This in response to a question in Quora:
Do you believe in Allah Almighty? If not, then what is the solid reason?
No, I am not a believer in deities, spirits, demons, leprechauns, trolls, unicorns, or any other imaginary entities. I prefer rational thought in all things, or at least a concerted attempt to rationally consider evidence and make informed decisions. In spite of this, I write about such things often. If you’d like me to explain that, PM me and I shall be happy to oblige.
First, consider what the word belief means and how it is used. Belief is the acceptance of something, commonly an idea, without question. That is, to operate on an assumption sans substantiating evidence or at least minimal evidence. In itself, that is a red flag to any thinking mind.
I hold no beliefs other than those needed by all humans to navigate their daily lives without cognitive overload. Beliefs of this sort are transient and exceptionally malleable. A simple example of this is that I trust, have faith, believe that my car will start in the morning. That’s a reasonable enough position. After all, it has started each and every morning for the past two years. However, on the morning that it fails to start, I immediately drop that belief and set about ascertaining what the problem is, then do what is necessary to resolve the problem. That is a transient belief. One that does not guide my life, merely relieves me of the need to think so much about all the possibilities and permits me to concentrate on things of more immediate import.
Religious beliefs and superstitions are different matters. Here the belief takes precedence over thoughtful consideration of evidence. It is no longer transient, no longer in the control of the believer. To give up individual control to some imagined agency without sufficient proper evidence is to willingly give up being a rational human being when it relates to the religious beliefs of any groupthink organization. That does not mean I don’t recognize that most religions have some fundamentally constructive philosophical/behavioral content, but that content has been available in secular thought longer than it has in religion by the simple knowledge that humans have walked this Earth before any religions began. Superstitions developed in concert with human evolution, but superstitious beliefs were individual to early small clans and would not meld until larger social units emerged. My opinion is that basic ethics and morals are a product of human evolution and collective experience. No gods need apply. Humans, it appears, have invented the gods and the moral/ethical dictates they espouse.
I suggest that you make a study of Evolutionary Ethics. I also recommend to you the book, A Natural History of Human Morality by Michael Tomasello.
You might also find this article of some interest: [plato.stanford.edu]
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I feel sad for those young people who are trapped in a religious echo chamber and have no clue what they are missing out on.
MakeItGood
Level 7
Nov 28, 2019
1
My 2 points:
#1. First, minor not making much issue but just as an f.y.i. You list ...unicorn ... I take on an assumption on my part that you oppose biblical text. The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), also called the greater one-horned rhinoceros and great Indian rhinoceros, is a rhinoceros species native to the Indian subcontinent. It is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, as populations are fragmented and restricted to less than 20,000 km2 (7,700 sq mi). Wikipedia
Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 22: 21 and Psalms 92:10 speak of the unicorn's horn. Job 39:10 and 39:10 both speak of the unicorn not tilling the earth. In Psalms 29:6, the unicorn is likened to a young calf skipping, while Isiah 34:7 mentions unicorns in the same context as bulls and bullocks. [unicornsrule.com]
So, most likely the biblical text unicorn is the real unicorn rhino.
#2. You say"My opinion is that basic ethics and morals are a product of human evolution and collective experience. No gods need apply. Humans, it appears, have invented the gods and the moral/ethical dictates they espouse. "
#2. a)...basic ethics and morals are a product of human evolution and collective experience.
Yes, I would basically agree. Again, I take the assumption on my part that you have opposition to biblical text basically for lack of understanding. Let me post a video that explains garden of Eden "myth" that is not understood as it would be in original language, which brings out the genius of the story in original language. And, the video gives a small bit about the genius of the knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and eve monkey like naked people running around with out concept of shame or clothing. Then the knowledge begins and they get kicked out of the garden of "pleasure." Many generations go by and more and more information and stories of experiences of what worked right and what went wrong or what was good and what was evil get passed down generational lines. [short on time I try to cramp info here to make my point quickly but might need to clarify later on complex explination].
