Dear grateful,

You quoted my words, "We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong." Isn't that enough? If in an Islamic society you believe that eating pig is wrong others don't have to believe the same thing. Not having an objective morality is not the same as having no morality. You have made a false equation. In society our standards of right and wrong cannot differ widely or we cannot live together. However, they need not be the same. Morality exists and is real. An objective morality would be the same for everyone on earth. That is unreasonable. Before Judaism, Christianity and Islam were invented people got along together one way or another. The three religions did not invent morality. Morality is merely a means people have worked out for getting along with each other. It's that simple.

You wrote: "In Islam, there is right and wrong and we do have a conscience and the reason why our conscience can be a guided to right and wrong is because it is inspired by God. This explanation is coherent and logically consistent."

The above is a statement of belief not logic. Judaism and Christianity also claim they are inspired by God. However, what is allowed and forbidden in all three religions is different. It is reasonable to assume that neither Islam, Judaism nor Christianity is inspired by God.

You used the words, fundamentalist atheist, and then asked me to define those words. I know of no fundamentalist atheists.

Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism for a definition of fundamentalism. It generally applies to religious believers.

I was raised in a Jewish home and have had a Jewish education. However, I am now an atheist who is interested in promoting separation of religion and state.

When I was a little boy I heard the story of Abraham and Isaac. (I know the Qur'aan has a different story) I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I couldn’t believe in such a God.

David, you wrote: << "In Islam, there is right and wrong and we do have a conscience and the reason why our conscience can be a guided to right and wrong is because it is inspired by God. This explanation is coherent and logically consistent."

The above is a statement of belief not logic.>>

Correction: the above statement is an explanation. You have not offered an explanation of morality which is free of contradiction.

You continue..
<< Morality exists and is real. An objective morality would be the same for everyone on earth. That is unreasonable. Before Judaism, Christianity and Islam were invented people got along together one way or another. The three religions did not invent morality. Morality is merely a means people have worked out for getting along with each other. It's that simple.>>

Yes “morality exists and is real”, but you cannot provide an explanation for it. An objective morality is one that does not depend on the whims of any human being and cannot be “merely a means PEOPLE have worked out for getting along with each other.”

To emphasise my point consider a few examples. The Incas were a people who followed their whims and worked out that as part of getting along with each other they would have an annual sacrifice of virgins to appease their gods. In Mecca before Islam people followed their whims and “got along” by burying their female babies alive and treating woman as chattel, with no rights over their husbands nor to inheritance. You would want to say “This is absolutely wrong”, but with your notion of morality who are you to tell others what is right and wrong?

In other words your explanation of morality is incompatible with your own inclinations and your inclinations are a reality that you have yet to offer an explanation for.

cont...2/3

I can only think of three ways of responding. The first: demonstrate there is no conflict. The second would be to acknowledge the conflict between your explanation of morality and the facts, and then seek an explanation that does not conflict with the inclinations that arise when you consult your conscience.

The third would be remain with your own belief that morality is “a means PEOPLE have worked out for getting along with each other”, despite its incoherence and live a double life: professing one thing, but practicing another in everyday life.

The third path is a path to a type of fundamentalism: adherence to a belief even if it is incompatible with reality.

Steve, do you believe atheists cannot be described as fundamentalist? I know what the dictionary says, but why should the mentality that underpins fundamentalism be limited to people who ascribed to beliefs because of a religion and not also acknowledge that atheists may adhere to beliefs that are in conflict with reality.

cont...

cont 3/4

For example i know atheists who would ascribe to beliefs about Islam no matter how much evidence was thrown at them. Consider the following example: Bernard Lewis, the eminent Islamic scholar and history, who falls into the neo-con camp and was advisor to Pres. G. Bush Jr. on matters Islam. He likes to use the term “Islamofacism” so he cannot be said to belong to the PC brigade. Yet in his book, co-author with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, "Islam: The Religion and the People" he has said:

"At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition)."

"Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements."

"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion." [pp. 53]

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible." [ page 146]

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[page 146]

David you say you have not come across a ‘fundamentalist atheist’. But surely you would want to deny the existence of atheists who would cling to the myths that even Bernard Lewis is prepared to say are just that: MYTHS.

cont..

Dear Grateful,

Morality is a code, implicit or explicit, worked out by humans as a way to deal with each other and live together. Those like Mohammed who invent religions put forth their moral code as the word of God. I gave a good explanation of morality. The fact that you don't accept it merely means that you subscribe to your religion which gives a supernatural explanation of reality.

You wrote: "To emphasise my point consider a few examples. The Incas were a people who followed their whims and worked out that as part of getting along with each other they would have an annual sacrifice of virgins to appease their gods. In Mecca before Islam people followed their whims ..."

The above statement shows your prejudice. The Incas and the people in Mecca before Islam followed their religion as you follow your religion. You want respect for your beliefs yet you call the religious beliefs of other people 'whims'. I think it better to say that the Incas, the people in Mecca before Islam and the Muslims all have or had their beliefs. It is also reasonable to assume that as the beliefs of the Incas and of the people in Mecca before Islam have been replaced the beliefs of the Muslims will also be replaced. Religious beliefs may last a long time, but eventually they go.

I object to the term Islamofascism as fascism was an early twentieth century ideology which does not describe the present Islamists. I doubt that Lewis would use such a term, but maybe I'm wrong. Please cite a reference where he used that term.

You wrote: "Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[page 146]

That is absolutely true. I have argued that point with many who condemn Islam.

The fact that atheists may be wrong in what they think does not make them fundamentalists. I think none of us can be entirely correct.

Grateful

I am well acquainted with the works of Bernard Lewis. Prior to the emergence of Wahabbism as the dominant strain of Islam he had a certain respect for your religion.

From my perspective this is NOT about a code of ethics. Islamic ethics has much in common with the ethics of most major religions. To me it appears that, from the ethical perspective, what's good in Islam is not new and what's new is not good.

This is EMPHATICALLY not about terrorism. Most Muslims are NOT terrorists. Islamic terrorism is less of a threat than Melbourne drivers.

From my perspective it is this:

--The claims Islam makes about the koran are DEMONSTRABLY untrue. You are perpetrating a LIE.

--Sharia law in PRACTICE is horrible. It IS a totalitarian ideology plain and simple.

All that being said I do not perceive any danger from Islam. I DO perceive a danger in APPEASING Islam. You are free to do and say as you please. But I must be free to do likewise which includes describing the true nature of your loathsome totalitarian belief system.

And now I ask you to consider this.

Why did Europe leap ahead of the Muslim world in science and technology?

It is not a rhetorical question. I really would like you to provide an answer. Bernard Lewis among others has written extensively on this topic.

You might start with the works of Al-Ghazali.

Oh, and BTW, what did Muhammad have against geckos? Why did he say those who kill geckos will get a reward in heaven?

I like geckos.