Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[crayon]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven? Whether it's christianity, islam, or any other religion that requires acceptance before death to go to heaven (like not an "everyone goes to heaven" type of religion).

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

[Whatsthepoint]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven? Whether it's christianity, islam, or any other religion that requires acceptance before death to go to heaven (like not an "everyone goes to heaven" type of religion).

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ...eature=related
2:15
:exhausted:D

[------]

:salamext:

That aint even funny.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

its ok, i worry for them

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Gator]

Yes I think about it, but I don't worry about it. If I found that out I was wrong, I'd at least have some solace in the fact my family got to go (if they were the right religion of course.)

[Azy]

If there is a god, then he knows my mind on this. If he thinks I'm going to choose from one of a thousand religions that have come and gone, over humanity's observations of the real world then he's got another thing coming. If it came to that when I got to the gates, I think he'd understand.

"I do not feel obliged to believe the same God that has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended for us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei

[Pygoscelis]

My reply to the topic....

No, my theist friend. By the way, do you ever worry the exact same thing? That you are worshiping the wrong God and will be sent to hellfire for it?

If you read through many holy texts, the Gods depicted within them seem much more angry at those who worship false Gods than those who don't worship at all.

[Trumble]

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

No.

One of the most natural, and almost universally shared, human fears is that of death.. in the context of the idea that the 'I' we know and in a sense being all we know will cease to exist. The idea of a heaven or an afterlife is just a way of dealing with that fear, but that idea has no basis other than wishful thinking. It's a placebo, although maybe that description is a little unfair in that if belief in an afterlife survives until death it has served it's purpose.

Buddhism takes a different approach. Rather than any afterlife belief it seeks to dispense with the 'I', and hence the fear associated with that 'I' ceasing to exist, and hence the problem.

[KAding]

No, can't say I do worry.

Firstly, I just don't believe in 'judgment day'.
Secondly, if there were one I would think whoever judged me would be sensible enough to judge me on any unnecessary harm I inflicted on to fellow living beings, rather than the religious doctrine I followed during my lifetime.

[AvarAllahNoor]

No, can't say I do worry.

Firstly, I just don't believe in 'judgment day'.
Secondly, if there were one I would think whoever judged me would be sensible enough to judge me on any unnecessary harm I inflicted on to fellow living beings, rather than the religious doctrine I followed during my lifetime.

I agree with this. Some 'religious' people are the worst kind, evil in holy garbs. Yet there are some that dont' follow a relgion or worship God, and are kind and very charitable towards the unfortunate. Sikhism states the actions are the decider. Not the amound of lips service one did during his her life.

[barney]

Nope I'm happy. If I'm gonna be punished for telling a few lies and downloading far far more pr0n than I really should, then fair do's.
I've lived my life helping others and trying to do no harm whilst having fun.

If thats not enough for a diety, then i wouldnt want to worship it in the first place.
(And I Like Bacon, and Most Gods hate us liking Bacon,)

[AvarAllahNoor]

Go on Barney, come to the dark side....we have cookies :D

[snakelegs]

no i don't. i cannot imagine that god would be so narrow as to only approve of one specific way to serve him - it is simply beyond my imagination.
i believe that god is beyond religion.
i also neither believe nor disbelieve in an afterlife, so it is not among my worries.

[Sarada]

For a time I was an agnostic, and also an atheist. When I was an agnostic, the question of God worried me,when I was an atheist, it did not.

During the time I was a Christian, I questioned the concept of God. Now that I am a Hindu, I no longer question or worry.

As a believer in Advaita, or non-dualism I believe that God is in every thing.

So, what's to worry?:)

[barney]

AvarAllah: Mayby I will....but what flavour? :)

Saradar: It may be easy to see God in a flower or in the laugh of a child or the purr of a kitten, but Is God in the Tsunami? Is he in Children with muscle wasting diseases and finally is he in Chicken McNuggetts.
If so then perhaps you should worry a bit!

[crayon]

Interesting answers guys, thanks!

Pygoscelis- I don't, actually. One of the reasons I asked for only the answers of atheists & agnostics is because I assumed (incorrectly, probably) that everyone who follows a specific religion is completely convinced, 100%, no doubt in their mind, of its truth. So since I am certain that islam is the truth, I don't worry about if everything that happens after death as described by Allah and the prophet peace be upon him is true or not. I know it is. All I worry about is having enough good deeds and as little sins as possible in order to enter paradise..

[------]

:salamext:

(And I Like Bacon, and Most Gods hate us liking Bacon,)

Yeh I wonder why?!?!?! 3 rashes of that=20% increase in cancer

God thinks for OUR benefit, BE LOGICAL man sheesh

[barney]

:salamext:



Yeh I wonder why?!?!?! 3 rashes of that=20% increase in cancer

God thinks for OUR benefit, BE LOGICAL man sheesh

Then why not create Pigs with omega 3 fats in the first place? And its not even 3 rashers = 20 % increase. Its a consistant fatty diet of anything cloven hoofed or not.

[------]

:salamext:

And its not even 3 rashers = 20 % increase.

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...-sausages.html

Eating just one sausage or three rashers of bacon a day can increase the risk of developing bowel cancer by a fifth, it is being claimed.

Then why not create Pigs with omega 3 fats in the first place?

To see whether you use ur common sense and refrain from eating what God has forbidden you?!

[barney]

:salamext:



http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...-sausages.html






To see whether you use ur common sense and refrain from eating what God has forbidden you?!

Cripes! A sausage a day! You'd die within a couple of years from lard overdose! It woldnt and dosnt matter if the fat is from a pig or a goat or a camel to be honest.

[Pygoscelis]

One of the reasons I asked for only the answers of atheists & agnostics is because I assumed (incorrectly, probably) that everyone who follows a specific religion is completely convinced, 100%, no doubt in their mind, of its truth. Interesting answers guys, thanks!

I suspect that most atheists (though perhaps not agnostics) are as convinced that there is no God as you are that there is one. I don't rule out a God/creator altogether but I put existence of the gods specifically claimed in earth's religions to be so improbable as to be essentially zero. The comparisons you sometimes hear to the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot are not simple insults we hurl at religions, most of us actually DO see the existence of your gods as truly equaly as likely as the existence of those things. :) So no, most atheists don't worry about being wrong anymore than theists do. Agnostics though --- may be less sure.

[barney]

I suspect that most atheists (though perhaps not agnostics) are as convinced that there is no God as you are that there is one. I don't rule out a God/creator altogether but I put existence of the gods specifically claimed in earth's religions to be so improbable as to be essentially zero. The comparisons you sometimes hear to the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot are not simple insults we hurl at religions, most of us actually DO see the existence of your gods as truly equaly as likely as the existence of those things. :) So no, most atheists don't worry about being wrong anymore than theists do. Agnostics though --- may be less sure.

Ahh Pygo, Your just a old agnostic at heart! *Puggle*

[Azy]

To see whether you use ur common sense and refrain from eating what God has forbidden you?!

Surely it would be common sense if he hadn't said anything and then we chose not to eat them of your own accord because we know it's bad for us.

Not eating what is forbidden isn't common sense, it's just following orders.

[ZarathustraDK]

I suspect that most atheists (though perhaps not agnostics) are as convinced that there is no God as you are that there is one. I don't rule out a God/creator altogether but I put existence of the gods specifically claimed in earth's religions to be so improbable as to be essentially zero. The comparisons you sometimes hear to the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot are not simple insults we hurl at religions, most of us actually DO see the existence of your gods as truly equaly as likely as the existence of those things. :) So no, most atheists don't worry about being wrong anymore than theists do. Agnostics though --- may be less sure.

Somebody has been listening to Richard Dawkins eh? :)

Practically I agree with the man in 99% of what he's saying, only difference is how important we view the verified existence/non-existence of a supreme being. He settles for probability, I want absolute certainty before I invest belief in such a matter.

He has given a lecture in Lynchburg which was uploaded to youtube. Great stuff. Note that he doesn't ask people to blindly believe anything, simply to use common sense.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&feature=related

Oh, and admins, please cut out the links if you find them inappropriate.. I don't see him go on an emotional tirade against islam, so I guess it's ok, but if not then....

[Yanal]

Asalam alaykum
Athiests and Agnostics seem to verify that they have no good indeed. But the disapointing part for them is that there is a god, Allah(SWT). He is gracious and merciful.
If the Agnostics and Atheists worry the shytan would have an ease to put the thought away.
Again this is only what I think.
Khudafiz
Sincerly,No One

[ZarathustraDK]

Asalam alaykum
Athiests and Agnostics seem to verify that they have no good indeed. But the disapointing part for them is that there is a god, Allah(SWT).

Well, I can fly by flapping my arms, but only when no-one is looking or recording me. Do you believe what I say? :statisfie

[Gator]

[B]Asalam alaykum
Athiests and Agnostics seem to verify that they have no good indeed.

I'm sorry, but from what I've said why don't I have any good? Or what exactly did someone or everyone say that verified for you that all atheists and agnostics were no good.
Thanks.

[barney]

[QUOTE=Yanal;923011]Asalam alaykum
Athiests and Agnostics seem to verify that they have no good indeed. But the disapointing part for them is that there is a god, Allah(SWT). He is gracious and merciful.
If the Agnostics and Atheists worry the shytan would have an ease to put the thought away.
Again this is only what I think.
Khudafiz
Sincerly,****[/QUOTE]

OK matey. Thanks .

[------]

:salamext:

Surely it would be common sense if he hadn't said anything and then we chose not to eat them of your own accord because we know it's bad for us.

Not eating what is forbidden isn't common sense, it's just following orders.

I don't know what common sense is for you, but u need to refine its meaning mate!

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:

its ok, i worry for them

why do you worry about someone who dosnt worry about themselves?

Secondly, if there were one I would think whoever judged me would be sensible enough to judge me on any unnecessary harm I inflicted on to fellow living beings, rather than the religious doctrine I followed during my lifetime.

hmm...interesting...want to ask though; what makes you think that the one who is gonna judge you is basing his judgements on that criteria? i mean its like when you go to hand in an assignment... your not going to get marked for what you werent asked to do, as good as it is...for arguments sake.

[------]

:salamext:

The results of the poll are shocking...but expected...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

why should those who have sealed hearts worry?

[------]

:salamext:

^ Point...

[Azy]

I don't know what common sense is for you, but u need to refine its meaning mate!

Why don't you educate me instead of making inferences that I'm wrong?

I've never heard of a definition of common sense that included taking advice from someone else, since then it would be their sense and not yours that is critical to making the decision.

hmm...interesting...want to ask though; what makes you think that the one who is gonna judge you is basing his judgements on that criteria? i mean its like when you go to hand in an assignment... your not going to get marked for what you werent asked to do, as good as it is...for arguments sake.

Sorry for sticking my nose into this one, I realise you were asking someone else, but if I may post a suggestion.
I don't think it is fair to make a comparison to "what you weren't asked to do".
Does not the Qur'an contains instructions to be fair and judicious, benevolent and kind, and generally be a good person in all aspects of your life? If KAding does these things you can't say they weren't asked of him, every religion I can think of asks that you be considerate to other people.

If those things were not present, I don't think many people would want to follow a god who based his decision solely on how often you prayed and ignored how you treated your fellow man.

[KAding]

hmm...interesting...want to ask though; what makes you think that the one who is gonna judge you is basing his judgements on that criteria? i mean its like when you go to hand in an assignment... your not going to get marked for what you werent asked to do, as good as it is...for arguments sake.

I largely agree with Azy's reply on this. I just don't think the Qu'ran is an accurate reflection of the criteria used by God to judge us. If I thought it would be I would be a Muslim, which I am not.

If there is indeed a judgment day and a just God, I just can't imagine that he would judge me based on anything but my actions towards others. I.e. the net level of harm I inflicted on others. I just don't think a just God could condemn me for not worshiping him or, for example, eating during Ramadan.

[Pygoscelis]

I largely agree with Azy's reply on this. I just don't think the Qu'ran is an accurate reflection of the criteria used by God to judge us. If I thought it would be I would be a Muslim, which I am not.

If there is indeed a judgment day and a just God, I just can't imagine that he would judge me based on anything but my actions towards others. I.e. the net level of harm I inflicted on others. I just don't think a just God could condemn me for not worshiping him or, for example, eating during Ramadan.