#2. b) You say. " Humans, it appears, have invented the gods and the moral/ethical dictates they espouse. " It seems to me you agree with biblical text.
The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3] wikipedia
Son is an offspring, offspring is a product, man refers to mankind. Son of man means man made.
Jesus style God is man made according to biblical text genius. Do you agree God thingies are man made?
Knowledge of good and evil is the foundation for morals, ethics, rights an wrongs, rules laws logic.
Word
Level 8
Nov 26, 2019
0
Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with the Indian rhino reference. My use of the word relates to the mythical and not to the biblical text. My response to the question and the question itself are in no way related to anything you have said, so it would appear you are blathering on just to say something. I thank you for your input, even though it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The only exception is your comments regarding moral and ethical behaviors where I think you are almost totally wrong.
Word:
@evidentialist Basic definition of morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Lexico.com
Morality is about the behavior of a person.
What is the behavior of the person evaluated against? In part: as defined good and bad/evil.
So, then morality is totally about knowledge of good and evil.
I will not go any further explaining the correctness of my understanding of the knowledge of good and evil. But, please fill free to read over some dictionaries and thesauruses studying the words "good" and "evil", strongly suggest several different sources.
Word:
@evidentialist As to issue at hand, correctly I am saying just to be saying. I tend to say something about people's knowledge and understanding of good and evil like many people [grammer police] say something about my grammer from time to time. Whereas, grammer has not been my forte, I would think myself as self educated in the "knowledge of good and evil ".
Again, please study some dictionaries and thesauruses so that you would know how to evaluate the behavior of a person as defined by morality and ethics.
Ethics - A set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Word:
@evidentialist So you say, "The only exception is your comments regarding moral and ethical behaviors where I think you are almost totally wrong."
As I had posted defination that show moral is in fact based, in part, on the knowledge of good and evil, I would be glad to give you a proper way to understand and evaluate ethics and morals.
Yes, I am the author of the book that has only one sentence. "There is good and there is evil". Good versus Evil: from beginning to end, Seymour Freely.
Word:
@evidentialist Yes, I understand basic evolutionary concepts of how "rights and wrong" and "good and evil" developed with people. There could be a right way for stone age man to make a stone hammer that works. If it doesn't work, it would be considered the wrong way to make a stone hammer. Inherent with in people is self acceptance of things considered pleasure and pain or a basis for building the concepts of what things a person calls good and evil.
Word:
@evidentialist Evolution of knowledge of good and evil perhaps would be better replaced, howbe it simular, with the words growth or development. The seeds of such knowledge of right/wrong and/or good evil started with such as hammer making or as understanding contrasts of pleasure and pain. These then grow into trees of such as rules, laws, principles, synonyms in thesaurus of good/evil that ethics, logic, policy and procedure manuels, written rules and laws. In writing are based upon.
Word:
@evidentialist I really do not like being called wrong when I think I am right, who does?. However, now that I have give a brief explanation, I will try to not bother you any more BUT I am very much open to constructive correction.
Please, If you feel you can constructively correct my thinking that I am right please feel free to point out my wrongs and give suggestions for correcting. I do not mind giving them reasonable consideration.
Word:
@evidentialist Ok, just because I like and enjoy sharing understanding and ideals, I would like to expound on this for you and hope it a benefit.
The objectiveness of good/evil would be the "cloud" of synonyms that surround these words as they are listed in a thesaurus. From years of people experience, people have accumulated the contrasting differences starting out with what is goid/evil, pleasure/pain for a single person and the over all concept grows as it applies thru family, small social group and large society groups to where now we are able to list these in a writing called a thesaurus.
Circumstances then and there existing may be a dictator for what word(s) are used that are synonymous with good/evil of the situtation then and there existing.
