarly, its upto you, your own human intellect to understand. No compulsion in faith. BTW, in the absence of evidence, I can safely call "no faith" as also a faith. Am I wrong? Best wishes for every one on this thread. Peace.