I agree with you on this, and I would add that any God that claimed to judge me based on anything other than the good and bad I have done to the world I would not bow down to anyway. I'd consider myself morally correct in opposing and defying them.

[barney]

That leads back to the Human values debate. Have we outstripped God on Ethics. If this is impossible, then our ethics are wrong. It's ok to behead, to stone your kids and to rape your slaves and murder.

Why do such things seem so wrong to us when they are so right for God.

[ranma1/2]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven? Whether it's christianity, islam, or any other religion that requires acceptance before death to go to heaven (like not an "everyone goes to heaven" type of religion).

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

No not realy, of course i noticed you put in (some religion) do you do the same? Ever wonder if you picked or was placed in the wrong choice?

I have in the past wondered about life after death, when i was a kid i use to worry about hell till i looked at how silly it is or how silly and vain hte misc gods are. ( ok god sacrificed himself to himself to forgive himself for what he did. WTF?) (or that god personally cares abotu my sex life enough to send me to hell but not enough to actually show up... SICK)

So no not realy, (perhaps in an occasional hypocondriac sense but not in any rational sense)


However ever hypothetically if i were to find out that X god were true.
I would prolly rebel and join any other rebelling against such an evil and unfair god. (No representation and all that.)

[barney]

I would prolly rebel and join any other rebelling against such an evil and unfair god. (No representation and all that.)

Well that makes two of us.

(perhaps we ought to not post about that, otherwise theyll know and send us to seperate parts of hell so we cant plan the resistance.)

[Pygoscelis]

Vive la Resistance!

And note our geographic locations. Between the 3 of us we can triangulate to encircle the globe!

[ranma1/2]

we need an Ausi and someone on in Africa and Southamerica for good cover. I dont think we need to bother with Antartica at the moment though.

[barney]

No. we need to congregate in Hell of course.

You guys get over to Yorkshire ASAP! If you could see Leeds , then you shall know Hell.

Ranma, your taking the 2nd hell, Pygo Cover the 4th, i'll handle the 6th.






By the way, if anyone thinks we are going off thread, simply look at the title again, and you'll getan idea of how much we worry by our posts!

[ZarathustraDK]

we need an Ausi and someone on in Africa and Southamerica for good cover. I dont think we need to bother with Antartica at the moment though.

For some odd reason I thought about what muslims would do if they found themselves in the antarctic in january during ramadan.

'shakes head'

Gotta sleep, nighty :uhwhat

[i_m_tipu]

its ok, i worry for them

hahaha.. don't waste ur energy..

[Azy]

hahaha.. don't waste ur energy..

too right, why waste your energy on a bunch of kafirs

[Ummu Sufyaan]

I don't think it is fair to make a comparison to "what you weren't asked to do".
Does not the Qur'an contains instructions to be fair and judicious, benevolent and kind, and generally be a good person in all aspects of your life?

sorry, i should have eloborated...as i said, it was just for arguments sake

If those things were not present, I don't think many people would want to follow a god who based his decision solely on how often you prayed and ignored how you treated your fellow man.

as i said, for arguments sake...
peace

If there is indeed a judgment day and a just God, I just can't imagine that he would judge me based on anything but my actions towards others.

why, what makes you say that?...i mean the one who created you, gave you all these favours, etc, im not sure what the big deal is, if you are asked to worhip him :?
Peace...

[i_m_tipu]

too right, why waste your energy on a bunch of kafirs

i don't get it. This is a Islamic Forum. And u telling me i m here with a bunch of kafirs. Wrong understanding here also..
I told that bro not worry for ppl like u.
My purpose is to tell the truth. As Allah order me to do so.
It does not affect me atall whether u reject it or make fun of it.

[Skavau]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven?

No. I am glad I do not believe in a religion or a religious interpretation that chooses who goes to heaven not based on acts, or decency but on belief. I am glad I do not believe in a religion or religious interpretation that in a sense, relies upon or exists in the doctrine the threat of cosmic torture for the 'crime' of disbelief. I would find it morally reprehensible that good people would be sent to hell for disbelief.

Whatever power such a being shall have over me, there is one thing
which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will
call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet
to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell
for not calling him so, then to hell I will go. - John Stuart Mill

Athiests and Agnostics seem to verify that they have no good indeed. But the disapointing part for them is that there is a god, Allah(SWT).

That of course, is up for debate.

He is gracious and merciful.

Equally, amongst many circles - that is up for debate.

[Amadeus85]

I wanted to ask something the atheists. They think that religious symbols in public places should be banned because these symbols insult atheists.So I ask, should modern countries ban public patriotic manifestations, because not all citizens are patriots in this country and they feel insulted?

[Gator]

My personal opinion, as an atheist, is that public religions symbols should not be banned and I don't view them as an insult. They are part of a tradition of a community.

thanks.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm with Gator, so long as all of those symbols are allowed and some are not given government affiliation or special treatment. I consider it fine for people to have jesus fish or hajib or cross necklaces or even billboards advertising their religions so long as none of it is publicly funded or affiliated.

What I don't approve of is things like putting "In God We Trust" on the money or having the Star of David as the national flag or putting "One nation, under god" in a pledge of allegiance. Those make me feel unwelcome and less than equal in the country.

In relation to your question, patriotism is love of one's country, and it'd make little sense to say the government shouldn't endorse or be affiliated with love of its country. That said though, we SHOULD be on guard against authoritarianism and nationalism. Saying "I'm proud to be an american" is one thing. Saying "Love it or leave it! USA #1! We are superior!" or my personal favourites "We are the only nation on earth with X" or "This is only possible in america" (which is hardly ever true) is another.

[جوري]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَنفُسَكُمْ لاَ يَضُرُّكُم مَّن ضَلَّ إِذَا اهْتَدَيْتُمْ إِلَى اللّهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ {105}

[5:105] O you who have attained to faith! It is [but] for your own selves that you are responsible: those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path. Unto God you all must return: and then He will make you [truly] understand all that you were,doing [in life].


I have always felt this verse ample to not want to get into perverse discourse with non-muslims...
People will always want to justify themselves how wonderful and great they, with this amazing sense of worth and entitlement... you'll also find in suret al'moemnoon how their dues are given them right away

نُسَارِعُ لَهُمْ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ بَل لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ {56}

[Pickthal 23:56] We hasten unto them with good things? Nay, but they perceive not.

and with this they will be owed nothing on the day of recompense ... Not that they are owed at all anyway.. just to have a chance at life i itself s a magnificent gift all its own..

Personally OP.. I would worry about my own self.. no sense for others to spend what little time they have on earth in wonderment, once they have made up their own mind about their journeying.. conversations will only derange into their wayward understanding of Justice, Allah swt, the universe they inhabit, and it isn't worth it!

Allah SWT is the best judge, most knowledgable and kind.. thus, you must concede in your heart, that folks whether overt or covert with their actions, intentions and/or deeds, they will get their divine justice..

:w:

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Pygoscelis;937522]

I'm with Gator, so long as all of those symbols are allowed and some are not given government affiliation or special treatment. I consider it fine for people to have jesus fish or hajib or cross necklaces or even billboards advertising their religions so long as none of it is publicly funded or affiliated.

I was talking rather about things like Ten Commandments table in court or other public ofices or a cross hanging in post office.

What I don't approve of is things like putting "In God We Trust" on the money or having the Star of David as the national flag or putting "One nation, under god" in a pledge of allegiance. Those make me feel unwelcome and less than equal in the country.

What about nationals flags of many european countries, like England, Greece or Sweden where crosses are placed. Should they be changed in your opinion?

[Pygoscelis]

I was talking rather about things like Ten Commandments table in court or other public ofices or a cross hanging in post office.

These I object to. It shows a special affiliation between the state and one particular religion.

What about nationals flags of many european countries, like England, Greece or Sweden where crosses are placed. Should they be changed in your opinion?

Ideally yes. Will it happen or is it really worth the effort, not really. They've been around so long that people don't really pay attention to them or see them as religious symbols anymore. I'd feel different about a cross being introduced today on say the Canadian flag.

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Pygoscelis;937560]

These I object to. It shows a special affiliation between the state and one particular religion.

You are atheist so you dont believe in Ten Commandments and the Cross so why it bothers you? For you it should be just pieces of wood/metal. Just like chair or a table.
Besides dont you think that in West there was a special affiliation between state and particular religion?(no,no buddhism).I mean, I dont know in details about Canada, but countries in western Europe has 1000 year old christian tradition and about 50 years old secular tradition. So why that last one should be more important?

[Keltoi]

[QUOTE=Aaron85;937571]

You are atheist so you dont believe in Ten Commandments and the Cross so why it bothers you? For you it should be just pieces of wood/metal. Just like chair or a table.
Besides dont you think that in West there was a special affiliation between state and particular religion?(no,no buddhism).I mean, I dont know in details about Canada, but countries in western Europe has 1000 year old christian tradition and about 50 years old secular tradition. So why that last one should be more important?

That is actually a good point. The answer of course lies in the fact that the basis of secular government is freedom of religion. The concept that the government will not endorse a particular faith and promote it. Of course most people understand that the culture of Europe(at one time) and the culture of the U.S. is founded on the Christian tradition.

Most of the history, holidays, historical events, etc are all related to Christianity in one way or another. The question is whether protecting the sensibilities of the athiest minority should supercede the freedom of people to express their religious beliefs. The design of the flag, the motto on currency, etc are all expressions of the religious makeup of the nation.

[Pygoscelis]

You are atheist so you dont believe in Ten Commandments and the Cross so why it bothers you? For you it should be just pieces of wood/metal. Just like chair or a table.

The symbology has meaning. It represents a religion that has been hostile towards non-believers for centuries, millenia even. And I do not want it or any other religion pushing its way into government and attempting to control the people or make one group of people feel more accepted or proper than another. You are correct that Christianity ruled europe for a long while (and inspired some truly horrific periods in history), but we've gotten beyond that now. And I like to think that we've learned enough from the past to realize that theocracy is a bad idea.

Whatever America and Europe once were, they are no longer "Christian Nations" (well aside from the vatican). They are multicultural societies, including many religions and ahteists too. I like this trend away from religious tribalism. Its one of my favourite things about living where I do.

To have freedom of religion you require freedom from the other guy's religion. It is fine to express your religion, wear religious garb, even put up a billboard declaring your love for Jesus - as a private citizen. Just don't try to push it on the rest of us through sucessive degrees of theocracy.

[barney]

I havn't heard any atheists complain about wearing crosses, having the cresent moon or the star of david visable. (Well actually, yeah, the star of david draws a lot of complaints, because of the neo-con-zionist led genocide-holocust)

It makes no difference to me having the symbols scattered about. Religion (christianity) needs to advertise to remain viable, hence all the billboards advertising "come and worship jesus here" outside the churchs.

You would never see that outside a mosque. Muslims simply know that they have to worship Allah, not doing so is unthinkable as an option.

[جوري]

a creascent moon really means nothing to Muslims.. it symbolizes nothing.. It is an ottoman symbol, personally I think it does more harm than good with morons out there thinking we worship a moon God..


cheers

[ranma1/2]

I wanted to ask something the atheists. They think that religious symbols in public places should be banned because these symbols insult atheists.So I ask, should modern countries ban public patriotic manifestations, because not all citizens are patriots in this country and they feel insulted?

No i think that goverment endorcements of religion are bad. Wether its buddhism (essentially an atheistic religion), scientology, wicca, or others.

I dont know of any atheists that think religious symbols insult them. (we arent vampires although some think we are demons or agents of satan.)

[Converse02]

I voted #2
Interesting, there are 15 atheists/agnostics here that voted.

Not trying to be cute, but if I told you if you don't believe in the great invisible unicorn, she will trample you for all eternity, would you worry about it? I doubt it.
You cannot threaten a person into believing in something.
There are literally hundreds of confident religions and philosophies in human history, all with their alleged miracles, and all have apostates who have explained away the alleged miracles. Which one is right? There may be miracles and religions I have not heard of or did not have time or resources to evaluate.

If God truly exists and is all-knowing, he will know my honest intentions and that I searched for him. If God create me, his great and mighty foresight must of seen which way I would choose even before I was born, yet he create me anyway. If I met him/her/it, I will ask "why?"

