[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
quote:
A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. You, on the other hand, have the promise of an afterlife and all you have to do is profess your belief and obedience.
The atheists on EvC (you, and Compmage i think) introduced this phrase, which has been a good point to contemplate for me lately.
Let me tell you a local story. I was taught in elementary school (about late 1980s to early 1990s) taht atheists are bad, nonmoral people. My teacher said that their lack of faith made them behave as they wish, indulging in depravities. Why do they taught me this? It was a political agenda. Indonesians experienced a horrible point in history in the Communist Party coup of 1965, and the aftershock, which include the massacre of communists and the reign of Suharto's New Order, planted a trauma in Indonesians' minds, a hatred towards Communists. Since the commies were atheists, by then denigrating atheists has been a part of the political propaganda in education. I was taught that. Religion, good; atheism, bad.
However, now I have found that not all atheists were moral degenerates; sometimes I think that they faced a greater battle--to maintain a moral position without having a good prospect of what he/she will gain from his/her moral acts. If I give small change to a beggar, part of me did that because charity can earn me heaven. But if an atheist did the same, he/she does not do that in order to get to heaven or avoid hell.
****************************************
M: Hi Andya, I liked your story. Atheists are individuals and thus are as variable in their ethics as religious people. I have religious friends and non-religious friends and don't really see any difference in their behavior towards others i.e. the claim that atheists will all just do whatever they feel like has never been born out. The one common thing I see is that fundamentalists of any kind whether it be christian, muslim, or even hard core atheist christian bashers usually are the least ethical, least intelligent, and the most likely to use their religion to justify truly awful behavior. If you want an example go look at Wordswordsman's posts claiming that he has the characteristics of a deity or that slavery is a good thing and consistent with christian values. Except for the name of the god he worships his attitude is no different than that of the Taliban. When people like that are insignificant ranters you can laugh...but let them get into power and then passenger jets start flying into tall buildings.
next:
quote:
Tell that to the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, or in Iran.
Have you seen those fundamentistic Islamic countries where it is imposed?
As for my own position, I think they overdo the shariah. Recently there has been some political Islamic parties which gain favor in some local governments in Indonesia (in Aceh), and they practised Islamic law there. However, I cannot endorse that they would prefer to make rules that prohibit women to walk alone at night than to strengthen the economy or stop the war between separatists and the Army. Most Islamic fundies fall into symbolism while neglecting the more real problems.
M: That is common to fundamentalists of all groups. Look at American christian fundamentalists...they drape themselves in the American flag and claim to be the defenders of freedom yet are trying to subvert the system to only represent their own views i.e. prayer in school, creationism in school, no separation of church in state. Besides being hypocrites they are unpatriotic as they do not believe in the ideals that the US claims to stand for.
Andy:
ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel.[/B][/QUOTE]
M: That was true of the Taliban and it is also true of Saddam Hussein. He was supported by the U.S. government as a counter weight against Iran after the revolution to prevent radical Islam from spreading throughout the region. So we build our own enemies, enrichen them, arm them to the teeth and then wonder why a guy who was a nut case from day one suddenly decides to turn on us....not particularly clever politics.
cheers,
M
™ Version 4.2