Is there a secular basis for morality?

Luciddreamer said:

If i told you you wouldn't listen anyway so stop making demands
you paranoid nutjob

Click to expand...

ohhhhhhh I see.....

so you have the basis..... you've figured out this secret formula for the secular basis for morality.......

but you ehhhh..... you just aren't revealing this super secret answer...... riiiight

and you think childish name calling can cover up that you can't back up your claims

it's funny because atheists portray themselves as being all about logic and reason and being so intellectual....

but you look at atheists on this site and in real life and they're not actually intellectual people.... they can't actually hold an intellectual discussion....

basically their whole concept of intellectual argument boils down to "wow you religious people are dumb LOL".

Francis Bacon already called it: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

The reality is that it's not actually logic and reason that leads to atheism. Logic and reason points to the universe having had a Creator. Atheism is based on people following their desires.

This is another reason why a secular basis for morality is a ridiculous idea.

The whole basis for people being atheist in the first place is them following their desires. It's very naive to think those same people are going to be driven by lofty ideals.

notice the change.

first it's

Luciddreamer said:

Dont you think wisdom and empathy is stronger than fear and hope?

Click to expand...

then I challenge what is said. then it's

Luciddreamer said:

Its not one or the other. Fear, hope, wisdom and empathy all have a important role to play.

Click to expand...

this is why ad hominem has to be used to distract from the holes in what is being claimed.



Apparently, lucid uses chick argument techniques.

riyaale said:

Morality, truth, ethics et cetra are ideas not things u can touch and feel, we can narrow down their meanings and have general agreement of what they r, but no two humans agree on their definitions even if u said letts fetch them from holy books.

Click to expand...

There is broad consensus among Muslims that pork is haraam, alcohol is haraam, zina is haraam, stealing is haraam, that there are five obligatory daily prayers, that Muslims must fast during Ramadan, etc.

riyaale said:

is that why u have atons of school of thoughts(suni, shia, suffi...) ?

Click to expand...

That's due to flaws in people, not any flaw in Islam.

It is true that I've read philosophy. Honestly, I am kind of ashamed of it. I've read it but I don't feel proud of it.

I read Plato's Republic from cover to cover. I first started reading it in high school. It was the Jowett translation, which I think is a lousy translation.

I read the William Bloom edition when I was about 21.

I've read Lao Tzu. I read the Analects of Confucius. I've read the Bhagavid Gita. I've read the Bible (I was raised Christian.... I think people sometimes think I'm Somali, which surprises me.......).

I've read Frantz Fanon. I've read Jacques Ellul. Paulo Freire. José Vasconcelos. Mao Zedong. Che Guevara. Lenin. Enrique Dussel. José Ortega y Gassett. José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Mussolini. Hitler. Francisco Franco. Julius Evola. Francis Bacon. Kant. Hegel. Heidegger. Ricardo Flores Magón. William James. Bertrand Russell. Sartre. Simone de Beauvoir. Herbert Marcuse. Zizek. Nietzsche. I remember when my close family member bought a house and I remember walking around the house with a compilation of Nietzsche.



It's all garbage. It's all filth. None of that is anything but garbage compared just to Surah Al Baqarah.

All the philosophy in the world won't save a person who dies as a non-Muslim.

Aristotle recognized that the universe and human existence had to have had a Creator.

Our Creator sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the greatest human being who ever walked the face of this earth. It is a must that we follow Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Our Creator sent the Quran as a guidance for all of humanity and even the jinn.

There is no book in this world that can match the Quran. Plato's Republic isn't even worthy to be a mat that you wipe your shoes on compared to the Quran.

There is no book that you will ever come across in this life that will match the depth and wisdom of the Quran. You will never in this life encounter any book that is more valuable and that should be nearer to your heart than the Noble Quran.

The Kaiser said:

Don't you find any of it interesting? Some of the concepts?

Click to expand...

I would like to discuss epistemology.

For those who are not familiar, epistemology is sort of "theory of knowledge," "study of knowledge". Let me see how Wikipedia defines it.

Google says

"e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
/əˌpistəˈmäləjē/
Learn to pronounce
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion."

"Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ (About this soundlisten); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge."

Right, so literally it's something like "knowledgeology".

So- two questions. Is knowledge innate? Or are we born as blank slates (blank slate theory)?

For Plato, knowledge is innate. Plato is correct about this. Knowledge is innate. This theory is expressed in Plato's dialogue Meno: "One feature of the dialogue is Socrates' use of one of Meno's slaves to demonstrate his idea of anamnesis, that certain knowledge is innate and "recollected" by the soul through proper inquiry." (from the Wikipedia description of Meno).

Of course, when I say knowledge is innate, I don't mean that we are born knowing the exact size of the state of Utah or the number of the population of Somalia (what Immanuel Kant would describe as a posteri knowledge).

However, we are born with certain innate knowledge. This is recognized both in Islam (every child is born upon the fitrah) and in Platonic philosophy.

Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No child is born but that he is upon natural instinct. His parents make him a Jew, or a Christian, or Magian. As an animal delivers a child with limbs intact, do you detect any flaw?” Then, Abu Huraira recited the verse, “The nature of Allah upon which he has set people,” (30:30).

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/10/06/every-child-born-fitrah-nature/

I think it was John Locke who pushed the blank slate nonsense.

So you see, in ancient Platonic philosophy, the position on this issue was very similar to the correct position- the Islamic position.

Let me see if I was right...... yes, it was John Locke. "In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that at birth the (human) mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences." (Wikipedia).

Right, so..... like I said.... Plato was very similar to Islam on that particular epistemological question and then Locke went way off the deep end with the insane claim that we are just born as a blank slate.

By the way, even the scientist Steven Pinker (who I believe is an atheist) put out a book arguing against the blank slate theory, just from a scientific perspective. The book is called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. I think Steven Pinker would be very furious if you told him but.... I read his book I think when I was a teenager and his book actually supports what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told us over 1,400 years ago. It also aligns with Plato.

Anyways, I don't know if people are familiar with her but nowadays Judith Butler (who just happens to be Jewish) is very famous for her "gender theory"... "Butler is best known for her books Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990) and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (1993), in which she challenges conventional notions of gender and develops her theory of gender performativity. This theory has had a major influence on feminist and queer scholarship.[8] Her works are often studied in film studies courses emphasizing gender studies and performativity in discourse."

Her "gender theory" basically boils down to the famous "gender is a social construct" nonsense that's very popular with some far-left types.

Anyways, so we can see (and btw we know the correct position on the particular epistemological issue due to Islam):

1- Plato (born in 5th century BC): Humans are born with certain innate knowledge

2- John Locke (born 29 August 1632): Humans are born as a blank slate

3- Judith Butler (born February 24, 1956): Humans are born as genderless blobs

so what can see here?

Al-Zubair ibn ‘Adi reported: We came to Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, and we complained to him of what we suffered from the ruler Al-Hajjaj. Anas said, “Be patient, for an era will not come upon but that what comes after is worse, until you meet your Lord. I heard it from your Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6657

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2014/06/28/fitnah-worse-than-before/

Just as we may expect from the hadith recorded in Saheeh Bukhari, philosophy has tended to degenerate and go further and further off the deep end over time.

So that is a point that I would like to make about philosophy and that we can see. Philosophy has tended to go further and further off the deep end. If you're familiar with postmodernism, their epistemology is way, way off the deep end. They don't even accept that there is an objective truth (except for their philosophy, of course- thus, their philosophy is self-contradictory but they're so off in outer space they don't care).