Don't mean to be inflammatory, but Muhammad al Warraq once said:
He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool.

[Pygoscelis]

More to the point I think, is that if a God exists who would punish somebody for not believing he exists, then that God is a petty God, and not one I would not consider worthy of worship.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Don't mean to be inflammatory, but Muhammad al Warraq once said:
He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool.

i agree with this, if i send an armless man shopping im a fool, because he has no arms and cannot carry out the task.

God created man to worship him and every man is given the tools which make him capable of doing so. In islaam the only ones who do not have to pray are the ones who are unconcious or mentally ill (insane) and the females during their time of the month

We must pray with our eyes if we cant move a single limb, i saw my own father pray this way before he passed away.

So your attempt to call God a fool was hugely mistaken and i hope you will admit to that.

More to the point I think, is that if a God exists who would punish somebody for not believing he exists, then that God is a petty God, and not one I would not consider worthy of worship.

im sure this little comment of yours has been answered a million *sighs*

along with worshipping God comes a whole list of other things, you become a better person, you start living for better reasons, your whole view of life changes, you achknowledge the one who gives you everything.

to consider punishment for disbelief as petty you must have completely misunderstood just what worshipping God entails.

worshipping isnt just bowing to God, thats not it. Worshipping is completely devoting your life to him, living the reason he created you, being patient grateful and abstaining from evil.


to punish the absence of the reason for your creation is certainly NOT petty

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

More to the point I think, is that if a God exists who would punish somebody for not believing he exists, then that God is a petty God, and not one I would not consider worthy of worship.

Appeal to emotion...

[Converse02]

i agree with this, if i send an armless man shopping im a fool, because he has no arms and cannot carry out the task.

Yes, I agree to an extent. But consider: Even if you send a person with arms, but are knowing enough to foresee he will not shop even for you even if you order him too, it is still wise to ask him to shop and then punish him when he does not?

God created man to worship him and every man is given the tools which make him capable of doing so. In islaam the only ones who do not have to pray are the ones who are unconcious or mentally ill (insane) and the females during their time of the month.

Yes, I understand why Muslims see it like that. But as an atheist, I have not yet accepted that God created us to worship him, or the God is a coherent enough of a concept for me to accept yet. And if it is only the insane who do not worship God, then there are a millions of insane people living today. These alleged insane people happen to include Nobel prize winners like Marie Curie. Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison reportedly do not worship God. Many people probably even Muslims would call wise except for the sole fact they do not worship. I certainly do not think I am insane.

We must pray with our eyes if we cant move a single limb, i saw my own father pray this way before he passed away.

I am sorry to hear your father is no longer with us to share his thoughts. He was a strongly devoted man. I respect that.

So your attempt to call God a fool was hugely mistaken and i hope you will admit to that.

It is a quote that applies universally to any being and I think even you agree it holds a grain of truth. It is not specially aimed toward God.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Yes, I agree to an extent. But consider: Even if you send a person with arms, but are knowing enough to foresee he will not shop even for you even if you order him too, it is still wise to ask him to shop and then punish him when he does not?

thing is he had the absolute free-will to carry the task out. He had everything at his disposal, there is absolutely no excuse for not carrying it out. Therefore it is punishable and justified. Your knowing hasnt changed anything, you didnt force him to not shop.. you didnt even make it more appealing to him, he chose himself

Yes, I understand why Muslims see it like that. But as an atheist, I have not yet accepted that God created us to worship him, or the God is a coherent enough of a concept for me to accept yet. And if it is only the insane who do not worship God, then there are a millions of insane people living today. These alleged insane people happen to include Nobel prize winners like Marie Curie. Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison reportedly do not worship God. Many people probably even Muslims would call wise except for the sole fact they do not worship. I certainly do not think I am insane.

sorry i must have been unclear, i meant they are the only ones excused from not worshipping God, due to their lack of sanity God wont hold them accountable, God only holds accountable for what we do in our sanity.

In order to accept God created us you need to seriously consider how you would function without a God... thats what helps me most.

God guides whom he wills

I am sorry to hear your father is no longer with us to share his thoughts. He was a strongly devoted man. I respect that.

Thank you :)

It is a quote that applies universally to any being and I think even you agree it holds a grain of truth. It is not specially aimed toward God.

Yes i do agree with the quote

[Skavau]

im sure this little comment of yours has been answered a million *sighs*

Yes.

However, most of these comments have been very poorly answered.

along with worshipping God comes a whole list of other things, you become a better person, you start living for better reasons, your whole view of life changes, you achknowledge the one who gives you everything.

With this explanation here you automatically presume that becoming a better person and living for better reasons are impossible without belief and acceptance of Islam.

Why does acknowledgment of God specifically mean so much in Islam?

to consider punishment for disbelief as petty you must have completely misunderstood just what worshipping God entails.

I would honestly go further than Pygoscelis. I would say that a God that punishes people for disbelief in himself is beyond petty and into the outright immoral category. Belief is not a choice, but a conviction. To disbelief in the existence of God as an atheist is to simply be honest to oneself. How such an honest standpoint is at all deserving of eternal torture in a hypothetical hellfire is beyond any kind of ethical understanding ever.

worshipping isnt just bowing to God, thats not it. Worshipping is completely devoting your life to him, living the reason he created you, being patient grateful and abstaining from evil.

to punish the absence of the reason for your creation is certainly NOT petty

None of this answers the contention that torture in hell is immoral.

How can you justify torture for an individual who is guilty of nothing more than being mistaken?

[Keltoi]

With these sorts of debates its apparent that theists and athiests speak an entirely different language. The theist makes an argument, that to them, seems like a good one. The athiests makes an argument, that to them, seems like a good one. In my experience, those who disbelieve in God do not change their minds due to debate or conversation. They do so after having a personal religious experience.

[Converse02]

thing is he had the absolute free-will to carry the task out. He had everything at his disposal, there is absolutely no excuse for not carrying it out. Therefore it is punishable and justified. Your knowing hasnt changed anything, you didnt force him to not shop.. you didnt even make it more appealing to him, he chose himself

Of the man or the reasons why he was disobedient is not what I am aiming at, it is the nature of this alleged God. I agree with your overall assessment, but I think knowing has changed something.
Consider: If a being give a creation free-will, and foresaw that the creation would used it’s free-will incorrectly (foresaw he would choose incorrectly and disobey), do you think it is wise and merciful to create this creation at all, and see him punished eternity? Is it wise to create this a particular free-willed being with that knowledge? Would you?

In order to accept God created us you need to seriously consider how you would function without a God... thats what helps me most.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I and many others are atheists. Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie whose work changed the course of man, or Bill Gates (who’s at least agnostic) who has given more to charity than any other in history. We function without belief in God.

In my experience, those who disbelieve in God do not change their minds due to debate or conversation. They do so after having a personal religious experience.

I once heard of a philosopher who once said revelation from God is best if it is direct. Anything else, whether an alleged book or prophet, must be viewed with suspicion, as it could be cleverness or trickery.
Some of my best friends are Muslim. They claim the existence of God can be proven by debate. They say Islam has commanded them not to believe on faith like the Christians, but through reason.
The goal is necessarily not to convert each other, but to reach an understanding. I think both atheists and theists feel they are misunderstood.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

I once heard of a philosopher who once said revelation from God is best if it is direct. Anything else, whether an alleged book or prophet, must be viewed with suspicion, as it could be cleverness or trickery.

Doesn't God know best, if He already sends a revelation? Honesrly, it's nonsense to believe that God did reveal something to the human being, yet the human being knows a better way...

[Keltoi]

I once heard of a philosopher who once said revelation from God is best if it is direct. Anything else, whether an alleged book or prophet, must be viewed with suspicion, as it could be cleverness or trickery.
Some of my best friends are Muslim. They claim the existence of God can be proven by debate. They say Islam has commanded them not to believe on faith like the Christians, but through reason.
The goal is necessarily not to convert each other, but to reach an understanding. I think both atheists and theists feel they are misunderstood.

I agree that philosopher makes sense from a purely logical point of view. What I was really getting at is the necessity for those who are truly seeking God in their lives to find God on a personal basis. We can sit here and type words to each other, but unless the person who is truly seeking spirituality in their life actually explores religious texts and actively seeks a relationship with God we are all wasting time.

[Converse02]

Doesn't God know best, if He already sends a revelation? Honesrly, it's nonsense to believe that God did reveal something to the human being, yet the human being knows a better way...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Converse02]

What I was really getting at is the necessity for those who are truly seeking God in their lives to find God on a personal basis. We can sit here and type words to each other, but unless the person who is truly seeking spirituality in their life actually explores religious texts and actively seeks a relationship with God we are all wasting time.

Well, I think the majority of atheists have explored some religious texts and did at one point actively seeks a relationship with this alleged God, but are currently not convince this God actually exists. It's not like we're purposely ignoring the billions of people who are telling us there's a pit of fire at the end.
I am hoping the forums will give me a different perspective, perhaps let others know how one atheists thinks too.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I'm sorry... I was referring to the argument that an alleged prophet or a book isn't the best way for God to reveal something.

I wanted to say the following: we can't use this as a criterion, since God is the One who knows best, and who sends revelation. We can't say that if something came to us from God through a book, it automatically can't be from God, since it's not the best way.

Also, I think a prophet actually is the best way for us. Because, in that way we have the chance to see how various rulings are applied practically.

However, there's a certain type of revelation which God, according to the Islamic teaching, did reveal to everyone of us, and that is the covenant He took from us. There's also the so called fitrah...

[Converse02]

I wanted to say the following: we can't use this as a criterion, since God is the One who knows best, and who sends revelation. We can't say that if something came to us from God through a book, it automatically can't be from God, since it's not the best way.

True, this make sense in the eyes of a Muslim. But one can say "God knows best" to justify any religion. Any religion can make a claim, and when we question or challenge it, they say "God know bests." We have intellect and we question. No matter how flawed our intellect is, it is our only guards against absurdities. If our intellect does not accept something, how can we accept it? If God exists, he himself must pay homage to reason, no? True, just because it's a book doesn't mean it not from God, but how can we not remain doubtful.

Consider: imagine you were raised in an island, traveled to the shore, and were confronted with dozens of alleged "revealed" holy books and prophets. Many religions, if not all, have their scriptures, prophets, and "miracles." In the ancient past, people were fooled when false prophets showed their "power" using magnets, which the illiterate peasants never seen before. These alleged prophets also "prophesied" natural events through science that the common folk did not know of. How are you to decide which faith is the true one? When confronted with a true prophet from Allah, how can you not be a skeptic? Direct revelation would remove all doubt.

Also, I think a prophet actually is the best way for us. Because, in that way we have the chance to see how various rulings are applied practically.

Consider a direct revelation. There would be no need for someone to show, you would know. Also, when the prophet has passed, you would not have to rely on hearsay.

[Keltoi]

Well, I think the majority of atheists have explored some religious texts and did at one point actively seeks a relationship with this alleged God, but are currently not convince this God actually exists. It's not like we're purposely ignoring the billions of people who are telling us there's a pit of fire at the end.
I am hoping the forums will give me a different perspective, perhaps let others know how one atheists thinks too.

Fair enough. I'm sure many athiests have searched for a relationship with God. As to why they can't find one, I'm sure the answer is different for each individual. I looked for years. Yes, I was also an athiest for a good deal of my life. In the end it wasn't a booming voice, bright light, vision, etc. It was actually a very subtle change within myself. As Christians, we call it the "peace that surpasses all understanding." As an athiest, if someone would have told me about this I would have assumed it to be a mental condition, not a bad one, just the minds way of creating meaning in one's life. Speaking as a Christian, it isn't as hard as I thought to find God and have a spiritual life. However, the description of what I'm referring to is inadequate. It must happen on a personal level.

[Pygoscelis]

With these sorts of debates its apparent that theists and athiests speak an entirely different language. The theist makes an argument, that to them, seems like a good one. The athiests makes an argument, that to them, seems like a good one. In my experience, those who disbelieve in God do not change their minds due to debate or conversation. They do so after having a personal religious experience.

There is research to back your hunch up.

