Well, if you already follow a certain religion you probably think that’s the right one. If you don’t already follow a religion, you can still pick one. Sounds logical to me.
maybe I wasn’t clear enough, why scientists converts always picked up Islam as their first Option ?, is it something in the Qur’an that drawed them in ?
Could we get a source on that research? I have a strong feeling that the source (if any) might be an Islamic source.
All I can find is a Yahoo! Answer of someone who claims that he was an atheist and then read the Qur’an and is now Muslim. But I can find the same for christianity, hinduism, Judaism, etc.
But in any case: scientists are still human. Seeing how humans are lazy, insecure and afraid, and we really want to know why and how. Scientists strive to find evidence of something that could be the meaning of life, the meaning of why and how we’re here. If those answers don’t come fast enough or not at all, the easiest way out is to believe something that was written down in ages past. The Qur’an may or may not be less pants-on-head retarded than the christian bible.
Also, this has been brought up before in the religion-threads we’ve had, but holy scriptures are great guidelines on how to live your life, but that doesn’t mean that one has to believe in God, Allah, Jehowa, etc. One can simply follow the Qur’an because (as I said above) it might make more sense than the bible, but that doesn’t mean that people believe in Muhammad or Allah persé.
edit Example: modern western culture is an evolution of the old cultures that were very christian. A lot of the western countries therefore still build upon christian values and live according to christian “laws”. Western atheists don’t believe, but they still live the christian life (proof: everyone still uses expressions as “God!”, “God damn!”, “Oh Jesus”, etc, even if they’re atheist/agnostic).
Interesting points there, Bolteh.
Also, this usually only applies to a number of morality tales and spiritual guidelines of how to be at peace with yourself, which happen to be among the content of these scriptures. The percentage they make up of the whole text is usually rather small.
You can live your life by a holy scripture, but as a rule you’ll have to be cherry-picking if you don’t want to become a mass murdering lunatic who is also a rapist and slaver. (Which is what you would have to become when following the WHOLE scripture).
Although I would agree with you on this point, the “proof” you have mentioned doesn’t qualify as proof at all. I happen to have a habit of greeting people with “as-salāmu ʿalaikum”, because I like to, I think it sounds friendly, and is a wonderful word of greeting to anybody. That doesn’t make me a Muslim, though.
Err, not quite. We still call the planet “Jupiter”, we still call the day “Wednesday”, and we still use the term “holy shit”.
That doesn’t mean that we believe in the Roman or Norse deities, nor do we believe in sacramental excrement.
A lot of our modern society (including those names and terms) are evolutions of Roman and Norse cultures. So ye, that’s my point. One can follow a certain culture or be influenced by a certain religion, without actually believing in the deity involved in that religion).
My entire point with that statement is that you don’t have to believe of a certain religion in order to follow/hold yourself to a few of their rules. I can start living my live according to the teachings in the Qur’an tomorrow, that doesn’t make me a Muslim though.
See, that’s the thing, though. I think you’ve got it backwards. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc etc are based upon humanity’s morals, not the other way around. So, when an atheist ascribes to these morals (by and large, a vast majority of atheists do), they’re acting upon their humanity, not any religious morals. The religions, I feel, co-opted humanity and are trying to call it their own which, I feel, is a form of plagiarism.
Which wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself if they didn’t, in the course of representing it as their own, called those that weren’t members of that particular religion or denomination “immoral”.
Wasn’t that the point he was getting at?
Human instinct doesn’t have morals. Morals are dictated by culture, culture is shaped by religion.
I think we need to divide morality into two groups; simple morals and societal morals, with the latter being the result of culture and society, and the former being the morals we inherit from our social instincts.
Guys, morality is an huge argument for a thread of its own.
^bscly. A debate about morals on the internet would be huge, considering morals differ in each culture, and the variety of cultures on the internet.
I don’t agree.
Also, human behaviour isn’t dictated solely by instinct, but also by reason and logic (and culture).
How about a multi-cultural code of morality?
Treat your children like they do in China (cheap manpower for factories)
…your women like they do in Japan and Arab-Land 
(good for servicing men, and fun to rape)
…foreign languages like they do in France (Anglais? Non! Parlez francais!)
…freedom of speech like they do in Korea
…science like they do in Central Africa (“If I hit the trigger of my ak-47, over 99,99% of the time, a burst of bullets will come out of the front. This has been proven under reasonable experimental conditions.”)
Let’s also respect the sovereignty of other nations, just as the US government uses to do 
Isn’t living in a multi-cultural world grand?
Seriously people, don’t hijack this thread with a discussion on morality. If you want to discuss it, make your own thread.
MORALS
ETHICS
ISLAMIC TEACHINGS!