Order would be a synonym or form of good. Now, we could understand that Adolph Hitler had an order to his military but it would be considered from out side looking in that the military intent was not good. So something of or with order does not specifically make it good.
Oxymorons of advanced studies for good/evil and right/wrong: the right wrong, the wrong right, the good evil, the evil good, the good wrong, the evil right, the right evil.
Understanding these oxymorons can help evaluate the behavior of a person or group of people thus better evaluation of the morals and ethics.
Word:
@evidentialist It may be like splitting hairs with synonyms, but to evaluate and analyze, the more the hair is split in component distinguished parts the more precise something could be observed.
A synonym or a form of good.
Standard - 1. a level of quality ...
2. an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.
a. Quality related to the goodness of something Right - 1. morally good, justified, or acceptable.
2. true or correct as a fact.
Good is the standard that "right" uses to compare if something is right.
As I had said good and evil is the foundation and/or the ultimate decernment for right and wrong, morals, ethics, rules, laws and logic.
Now, If my observations are not good, they would not be logical.
As you have stated your claim of thinking that my observations are totally wrong.
Please, again please explain this thinking of it being wrong.
I value integrity in what I understand and what I share in my understandings. Please only call me a liar when I lie and only call me wrong when I am wrong.
If you can make an explination of the wrongness to my understanding that it is in fact wrong, I like to think I have the personal integrity to change my understanding so that it is right, for I prefer not to be wrong.
Allah, Yahweh, the Tooth Fairy, & Santa Claus regularly visit me & give me immense help in my life. Especially with the party favor selections. Thank you for asking...........
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Nov 25, 2019
2
Oh shit, you mean you do not believe in the purple and white polka-dotted winged elephant that flies around the rings of Saturn with a unicorn stuffed up his ass? How can you not? It is so obvious that he exists! Have faith!
Archeus_Lore
Level 7
Nov 25, 2019
0
Only in the FSM do I have any faith. All others are wrong.
I started out thinking it was the BMD, but then I saw the XLP, which perpetrated the exploration of the SMR, so that finally led me to the PPE.
Well as to Allah, Yahweh, God, Jesus, etc,etc, ad infinitum I'd say with 100% certainty that every single one them is nothing more than figments of the imaginations created and designed by one or a select few in an effort, always a very successful effort I might add, to
a) gain some control over the behaviours and lives of their fellow tribal members,
b) to ensure that they receive the very best of everything their tribe has to offer,
c) to explain away, in ways that ensure their status amongst the tribe, the reasons, etc, why things do not go perfectly every time and what the others in the tribe must do to mitigate such events,
d) and last but by no means least of all, to ensure that they never really have to involve themselves in the dreary, day to day, often laborious things necessary for the survival and prosperity of the tribe as a whole, instead they can just sit back, pretend that this God/s they have invented speaks through them, and do as little as possible, kind of like intestinal worms/parasites feeding solely off of the efforts of their 'hosts.'
Triphid
Level 9
Nov 25, 2019
1
Nope. Allah is just as non-existent as any other deity
Morals have nothing to do with religion.
Actually, I think religion is immoral.
I tend to tune people out when they start talking about morality. It's been my experience that my own morals are generally better than those of people who like to hold themselves out as morally superior by virtue of their religious beliefs.
KKGator
Level 9
Nov 25, 2019
8
Yep. Evangelicals want to save a mass of cells, but refuse to feed and house children and have no qualms taking refugee children and putting them into pens, away from family, and then refuse to bath and give proper medication to them. Add to this list the death penalty (I'm the first to add that certain humans don't deserve to walk the earth, but doesn't their bibly say not kill. And for myself - I don't want my government killing its own citizens, especially with a 5% chance of error (rises much more with POC).
@Beowulfsfriend -- Yep. The death penalty has proven over centuries of experience that it is not a deterrent. In my view it represent state sanctioned murder that solves nothing. According to most accounts I have been able to get my hands on, execution turns out to be more costly than life sentences.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.