Long ago when I was in my undergrad we studied this sort of thing. Bruce Hunsberger (my prof, now deceased) and Bob Altemeyer published a book called "amazing conversions" that documented many cases of converts to religion and apostates away from it. In almost every case those who turned to religion didn't turn to it from argument or reason, but rather from traumatic life event or new group identity (ie, fitting into a group and gaining a sense of belonging and acceptance with them).

Apostates on the other hand were mixed. Some were very dispassionate (the converts were always passionate). It did seem though that the passion in the passionate ones didn't drive them away from the religion but rather came to be after they'd left it and looked back on it.

Conversions were almost always "hot" and apostacy almost always "cold" in terms of emotion and passion. It was also frequent that converts sought to convert others, and much rarer that apostates sought to apostasize (is that a word?) others.

[Pygoscelis]

I once heard of a philosopher who once said revelation from God is best if it is direct. Anything else, whether an alleged book or prophet, must be viewed with suspicion, as it could be cleverness or trickery.

Indeed. We recently had a thread on this very thing, it should still be on the first or second page. It was "why would a god need a book" or something like that.

Edit: actually it appears that the mods deleted the thread. No idea why. They tend to be trigger happy around here :)

[Converse02]

Indeed. We recently had a thread on this very thing, it should still be on the first or second page. It was "why would a god need a book" or something like that.

Edit: actually it appears that the mods deleted the thread. No idea why. They tend to be trigger happy around here :)

It is one thing to believe in God, it is another to think he write bestsellers and has an official fan club. I think it is a valid question. I have yet to heard a good answer other than "you can't question God," which can be used to defend against any absurdity.

[Keltoi]

It is one thing to believe in God, it is another to think he write bestsellers and has an official fan club. I think it is a valid question. I have yet to heard a good answer other than "you can't question God," which can be used to defend against any absurdity.

Well, contrary to Islam, Christianity does not make the claim that God writes books. The Bible is meant to be a guide for God's interaction with human beings. Written by men.

As for having an "official fan club", I assume you are referring to organized religious groups. That is a valid criticism of religious institutions, but not of spirituality. Of course those who share a particular understanding of worship will be labeled accordingly, and do tend to form institutions because of their common belief system.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

No, the words "God knows best" do not justify every religion, only the one which came from Him SWT. Therefore, the rest of your argument falls.

[barney]

God needing a book centers on the arguement of does God need provability?

A book is clearly a highly flawed method of spreading Gods word. The bible has thousands of translations all different, yet as a catholic argued with me today the message stays the same. well, no it dosnt. The message is warped and twisted into a parody of what it originally meant, and a good thing that is too, lest we still stoned the flippant child to death or slaughtered a pair of doves in pennace for menstruating.
Islam has a greater claim to the actual words not being changed for several hundred years, although the initial collection and transcription to pen and ink is based on differing interpretations of what thousands of early muslims thought had been said.

Regardless, even this changes with humanitys growth. The verses that modern "moderate" muslims trip over in efforts to justify, needed no justification in earlier morally bankrupt days. Kill an apostate? What would be the problem with that? Evolution? it's all there if you "correctly interprate" the words in their "true context" :D
Hence the Korans words do not change but the religions message does.
Christianity has always vented lyrical on the godhood of jesus, but the messages that once sent the Templar Knights into reckless charges are now simply "correctly interpreted" as fighting sin within the heart.
Jihad we are assured isnt about killing the infidel until all submit. It's about the inner struggle with your own emotions and ego.

So if God wanted to write a book, he would have to write it in an ever updated printrun to move along with mans needs. It wouldnt require such laughable contortions by slightly embarrassed apologists. The word apologist would not stem from apology.

God would be quite able to simply carve the sky with his message so it can be seen. He isnt shy of interacting with us. He "answers prayers" every day, he sent angels with 900 mile wide wings, he parted seas and split the moon,(then stuck it back together). He clearly wants us to know just who built this rock and who stuck the dust together into bipedal shapes.

So is it that he is hiding in order to give us free choice? As I think Hitchens said once, if he met St Peter on the day of judgement and was asked why he diddnt beleive, he would say , "But you diddnt give enough evidence". And thats fair play. Science now provides us with measurable factual hard evidence that Yahweh and all the manifestations and interpretations of "him", simply dosnt exist. Would god plant evidence against his existance? So that the less gullible are doomed to hell by their own intelligence?

Jesus is supposed to have said "you have seen me and have beleived, more blessed art those who havnt seen me and beleived", which when you think about it, you have to hand it to the scriptwriter as a really neat peice of recruiting jargon.

[Makky]

Athiests
Agnostics
LOOK
Down

[Pygoscelis]

Athiests
Agnostics
LOOK
Down

Did you tie my shoelaces together when I wasn't looking?

[جوري]

Well, contrary to Islam, Christianity does not make the claim that God writes books. .

& That is exactly why christians are rather content and busy making up fanciful assertion of the nature of God, while selling 'God' dolls at walmart and borders!


on a separate note:
Why would God write a book was adequately answered with semantics as is usually the case when one is presented with the fixed question fallacy aka non-questions!..

a simple answer to why.. is really why not? what would you propose an appropriate method?--
Why do we approach any science with books and applications of what lies therein?

Why not just wing it or have the preceptors give us the answers in advance?
Then we can all be equally teachers, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, computer programmers without study or effort!

[Trumble]

No problem with the idea of God writing books. I do have a big one with the absence of regular updates when, despite claims to the contrary, they clearly seem to be necessary (things have changed rather since the 7th century). The reason for their absence is, I'm afraid, obvious. To me, at least.

[جوري]

Foundation of what is right and wrong is set.. any new issues that arise, is why we have scholars.. if you know the etiology of something you'll be good to go as to how to proceed.. Every people have experienced what is right for them.. During Prophet Mohammed's time, people were still asking him for miracles.. as they have asked of those before.. the fact is with or without 'supernatural acts', there will always be nonbelievers.. The Quran is transcendent.. there is nothing beyond that, that needs be addressed!

cheers

[Makky]

Did you tie my shoelaces together when I wasn't looking?

No!

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

my signature

[Tornado]

No!

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

my signature

That is what you believe and in your eyes that would be a true assessment of atheists/agnostics. Of course I could very well say that you are wrong so the verse doesn't have an effect.

As for the topic, I don't worry even if a certain religion is true because there are just so many religions out there (a lot I've probably never heard of) that by playing the percentages, I'd most definitely pick the wrong one anyways.

[Pygoscelis]

a simple answer to why.. is really why not? what would you propose an appropriate method?--

The written word exists due to limitations between humans that an all powerful being would not have to work under. An all powerful being would not need a "method" to transfer what he wishes us to know to us. We would simply know it inately. After all, he did create us right?

Why do we approach any science with books and applications of what lies therein?

Because we are not Gods. We can't just magically obtain perfect knowledge, so we need science to make our best estimations.

[Makky]

That is what you believe and in your eyes that would be a true assessment of atheists/agnostics. Of course I could very well say that you are wrong so the verse doesn't have an effect.

As for the topic, I don't worry even if a certain religion is true because there are just so many religions out there (a lot I've probably never heard of) that by playing the percentages, I'd most definitely pick the wrong one anyways.

in your city where you live, you have thousnads of people living around.. but when you decide to go to the doctor , you don't pick any person walking in the street.. you foll0w another procedure..

anyway this is a special invitation for you

challenge

ignore this invitation if you need more time to read and to open your mind.

[Tornado]

in your city where you live, you have thousnads of people living around.. but when you decide to go to the doctor , you don't pick any person walking in the street.. you foll0w another procedure..

Except that these "thousands of people" all claim to be "doctors". Ultimately, chances are that if I did choose a religion, the percentages would be against me so I don't worry about it.

[Makky]

Except that these "thousands of people" all claim to be "doctors". Ultimately, chances are that if I did choose a religion, the percentages would be against me so I don't worry about it.

If you don't worry about it then why are you here on an islamic forum , what is the main purpose of being here.

[Tornado]

If you don't worry about it then why are you here on an islamic forum , what is the main purpose of being here.

Interests, perhaps explain my point of view, many reasons and I appreciate what I've learned, etc.

[Chuck]

Except that these "thousands of people" all claim to be "doctors". Ultimately, chances are that if I did choose a religion, the percentages would be against me so I don't worry about it.

Logically that is wrong assumption. Lets say if there are 2000 religions on one of them is correct then chances still are better to choose anyone of the religion rather than none. (Probability of choosing one would be 1/2000 vs 0/2000.... 1/2000 > 0.)

[Whatsthepoint]

Logically that is wrong assumption. Lets say if there are 2000 religions on one of them is correct then chances still are better to choose anyone of the religion rather than none. (Probability of choosing one would be 1/2000 vs 0/2000.... 1/2000 > 0.)

Perhaps god prefers people who don't believe at all or don't know what to believe than those who believe in the wrong version.

[Tornado]

^ Ha :).

Logically that is wrong assumption. Lets say if there are 2000 religions on one of them is correct then chances still are better to choose anyone of the religion rather than none. (Probability of choosing one would be 1/2000 vs 0/2000.... 1/2000 > 0.)

Indeed. However, I don't believe in a god and don't believe in an afterlife. If I HAD to choose, then I'd still be against the numbers. Even so, a true god would know that if I was actually sincere. Thus, honesty is the reason I don't have a particular religion because I'd be lying to myself.

[جوري]

The written word exists due to limitations between humans that an all powerful being would not have to work under. An all powerful being would not need a "method" to transfer what he wishes us to know to us. We would simply know it inately. After all, he did create us right?

Given that you are not 'an all powerful being' I propose you don't speak on his behalf... and indeed it is innate in all of us, I suspect that is why an atheist such as yourself is so preoccupied with comparative religion.. I suspect if you were content with 'No God' you wouldn't spend the latter half of your life trying to enforce your beliefs on a religious forum!

Because we are not Gods. We can't just magically obtain perfect knowledge, so we need science to make our best estimations.

indeed and science comes in many different forms.. there is a science to art, and a science to religion... all sciences start with a book...
God's first creation was a pen.. and the first sura to descend started with the word Read!

[Pygoscelis]

Perhaps god prefers people who don't believe at all or don't know what to believe than those who believe in the wrong version.

A lot of holy texts seem to hint at exactly this. I've seen many more stories (bible included) of God(s) punishing their people for worshiping false gods, but much fewer of God(s) punishing those who don't believe at all.

And really, can you MAKE yourself believe in a particular God even if it makes no sense to you?

And is a cost / benefits analysis of heaven and hell really a good and sincere motivation to worship?

And even if you decide a particular god exists, don't you then have to make another decision as to whether you consider him/her/it/them worthy of your worship? And would you deem worthy and just a God who places belief in him without evidence as more important than good works? I think the moral thing to do would be to rebel against such a being.

[Uthman]

And even if you decide a particular god exists, don't you then have to make another decision as to whether you consider him/her/it/them worthy of your worship?

Well, if that God is telling you to worship him and threatening you with hell if you don't, then you'd better get started! :D

[Skavau]

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

Okay. So?

You have a signature which is a veiled ad hominem against atheists.

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

Okay. So?

You have a signature which is a veiled ad hominem against atheists.

I disagree. There is no ad hominem since her signature isn't trying to make an argument for the existence of God but rather describing the position of the atheists.

[Skavau]

I disagree. There is no ad hominem since her signature isn't trying to make an argument for the existence of God but rather describing the position of the atheists.

An ad hominem remains an ad hominem irrelevant to whether it is making an argument for God or not.

At best, Makki's signatures makes an unsubstantiated assertion that atheists are destroying their own souls.

[*Marwah]

i would just worry :-\

and ask allah,which is the right path to Jannah

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

An ad hominem remains an ad hominem irrelevant to whether it is making an argument for God or not.

I was under the impression that an ad hominem refers to a type of argument which is fallacious. Thus, my view was that there was no ad hominem since no argument was being made. As far as I'm aware, the term ad hominem is shortened etymologically from argumentum ad hominem and so the term can only be used in connection to an argument that is being made. That is only if we analyse it linguistically. Otherwise, I suppose if you look at it outside the realm of logic, it could be defined more liberally as a personal attack. As for whether Makky's signature is a personal attack on atheists, that really depends on his intention so neither you or I can really comment.

At best, Makki's signatures makes an unsubstantiated assertion that atheists are destroying their own souls.

Agreed. Of course, the fact that it hasn't been substantiated doesn't necessarily make it false but as a person well-versed in logic, you will no doubt already know this.

Regards

[barney]

God's first creation was a pen..

And the second must have thus been Ink, then paper, then a language. Then humans.
Who lived for 150000 years before using language.

I assume the pen is a metaphorical spiritual pen symbolising knowlage? (although even that wouldnt make sense...it still makles more sense than gods first creation being a pen)

[جوري]

And the second must have thus been Ink, then paper, then a language. Then humans.
Who lived for 150000 years before using language.

I assume the pen is a metaphorical spiritual pen symbolising knowlage? (although even that wouldnt make sense...it still makles more sense than gods first creation being a pen)

You can assume what ever tickles your ***** :D

Mankind always thinks highly of itself.. perhaps it is just you? We are not the most important creation!

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئًا مَّذْكُورًا {1}

[Yusufali 76:1] Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?


cheers

[Converse02]

the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

I just want to clarify:
This is not an ad hom fallacy. It's an appeal to force.
Basically, do what I want, no matter how illogical, or I will hurt you.

It's like saying "believe in the tales of the invisible pink unicorn, or she will trample on your soul upon death, for all eternity.":raging:

[Uthman]

Greetings Converse02,

the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

I just want to clarify:
This is not an ad hom fallacy. It's an appeal to force.
Basically, do what I want, no matter how illogical, or I will hurt you.

It's like saying "believe in the tales of the invisible pink unicorn, or she will trample on your soul upon death, for all eternity.":raging:

I disagree with that. As you are aware, appeal to force is a logical fallacy, the use of which renders an argument invalid. The quotation cannot be committing this fallacy, since it is not making an argument. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion. When the Qur'an claims that the unbelievers are 'destroying their own souls', it is merely describing the state of the unbelievers and not trying to use that as a sort of argument, thus the statement cannot be fallacious.

Regards

[Pygoscelis]

It is an assertion. It can be untrue (which would seem to be the same as fallacious, semantics semantics). You are right that it is not an argument.

[Skavau]

I was under the impression that an ad hominem refers to a type of argument which is fallacious. Thus, my view was that there was no ad hominem since no argument was being made.

Well, this depends upon whether Makki was using it as an argument.

As far as I'm aware, the term ad hominem is shortened etymologically from argumentum ad hominem and so the term can only be used in connection to an argument that is being made. That is only if we analyse it linguistically. Otherwise, I suppose if you look at it outside the realm of logic, it could be defined more liberally as a personal attack. As for whether Makky's signature is a personal attack on atheists, that really depends on his intention so neither you or I can really comment.

Agreed.

Agreed. Of course, the fact that it hasn't been substantiated doesn't necessarily make it false but as a person well-versed in logic, you will no doubt already know this.

Absolutely.

But I would like to take this time to point out to Makki, and any other Muslim on this forum that referencing any given verse with absolutely no substantiation behind it in order to 'show' something to atheist is utterly pointless.

Valid or otherwise.

[Muezzin]

Everybody, can we stay to das topic? Danke.

Jawohl.

[Converse02]

Since this thread is on if atheists/agnostics worry, I have a question for Muslims:

Muhammad al-Warraq was a 9th century skeptic of the existence of Allah because he thought: He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool.


Consider: If a being give a creation free-will, and foresaw that the creation would used it’s free-will incorrectly (foresaw he would choose incorrectly and disobey), do you think it is wise and merciful to create this creation at all, and see him punished for eternity? Is it wise to create this a particular free-willed being with that knowledge? Would you?

Curious as to what Muslims think of this.

[جوري]

when you are unable to understand the nature of what you are dealing with (as an atheist) you'll always have a desire to bring it down to the lowest common denominator, and in doing so, impose on others your same low standards in approach to every topic.. You have figured out a formula for distance and now trying to apply the same physics to figure out volume!

If something is beyond human definition.. then every scenario you come up with, is a mere conjecture..
..To make this simple:
the last numerical number
the physical end to outer space..
measure of emotions
what happens after death..

You can come up with a thousand story of what happens upon death.
well first as with everything in life, you need an orientation, but isn't it awful that you have to wait in such a long line after all those newly dead? I mean it is shocking to be dead already, why must you also wait in line? Why can't other dead people be sensitive to the fact that you died under worst circumstances than they?

Fact is we know not what happens after death..
so how can one concoct such a cockamamy story, with such incredible definition and expect others to come up with a plausible scenario to the thought of those imposing orientation on the newly dead .. even worst than concocting a foolish story is borrowing someone else's take on a foolish story.. as it shows complete lack of imagination and really affirms my beliefs that atheists can't think outside the box, but are mere organized herds no different than any religious zealot who blindly follows without a thought as to why!

[Tornado]

Fact is we know not what happens after death..

Pretty much. That's why I don't worry because who knows what will happen. Any religion can be right in terms of what the afterlife will bring. The odds are so stacked against me that I'll most surely pick the wrong religion. I won't bother to choose one out of who knows how many because I know I'd be lying to myself and an all-knowing god would know my intentions.

[جوري]

Pretty much. That's why I don't worry because who knows what will happen. Any religion can be right in terms of what the afterlife will bring. The odds are so stacked against me that I'll most surely pick the wrong religion. I won't bother to choose one out of who knows how many because I know I'd be lying to myself and an all-knowing god would know my intentions.

Faith is personal.. you tell yourself whatever you need!

cheers

[Tornado]

What do you mean?

[جوري]

which part of what I wrote was difficult to understand?

[Tornado]

The second. Not sure what you were talking about.

[جوري]

The second. Not sure what you were talking about.

You have expressed that an all knowing God, knows you so you are under no obligation to invest in religion..

to which I have replied as above to denote: you can convince yourself of whatever truth you desire!

[Tornado]

Obviously I wouldn't know where to begin with so many religions claiming to be the absolute truths. Perhaps this god will show me something one day.

[جوري]

Obviously I wouldn't know where to begin with so many religions claiming to be the absolute truths. Perhaps this god will show me something one day.

I think that is how most sincere people start on that quest...
all the best...

peace

[Converse02]

You have figured out a formula for distance and now trying to apply the same physics to figure out volume!

Hmmm...yeah, right.
Can someone, who actually has the ability to make sense, please answer my question. http://www.islamicboard.com/996817-post113.html

If something is beyond human definition.. then every scenario you come up with, is a mere conjecture..
..To make this simple:
the last numerical number
the physical end to outer space..
measure of emotions
what happens after death..

None of these seem to me beyond human definition. Science has done a pretty good job of defining these, including what happens to you after death. And as a person who alleges to be an MD, you should know doctors have ways to measure emotion.

so how can one concoct such a cockamamy story, with such incredible definition and expect others to come up with a plausible scenario to the thought of those imposing orientation on the newly dead ..

I'm just interested on what ppl think about this:
Consider: If a being give a creation free-will, and foresaw that the creation would used it’s free-will incorrectly (foresaw he would choose incorrectly and disobey), do you think it is wise and merciful to create this creation at all, and see him punished for eternity? Is it wise to create this a particular free-willed being with that knowledge? Would you? Yes or No?

as it shows complete lack of imagination and really affirms my beliefs that atheists can't think outside the box

The vast majority of top scientists are atheists. I think there are many atheists who are able to think outside the box.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Obviously I wouldn't know where to begin with so many religions claiming to be the absolute truths. Perhaps this god will show me something one day.

show you what?

what are you talking about?

whats there left to show!



the only way God can help us is by giving us understanding, theres nothing to show really...

[Tornado]

show you what?

what are you talking about?

whats there left to show!



the only way God can help us is by giving us understanding, theres nothing to show really...

Something unique to a particular religion. I haven't seen much from any particular religion that can't be used by other religions as well.

[جوري]

Hmmm...yeah, right.
Can someone, who actually has the ability to make sense, please answer my question. http://www.islamicboard.com/996817-post113.html

If you are looking for a response from someone else why do you quote me in the process?

None of these seem to me beyond human definition. Science has done a pretty good job of defining these, including what happens to you after death. And as a person who alleges to be an MD, you should know doctors have ways to measure emotion.

Go ahead and tell me how do you measure emotions, pain or a scintillating scotoma in a scientific way! I challenge you!
and science has done a good job defining what exactly? I dislike disjointed fragments..

I'm just interested on what ppl think about this:
Consider: If a being give a creation free-will, and foresaw that the creation would used it’s free-will incorrectly (foresaw he would choose incorrectly and disobey), do you think it is wise and merciful to create this creation at all, and see him punished for eternity? Is it wise to create this a particular free-willed being with that knowledge? Would you? Yes or No?

If being a giving creator, decided to give you a pneumotaxic center and an apneustic center so you don't forget how to breathe when you are sleeping, fatty Acid Oxidation, the krebs cycle and glycolysis, gluconeogenesis, thousands of functional enzymes around the clock working to maintain you through no will of your own, able to harness energy from multiple sources and store them, ornithine cycle with no rate limiting steps at any time so you can eat your steak at 3am as pleases you don't end up in a coma from nitrogenous waste buildup, higher recticular function, a very complex system, countless gifts, the ability to hear, function, eleminate waste, eat, breathe, fornicate, reason, enjoy open greens and seas, change of seasons aesthetics, each an intricate, complex process, a gamut too numerous and pointless for me to list to one as your person who wishes to reduce it all to a heap of compost.. and asked you for 5 simple things.. keep in touch with me, take care of those less fortunate than you, cleanse your system once a year and grow spiritually, and visit my house but once and top it off you'll have immortality.. I think I'd be immensely grateful and wondering what is the catch? except there is no catch!..

If I you had no ability to breathe right now, because you smoked and abused yourself into a COPD, I put you on a 3L home oxygen, I'd end up charging you for my time, expertise, hospital bills, and an otherwise free element known to vastly improve the quality of your life and you'd happily comply if you desired to live..try doing that simple exercise for 5 minutes see if you don't pass out.. think about your breathing.. take a deep breath in, let only half of it out, breath half and let only half of it out.. do that for a while, do it until you are using your intercostals and retracting.. let's see how well you cope, losing just one of your numerous perfect functions, yet here you sit with all the nerve you can muster ungrateful asking asinine questions... You are lucky God is infinitely merciful and patient.. If I had personally granted you all of this without medical maniupulation and complex metal and plastic machines so you are not looking like frankenstein, and you were sitting on a forum all day with ridiculous bromides I'd have smote you and others like you in a heart beat..... and that is my response to your question!

74:12 and to whom I have granted resources vast,
74:13 and children as [love's] witnesses,
74:14 and to whose life I gave so wide a scope:6
74:15 and yet, he greedily desires that I give yet more!
74:16 Nay, verily, it is against Our messages that he knowingly, stubbornly sets himself

The vast majority of top scientists are atheists. I think there are many atheists who are able to think outside the box.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

I disagree....

According to a recent study most doctors believe in God and an afterlife. This conclusion apparently contradicts earlier research which showed that in general, people tend to become less religious as education and income levels rise.The survey by Farr Curlin, a doctor and instructor at the University of Chicago, of 1,125 U.S. doctors, found that 76 percent believe in God and nearly 60 percent in some sort of afterlife.

Curlin, who oversaw the survey, says he was surprised, as the team did not realize physicians were this religious.

He says they suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine, as the responsibility to care for those who are suffering, and the rewards of helping those in need, resonate throughout most religious traditions.

The researchers also found that 90 percent of doctors said they attend religious services at least occasionally, and are more likely to describe themselves as 'spiritual' as distinct from religious, whereas for the general population, spirituality and religion appear to be more tightly connected.

They found that doctors and patients also differ on how they rely on God for help in coping with a major illness, as while most patients will look to God for strength, support and guidance, most doctors will instead try to make sense of the situation and decide what to do without relying on God.

Of the doctors surveyed, 5 percent were Hindu, 2 percent Muslim and 1 percent Buddhist, all much higher than those faiths are represented in the general population and in part reflecting the large number of foreign-born doctors who emigrate to the United States, the study said.

The report is published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=11272

That is of those interviewed the majority of hospitals and research centers have a huge population of Muslim doctors, and I'd be happy to provide you with another study to that matter.. I suspect that factoid would push the number even higher to 80% or more!
However:
I hope for your sake that one day you'd be able to reason past your reliance on logical fallacies and think of something other than an appeal to authority in order to assert a point!...or I should happily see a theist out of you, now knowing that 76% of doctors believe in God?

under either circumstance it wouldn't matter at all if 99.99% of the population didn't believe in God..
as stated by another poster, what is right is right even if you are the only doing it-- and what is wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it!
If you were marooned with an anthropophagus Pueblo Peoples, you'd become a cannibal just because everyone is doing it including the chief and wise Men? You are absurd at best, lacking, reason, logic and slightest common sense!

Every soul is held in pledge by its own deeds, it isn't a communal effort!


cheers

[aamirsaab]

Something unique to a particular religion. I haven't seen much from any particular religion that can't be used by other religions as well.

Consider this: Currently, the UK and US (both prominent western and post modern countries) are suffering from alcohol abuse (listen to the radio today if you are in the UK), depression (more common in the US) and women continually being viewed as objects (cough pron cough started cough in US cough)

Now consider Islam: prohibition of alchohol, belief in the ultimate external force aka God (thus reducing stress - talk to any psychologist to confirm this, though some will turn around and drop the God delusion argument....which is rather weak initially and can be taken down USING psychology!), and the position it holds of women (who were given rights 1400 years before either of the US or UK did...)

If you ask me: the truth is staring at you in the face. :D

[Tornado]

Consider this: Currently, the UK and US (both prominent western and post modern countries) are suffering from alcohol abuse (listen to the radio today if you are in the UK), depression (more common in the US) and women continually being viewed as objects (cough pron cough started cough in US cough)

Canadian here :D. I never got that impression here. If people want to drink, that's their choice. I don't personally drink but them drinking doesn't really affect me.

Now consider Islam: prohibition of alchohol, belief in the ultimate external force aka God (thus reducing stress - talk to any psychologist to confirm this, though some will turn around and drop the God delusion argument....which is rather weak initially and can be taken down USING psychology!)

Can't be unique to just Islam? A lot of religions can uplift their respective followers.

[Converse02]

If you are looking for a response from someone else why do you quote me in the process?

To give an example of the responses I don't want. One that doesn't address my question.

Go ahead and tell me how do you measure emotions, pain or a scintillating scotoma in a scientific way!

I need not tell you, as you are surely intelligent enough to figure it out yourself, doctor. Didn't they teach you how to search scientific databases like pubmed or ovid in medical school? Go to the site, and type in measuring emotion or measuring pain. You will see how pain and emotion is measured, scientifically.

If I had personally granted you all of this without medical maniupulation and complex metal and plastic machines so you are not looking like frankenstein, and you were sitting on a forum all day with ridiculous bromides I'd have smote you and others like you in a heart beat.

But if you knew I were to sit on a forum all day with ridiculous bromides, and knew were I would make you upset and smote me sometime in the future, why did you created me in the first place? How wise and laudable is that? A creator who orders his slave to do things that the creater can foresee his slave not doing, then punishes him, is a fool.

[aamirsaab]

Canadian here :D.

Ah, surely you must have heard of Shabir Ally then? I recommend, if you haven't, to check his work out.

....If people want to drink, that's their choice. I don't personally drink but them drinking doesn't really affect me.

Ditto - point was, the society is feeling the effect. Don't you think it is rather strange that there is a religion that contains rulings to prevent those social ills (which are high in post modern countries?)

Can't be unique to just Islam? A lot of religions can uplift their respective followers.

I don't recall Christianity or Judaism giving women such power and status nor do I recall any other religions (that preceded Islam) do any such of the like. This in combination with the other two points I mentioned as well as the plethora of rules, laws and regulations (which range from agriculture to politics and animal welfare to financial matters - again, nothing of the sort contained in other religious teachings and practices) should be enough to act as a neon light saying: ''Islam is THE religion to follow!''

[Tornado]

Ah, surely you must have heard of Shabir Ally then?

I have. I find him to be a good talker and he gives thought-out answers.

Ditto - point was, the society is feeling the effect. Don't you think it is rather strange that there is a religion that contains rulings to prevent those social ills (which are high in post modern countries?)

Is alcohol abuse really any different than any other kind of abuse, say like drugs. I don't know whether drugs are forbidden in Islam. As I said, I don't really care whether they drink or not. They must live with the consequences.

I don't recall Christianity or Judaism giving women such power and status nor do I recall any other religions (that preceded Islam) do any such of the like. This in combination with the other two points I mentioned as well as the plethora of rules and regulations (which range from agriculture to politics and animal welfare to financial matters - again, nothing of the sort contained in othe religious teachings and practices) should be enough to act as a neon light saying: ''Islam is THE religion to follow!''

I don't really know much about this so perhaps someone else will answer. When it comes to their right, I fully support them having all the same rights as men. Are there any rights (not necessarily politics, lifestyle as well) the women in Islam don't have that men do?

[aamirsaab]

I have. I find him to be a good talker and he gives thought-out answers.

And you still aren't convinced? man, Shabir Ally's the MAN - if he can't do it, I can't :p.

Is alcohol abuse really any different than any other kind of abuse, say like drugs. I don't know whether drugs are forbidden in Islam. As I said, I don't really care whether they drink or not. They must live with the consequences.

It's not a matter of caring or not - I'm showing you that Islam has a preventative measure for a social ill contained in a so called post modern country. Surely you can see the greatness of that, no?

Are there any rights (not necessarily politics, lifestyle as well) the women in Islam don't have that men do?

There is debate on this matter (amongst certain folk) but I say: ask any female muslim about this issue and if her answer doesn't convince you, I honestly don't know what will!

Good luck and I hope Allah guides you onto the straight path. If ya need any help, do remember you're on an islamic forum....there's loads of ''experts'' to ask :D

[Gator]

Ditto - point was, the society is feeling the effect. Don't you think it is rather strange that there is a religion that contains rulings to prevent those social ills (which are high in post modern countries?)

The problem with your proposition is that you are comparing the unattainable (IMO) ideal of Islam to the reality of the world.

Yes, if Islam was strictly followed there would be no social ills. If the "western" laws were followed perfectly there would be no social ills.

You vision of Islam has never and in my opinion never exist on a societal wide basis. It trys to enforce a code on people that is in conflict with humanities' basic nature. I would not trade the very real and pervasive social ills of the muslim world for the "western" ones for anything.

Thanks.

[Tornado]

It's not a matter of caring or not - I'm showing you that Islam has a preventative measure for a social ill contained in a so called post modern country. Surely you can see the greatness of that, no?

I just don't see alcohol problem as a big deal I suppose. Just because something fixes problems doesn't mean it's a good idea. I have a solution to solve all car accidents by forbidding driving, but it's not a good idea obviously. I guess I don't see alcohol as the social ill that you see.

There is debate on this matter (amongst certain folk) but I say: ask any female muslim about this issue and if her answer doesn't convince you, I honestly don't know what will!

I actually wouldn't ask a muslim women, rather a non-muslim women. She would have to move into an Islamic country and abide by all those rules. Then I'd ask her.

Good luck and I hope Allah guides you onto the straight path. If ya need any help, do remember you're on an islamic forum....there's loads of ''experts'' to ask :D

Indeed.

[جوري]

To give an example of the responses I don't want. One that doesn't address my question.

What does that mean? You are utterly inept at making an example or carrying a thought through.. as you have demonstrated on this very post!

I need not tell you, as you are surely intelligent enough to figure it out yourself, doctor. Didn't they teach you how to search scientific databases like pubmed or ovid in medical school? Go to the site, and type in measuring emotion or measuring pain. You will see how pain and emotion is measured, scientifically.

That doesn't answer my question at all, further just a couple of posts ago, you evoked the notion that I 'allege' and you are out to expose me, well let's carry that thought through... I am not intelligent enough my answer is the one I have maintained it throughout-- THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC WAY TO MEASURE pain, headaches, scintillating scotomas etc. but YOU claim that there is, challenge us on our knowledge, and you drop names of sites, leaving the reader to decipher what he may-- what is that all about? You have something to impart on a matter don't reference us to a site, synthesize it so it makes knowledge to all of us, there is no reason to speak above us just because we pale in comparison to your own expertise, so AGAIN I CHALLENGE YOU TO BRING ME A SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO MEASURE THE AFORE MENTIONED -- or should I take your evasiveness, as a sign you don't know what you are taking about?

But if you knew I were to sit on a forum all day with ridiculous bromides, and knew were I would make you upset and smote me sometime in the future, why did you created me in the first place? How wise and laudable is that? A creator who orders his slave to do things that the creater can foresee his slave not doing, then punishes him, is a fool.

You have a same running chance as does everyone else, why should you be denied it?...
Why do your parents put you through proper schooling, if they knew in advance you were a slacker, an underachiever, intellectually challenged, plus completely anti-social and a pyromaniac?

BTW, I love how you evaded to address the 'all scientists are atheists' motto-- after I posted a research article to the contrary-- Have you all of a sudden tired of argumentum ad populum?!

cheers

[aamirsaab]

The problem with your proposition is that you are comparing the unattainable (IMO) ideal of Islam to the reality of the world.

Not really; alcohol is bad and Islam agrees with this position. That's really the be all and end all of it.

Yes, if Islam was strictly followed there would be no social ills. If the "western" laws were followed perfectly there would be no social ills.

Dude, the point is alcohol abuse is high in a country that considers itself as post-modern. Yet a 1400 year old religion has rulings in it that prevent alcohol abuse. Doncha get it?

...You vision of Islam has never and in my opinion never exist on a societal wide basis. It trys to enforce a code on people that is in conflict with humanities' basic nature.

I fail to see how a prohibition on alcohol is in conflict with humanities basic nature. Surely, staying alive IS basic nature, no? Of course, this is not even to mention the rights (and status) of women in Islam - which again surely wouldn't be contradicory to humanities basic nature...

I would not trade the very real and pervasive social ills of the muslim world for the "western" ones for anything.

Thanks.

Er i'm not talking about a trade off between worlds; simply pointing out a very simple statement: alcohol is bad for you - Islam has been saying this for 1400 years. Post modern countries are not listening to Islam (or to common sense for that matter) and thus alcohol abuse is HIGH!

I just don't see alcohol problem as a big deal I suppose. Just because something fixes problems doesn't mean it's a good idea. I have a solution to solve all car accidents by forbidding driving, but it's not a good idea obviously. I guess I don't see alcohol as the social ill that you see.

Well, in the UK it is quite a big problem and like debt, our government seems to be taking hypocritical steps to prevent these (like building 100 super casinos or having pubs open 24 hours....makes perfect sense). Besides, your example isn't fair: cars aren't the problem - drivers are. As far as alcohol is concerned, the entire product itself causes a problem...with the consumers own BODY

I actually wouldn't ask a muslim women, rather a non-muslim women. She would have to move into an Islamic country and abide by all those rules. Then I'd ask her.

Good luck on finding one that fits those characteristics. It would be easier to find a muslim women to ask tho :p.

[Riyadh-ul-Jannah]

:sl:
I dont worry because I know that my religion is true. I do think that it might be another religion at points but then I always reassure myself that Islam is the true Religion, no matter what others say. I know a story of two men, one good, one bad, they both died, and the good went to Hell, the bad went Paradise. The goods family said that the man always said he believed In Islam but had many doubts and would say that he believed in the religion if it was true, wheras the bads family said the man would always say I believe in Islam no matter what, My religion is Islam, so in other words dont have convictions about your religion.
:sl:

[barney]

:sl:
I dont worry because I know that my religion is true. I do think that it might be another religion at points but then I always reassure myself that Islam is the true Religion, no matter what others say. I know a story of two men, one good, one bad, they both died, and the good went to Hell, the bad went Paradise. The goods family said that the man always said he believed In Islam but had many doubts and would say that he believed in the religion if it was true, wheras the bads family said the man would always say I believe in Islam no matter what, My religion is Islam, so in other words dont have convictions about your religion.
:sl:

Thats a good story Riyadh. Which religion gave you that story?

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I can fly by flapping my arms, but only when no-one is looking or recording me. Do you believe what I say? :statisfie

If I knew you personally, and knew you to be one who told only the truth in every other aspect of your life, and I could see that neither did you appear to be joking nor insane when you said this, then incredible as it seemed, I just might. However, without all of those things being true I am afraid I would not. Why do you ask?

[barney]

If I knew you personally, and knew you to be one who told only the truth in every other aspect of your life, and I could see that neither did you appear to be joking nor insane when you said this, then incredible as it seemed, I just might. However, without all of those things being true I am afraid I would not. Why do you ask?

Its an old thread, so I might speak for him, lest he not return to it.

I beleive he is asking why you would beleive extrodinary claims without extrodinary proof.

A similar situation would be if the prophet michal travasser currently residing in strong city USA, who claims he is the messiah was to die, and 3 days later all his diciples,(about 50 of them) were to make a testament that he had risen again and turned beer into mud or something, then shot off into heaven on a Golden Porshe. Further proof that this happened is that before he left he told them he would return each wednesday at 6 PM by appearing in the form of a doughnut, which they were to eat because he wanted them to eat his flesh.

Would you beleive them if they told you that in the year 2088, eighty years after the event?

[Grace Seeker]

Its an old thread, so I might speak for him, lest he not return to it.

I beleive he is asking why you would beleive extrodinary claims without extrodinary proof.

A similar situation would be if the prophet michal travasser currently residing in strong city USA, who claims he is the messiah was to die, and 3 days later all his diciples,(about 50 of them) were to make a testament that he had risen again and turned beer into mud or something, then shot off into heaven on a Golden Porshe. Further proof that this happened is that before he left he told them he would return each wednesday at 6 PM by appearing in the form of a doughnut, which they were to eat because he wanted them to eat his flesh.

Would you beleive them if they told you that in the year 2088, eighty years after the event?

Again:
If I knew them personally, and knew them to be ones who told only the truth in every other aspect of their lives, and I could see that neither did they appear to be joking nor insane when they said this, then incredible as it seemed, I just might.

[barney]

I would say that the criteria for insanity was thus fullfilled by the content of the claims?

[Grace Seeker]

I think it is insane to imagine a surfboarding purple dinosaur, but I see you have no problems with that.

[barney]

I think it is insane to imagine a surfboarding purple dinosaur, but I see you have no problems with that.

But he's visable and actually there on TV! I can evidentially prove the existance of Barney.:mmokay:

[Grace Seeker]

But he's visable and actually there on TV! I can evidentially prove the existance of Barney.:mmokay:

I don't doubt his existance, just that he can really surf. :hiding:

[barney]

I don't doubt his existance, just that he can really surf. :hiding:

Ye who beleive who hath not watched Youtube are the more blessed!

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=gQs1p9...eature=related

[Grace Seeker]

Ye who beleive who hath not watched Youtube are the more blessed!

My Moondoggie, and my great Kahuna!

[wth1257]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven? Whether it's christianity, islam, or any other religion that requires acceptance before death to go to heaven (like not an "everyone goes to heaven" type of religion).

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

No.

I would love to be religious though.

I'm not to worried about hell though.

[barney]

No.

I would love to be religious though.

I'm not to worried about hell though.

Just out of interest WTH, why the (imaginary) hell would you love to be religious?
:?:?:?:?:?

[wth1257]

Just out of interest WTH, why the (imaginary) hell would you love to be religious?
:?:?:?:?:?

Something to believe in.

I was not raised in a very religious family that was much more culturally than religiously Catholic. I tried to be a religious Catholic for a few years and it was nice to believe that my life had some purpose, that death was not the end of everything, that the world was something more than an accident (see Jacques Monod), that one could pray and it would mean something, that things can be "meant to be", the sense of community religion brings.

Just something to belive in.

I just see the good religion (particularly Islam) brings my friends and I can get a bit jelous of it.

[Hamayun]

Something to believe in.

Its not so much the "something to believe in". It is a strange feeling unlike anything I can describe in words.

Me, my wife, other people I know... when they prayed for the first time. The moment their head touched the floor they burst into tears. It is a very humbling experience.

The first time you let go of yourself. Free your mind of all the scientific formulas and explanations.

Just submit yourself. Surrender to the mighty power that created you. It is hard to stop the tears.

My wife still remembers her first time. It shook her soul bigtime!

Very hard to explain unless you open yourself up.

No words, nor scientific explanation can explain the feeling. Its like trying to explain love, or guilt using a scientific formula. Aint gonna happen.

You feel it in your heart when you let go of your inhibitions.

Peace Bro :) I hope you can find the inner peace we found in Islam (submission).

[wth1257]

Its not so much the "something to believe in". It is a strange feeling unlike anything I can describe in words.

Me, my wife, other people I know... when they prayed for the first time. The moment their head touched the floor they burst into tears. It is a very humbling experience.

The first time you let go of yourself. Free your mind of all the scientific formulas and explanations.

Just submit yourself. Surrender to the mighty power that created you. It is hard to stop the tears.

My wife still remembers her first time. It shook her soul bigtime!

Very hard to explain unless you open yourself up.

No words, nor scientific explanation can explain the feeling. Its like trying to explain love, or guilt using a scientific formula. Aint gonna happen.

You feel it in your heart when you let go of your inhibitions.

Peace Bro :) I hope you can find the inner peace we found in Islam (submission).

Thank You:)

[buddy1]

No, it doesnt really worry me either, i beleive that when someone dies, they are replaced by something else, (newborn babies, animals, trees, etc) but I dont think that in a spiritual way. Im just genuinely not a religious person, when it comes to the start of the world i beleive this happen as they happen, so if i was a good person towards the end of my days, then hopefully i will be replaced by something beautiful and not a weed!! :D

[Grace Seeker]

No, it doesnt really worry me either, i beleive that when someone dies, they are replaced by something else, (newborn babies, animals, trees, etc) but I dont think that in a spiritual way. Im just genuinely not a religious person, when it comes to the start of the world i beleive this happen as they happen, so if i was a good person towards the end of my days, then hopefully i will be replaced by something beautiful and not a weed!! :D

I guess this is a little off topic from talking about the end of life, but would I be correct in assuming from what you wrote that you feel there is a connection between your life and future lives not just in a cosmological since, but metaphyiscally as well? If so, how is that connection maintained? Controlled? Regulated? Administered? What/who does it?

[barney]

Hmm. I dunno how that is sustainable.

Are we talking there about each living thing being replaced by another , possibly sentinant living thing. I tread on a slug and it is all OK, because my Mum just planted a Bizzy Lizzy in a pot, or Mozart dies, but a street urchin is born?

For a kick off whats the balance of living organisms in the world. Does bacteria count? What about the chopping of the rainforests?

I am sucking at my top lip with a furrowed brow at this one.

[buddy1]

I guess this is a little off topic from talking about the end of life, but would I be correct in assuming from what you wrote that you feel there is a connection between your life and future lives not just in a cosmological since, but metaphyiscally as well? If so, how is that connection maintained? Controlled? Regulated? Administered? What/who does it?

Hmm. I dunno how that is sustainable.

Are we talking there about each living thing being replaced by another , possibly sentinant living thing. I tread on a slug and it is all OK, because my Mum just planted a Bizzy Lizzy in a pot, or Mozart dies, but a street urchin is born?

For a kick off whats the balance of living organisms in the world. Does bacteria count? What about the chopping of the rainforests?

I am sucking at my top lip with a furrowed brow at this one.

What I meant, was that I think that when a human dies, it is replaced, by something or someone, if you think about it, people die every second (i dont know the exact figures) and a baby is born every second (again, I dont know the exact number!!) i just look at it like this, when someone dies, almost instantly your place is taken by a new born baby, Im not very good at explaining this sort of theory in writing, i can garuntee if I was stood infront of you, you would see where I was coming from!! but I also beleive you come back as something else, (life after death and all that) you know, a bird, or a flower, or something! I hope I havent confused too many people!!! :D

[Grace Seeker]

What I meant, was that I think that when a human dies, it is replaced, by something or someone, if you think about it, people die every second (i dont know the exact figures) and a baby is born every second (again, I dont know the exact number!!) i just look at it like this, when someone dies, almost instantly your place is taken by a new born baby, Im not very good at explaining this sort of theory in writing, i can garuntee if I was stood infront of you, you would see where I was coming from!! but I also beleive you come back as something else, (life after death and all that) you know, a bird, or a flower, or something! I hope I havent confused too many people!!! :D

OK. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying; I just don't happen to think that the arrival of a new life either is dependent on the extinguishing of an old life or guaranteed by the loss of an old life. In other words I don't see arrivals and departurs as being connected in the cosmic sceme of things.

[جوري]

unsubscribed by mistake

[Amoeba]

There was a time when I believed in nothing at all except what's in the physical reality here and now.

Back then I can't say I ever felt worried about what happens after I die. I didn't honestly think that my death was the end of my consciousness, but I wasn't afraid of the idea either. Nor was I afraid of the possibility of being judged for my actions and intentions in life. I very much believed that if Allah subhana wa ta'ana was real then He would understand if someone had never been introduced to Islam or if they had never had any incentive to look it up, so I wasn't afraid of finding out I'd been wrong after all.

For a very very long time I didn't believe in any form of omnipotent higher power, but rather I had the idea that the spiritual realm was how atheists (particularly scientific atheists) see the physical realm, another randomly evolving plane of existence with no creator to guide it.

My views have changed a lot since then.

[Ezekiel_B]

The only thing that worries me is this idea of "the right religion"... it disturbs me to think people can imagine a god who is all powerful and all wise - but that they cannot seem to stretch their minds far enough to consider the possibility that if he/she is ultimately wise, the god might take into consideration the believers' sincerity in the way they worshipped and lived their lives, regardless of the precise religion that was available to them in their lifetime. It would be their fault, now would it? Otherwise, you forge yourselves a entity which seems to have the mind of an rigidly insecure fundamentalist, instead of an all wise, all knowing god.

That's just my take on it. And no... I don't worry myself with unsubstantiated supernatural eventualities.

[جوري]

what you think of God or think people ought to think of God really doesn't matter in the scheme of things!

[Grace Seeker]

The only thing that worries me is this idea of "the right religion"... it disturbs me to think people can imagine a god who is all powerful and all wise - but that they cannot seem to stretch their minds far enough to consider the possibility that if he/she is ultimately wise, the god might take into consideration the believers' sincerity in the way they worshipped and lived their lives, regardless of the precise religion that was available to them in their lifetime.

I can certainly understand your concern over this. But what makes you think that God doesn't take exactly that into consideration. I'm not saying that sincerity alone is all that counts, because people can be sincerely wrong and intent on continuing to head in the wrong direction. But for those who are genuinely seeking him, though they and I may have different understandings of who God is and what he ultimately expects, I suspect that the search is more important than having the perfect set of answers for I don't think that our finite minds could ever fully comprehend an infinite God well enough to ever actually possess THE perfect answer.

Here is a bit of conversation I had with another forumite regarding this same question in a different context:

Me: I read Malachi 1:10-11 today.

10 "Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

It seems my connection with God has less to do wtih my religion than my devotion. Makes me wonder if perhaps others that I think of as following the "wrong" religion might be closer to God than I simply because they take time to genuinely seek him.

She: I simply read that verse to mean that religious rituals are of little importance to God.
It reminds me of Hosea 6, especially verse 6, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

Me: Yes, I suspect that was the meaning to the people of Israel, especially verse 10. But given that vs 11 goes on to say, "My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations." I wonder if there is a need to be more careful vs. arrogant in our claims of being God's chosen people as if we alone are the only ones to whom God might show his favor.

She: That might depend on what God means by the 'incense and pure offerings brought to my name' as opposed to 'useless fires on my altar'. But I agree, it certainly seems that God is pleased by certain things he sees in 'the nations' and displeased by others he sees in Israel. However, I am not sure whether as a European Christian in the 21st century I identify myself as one amongst Israel. Am I not one belonging to 'the nations'?

Me: One among MANY nations. What is it that he finds pleasing in us? If not our ritual, then is it our creed? our praxis? or our personal devotion? And might he look for one thing of those of us with a certain background and a different thing of those of some other background? I guess I'm wondering if God's justice requires him to have the same standard of every person, or recognizing that we are not all born to into the same situation and knowledge of him, if his justice in fact requires just the opposite -- expecting more of those to whom much is given and satisified with somethign different, perhaps simply the sincere search for him, of those who don't have the same opportunity or exposure to him?

She: It's quite an exiting thought, and one I have never considered.

Now I think about it, it makes perfect sense that God, who knows us all intimately and personally, would know exactly what he can expect from each of us individually and how far we will be able to walk towards him in this life. And that he will judge us according to our properties and tendencies, personalities and backgrounds. If I think about it, I have somewhat different expectations (at least in certain areas) of my own children, because I know them to have different strengths and weaknesses.

Now, the next question is 'How do I know what God desires from ME personally?'

Me: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

[jabirmusa]

Here's something I read as a child and was fascinated by its simplicity as I considered the person and period it applies to. I wrote it down and have referred to it in times of stress over the next half century, always with a smile and consolation that no matter what happens the absolute certainty is that I know more than such a great historical figure:

It said of Kublai Khan that he respected the principal feasts of the Jews, Saracens, Idolators, and Christians. Being asked why this is so, he replied: There are four prophets to whom the world does honour. Christians say their god is Jesus Christ; Saracens venerate Mahomet; Jews revere Moses; Idolators pray to Sakyamuni Burkhan. I honour each, thus I am sure to honour him who is true. And I pray to him.

[Pygoscelis]

Here's something I read as a child and was fascinated by its simplicity as I considered the person and period it applies to. I wrote it down and have referred to it in times of stress over the next half century, always with a smile and consolation that no matter what happens the absolute certainty is that I know more than such a great historical figure:

It said of Kublai Khan that he respected the principal feasts of the Jews, Saracens, Idolators, and Christians. Being asked why this is so, he replied: There are four prophets to whom the world does honour. Christians say their god is Jesus Christ; Saracens venerate Mahomet; Jews revere Moses; Idolators pray to Sakyamuni Burkhan. I honour each, thus I am sure to honour him who is true. And I pray to him.

Sounds like a shallow minded version of Pascal's Wager. Also reminds me of Homer Simpson who on one episode when in trouble blurted out "Jesus! Buddha! Allah! I Love You All!"

[Grace Seeker]

Also sounds like something making the rounds on facebook earlier this week. I wonder if the poster is even the half century old that is claimed in the post?

[Arisempire]

Do you ever worry that when you die you'll figure out that some religion is true, and that you needed to have believed in it to go to heaven? Whether it's christianity, islam, or any other religion that requires acceptance before death to go to heaven (like not an "everyone goes to heaven" type of religion).

Do you ever wonder about this or worry about it?

How do you know that there's something 'after'?

[Zafran]

How do you know that there's something 'after'?

Just like you like you know theres something tommorrow.

[Arisempire]

Just like you like you know theres something tommorrow.

What I meant was, how do you know that the afterlife is as the Qur'an describes it? Maybe you pick up the wrong faith or God(s)?

Why you are so sure about the Muslim way of paradise? Is just faith?

[Zafran]

What I meant was, how do you know that the afterlife is as the Qur'an describes it? Maybe you pick up the wrong faith or God(s)?

Why you are so sure about the Muslim way of paradise? Is just faith?

Like the faith when you go back to sleep tommorrow your going to wake up the next day - thats faith as well.

We are that sure of the Quran and prophet Muhammad pbuh. Actually we are more then sure - we are certian.

[Arisempire]

Like the faith when you go back to sleep tommorrow your going to wake up - thats faith as well.

We are that sure of the Quran and prophet Muhammad pbuh.

So, is just faith, no evidence!

[Zafran]

So, is just faith, no evidence!

do you have evidence for waking up tommorrow or is that faith and no evidence!

I gave you 2 evidences.

[Arisempire]

do you have evidence for waking up tommorrow or is that faith and no evidence!

I gave you 2 evidences.

I don't know if I will wake up tomorrow. Is not an evidence nor faith, just I don't know If I will wake up tomorrow.

[Zafran]

I don't know if I will wake up tomorrow. Is not an evidence nor faith, just I don't know If I will wake up tomorrow.

what about your ancestors times 100? do you have any evidence they existed or is that faith?

[Ramadhan]

So, is just faith, no evidence!

Actually there's more than enough evidence for Islam, but that's in other threads.

More related to this thread:
"what is your evidence that this universe is not created?"

[Arisempire]

what about your ancestors times 100? do you have any evidence they existed or is that faith?

Faith would not be enough for me to be here, obviously is factual that I had ancestors.

Actually there's more than enough evidence for Islam, but that's in other threads.

More related to this thread:
"what is your evidence that this universe is not created?"

How can from nothing be created everything?

That's why the Universe has never been created, it always existed. Simply because from nothing can't come out everything.

[Ramadhan]

How can from nothing be created everything?

Monkeys also never believe that it is possible to fly to the moon. So are monkeys correct in their thinking?
Don't worry, I am not calling you monkey.

Actually your statement is erroneous in the most obvious fundamental way:
You implied that the creator is bound by the laws of this universe. So you implied that the creator was already in the universe before he'd created the universe. That is very basic logical mistake.

That's why the Universe has never been created, it always existed. Simply because from nothing can't come out everything.

And what is your evidence that this universe exists forever, because the physical laws alone do not support it.

[SpaceTime]

Not really. Maybe when I first became agnostic. But as you slowly drift into atheism, you realize that the religious are more worried than you. You take the world as it is, with its flaws and perfections. The grand vastness, the infinite neutrality concerning everything, that is ultimate truth, and its beautiful. It's beautiful because when I die, I will exactly be as I was before I was born. Part of this nothingness that has existed for billions of years and will continue to do so.

You don't worry about heaven being real or not. Because it isn't. You don't worry about going to hell, because hell doesn't exist. That is truth.

[جوري]

You don't worry about heaven being real or not. Because it isn't. You don't worry about going to hell, because hell doesn't exist. That is truth.

There is no truth to that at least none that you can prove!.. as we emerge from the nothingness of the womb to life, and the darkness of night to day light so shall we be resurrected from the tombs to eternal life.

each soul is held in pledge of its own deeds so it wouldn't matter in the scheme of things whether or not you feared or believed in an afterlife.. it will be your cross to bear if there is one!

all the best

[SpaceTime]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

[جوري]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

Bertrand's teapot analogy is so old and flawed it even shames other staunch atheists, for the theists, it is so puerile to engage an atheist who can't rise above inane analogies!

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

This is a alot of subjective fluff, it doesn't offer an explanation for the world we find ourselves nor does it draw from a thorough philosophical or scientific research. I understand you're not invested beyond putting your two cents down with vehemence and pepper it a little with anti-religious scorn.. but it is generally a waste of everyone's time, especially that no one knows you personally to take your opinion to heart!

all the best

[Zafran]

Faith would not be enough for me to be here, obviously is factual that I had ancestors.

How do you know thats a fact - did you see your ancestor times 1000?

[CosmicPathos]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

lots of arrogance here as you equate your atheism as being something of "growing up." I guess you try to find solace in thinking you are grown up.

[SpaceTime]

I apologies if I came over arrogant. Not my intention. I just meant that we as human beings are in a constant state of growth in all aspects.

Again, I apologies if I came over arrogant, not my intention!

[IAmZamzam]

For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove.

If you were really sincere about that then you would be a pure agnostic, not an atheist. You can't have it both ways.

There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun.

There's no proof that no fewer than 90% of atheists in the world are completely incapable of not callously speaking in childish analogies about subjects they know theists to take very seriously either, but it always seems to be confirmed by experience. Much less absurd things than giant pikachus have turned out to be true without being quite provable: the only reason pikachus and Santa Claus and flying spaghetti monsters are such common idioms is pure prejudiced condescension. You simply can’t help backhanding us every chance you get. Grow up already!

EDIT: I made this post at the same time as your last, so in light of it you can overlook this last paragraph but I don't want to erase it since it expresses a terrible fact about a very common trend. It's not about you and me.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true.

I would call that pop psychology if I didn’t think the term too complimentary. I don’t find the universe the least bit scary. Empty space and all that isn’t the least bit intimidating: after all, it is up there and we’re down here. You are the one mistaking mood for truth. A caveman-like sense of intimidation at vastness (even if it is there for someone) is not the same thing as a logical fact. If anything, it’s the opposite.

But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count.

And yet I would bet my life that if I did tell you what experiences of my own confirm my beliefs you’d just brush them off as anecdotal evidence.

Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

You sound like you’re reassuring yourself much more than us: “It’s not so bad…” It’s too easy for a human being to think they’re being brutally honest with themselves about something they would otherwise be too afraid of when in fact the whole thing is not self-honesty at all but itself done out of fear, even if it’s a different fear altogether: are you sure that hasn’t happened to you? Is the existence of truth really predicated on the existence of tangibility and provability to you? So the existence of numbers is bogus, and unprovable scientific or philosophical notions can’t be true? Do you really think truth is contingent on anything but itself when it is the quintessence of everything?

[SpaceTime]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Doing work and this at the same time, is not something easy!

[Zafran]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

Atheism is meaningless just as your Picachu example is -

Prophets have came, revelations have been shown - signs are all over the place if you cant see them then its your own problem

[gmcbroom]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope. The various religions on the other hand do bring hope. It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven; Atheism can say, see here's our proof. Versus the religious communities that have to rely on either sacred scripture or relics as physical proof. I would include miracles but miracles can't be scientifically duplicated they become a matter of faith. That is why it's difficult for some to believe.
peace be with you.
gmcbroom

[IAmZamzam]

It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven.

I think it's more about the existence of other kinds of data than empirical or scientific ones, and the complete denial of this by most atheists.

[Zafran]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope. The various religions on the other hand do bring hope. It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven; Atheism can say, see here's our proof. Versus the religious communities that have to rely on either sacred scripture or relics as physical proof. I would include miracles but miracles can't be scientifically duplicated they become a matter of faith. That is why it's difficult for some to believe.
peace be with you.
gmcbroom

Not quite many things are believed to be true even through there is very little empircal data - besides science tells us about what the the physical world is made of - it gives very little meaning to it - thats where religion or philosophy comes in.

atheism is just a denial nothing more - in itself it has nothing to offer to the world.

[SpaceTime]

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!
Secondly, I didn't mean to sound arrogant or condescending, at all. So I apologize for that.
Thirdly, let's get this going:

If you were really sincere about that then you would be a pure agnostic, not an atheist. You can't have it both ways.

I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.
But I still don't see how your argument disproves my point of needing to find quantitative and substantive evidence before forging preconceived notions about the universe and the human condition.

There's no proof that no fewer than 90% of atheists in the world are completely incapable of not callously speaking in childish analogies about subjects they know theists to take very seriously either, but it always seems to be confirmed by experience. Much less absurd things than giant pikachus have turned out to be true without being quite provable: the only reason pikachus and Santa Claus and flying spaghetti monsters are such common idioms is pure prejudiced condescension. You simply can’t help backhanding us every chance you get. Grow up already!

There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above. Perhaps it would seem less aggressive if I framed it otherwise. The reason it sounds so callous to all of us here, is because we are realizing the ridiculousness of a Pikachu powering up the Sun,we can all agree that it is ridiculous. This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable. This is to say, that the onus, is on the ones making the claim. In the same way, that you'd expect me to bring evidence of extra terrestrials, if I came in here and told you that I believed aliens had spoken to me. Because everything we've learned so far, tells us that there are no E.T on our planet currently. And a book written long ago, would not suffice in this, for you.

would call that pop psychology if I didn’t think the term too complimentary. I don’t find the universe the least bit scary. Empty space and all that isn’t the least bit intimidating: after all, it is up there and we’re down here. You are the one mistaking mood for truth. A caveman-like sense of intimidation at vastness (even if it is there for someone) is not the same thing as a logical fact. If anything, it’s the opposite.

So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?
The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.

You sound like you’re reassuring yourself much more than us: “It’s not so bad…” It’s too easy for a human being to think they’re being brutally honest with themselves about something they would otherwise be too afraid of when in fact the whole thing is not self-honesty at all but itself done out of fear, even if it’s a different fear altogether: are you sure that hasn’t happened to you? Is the existence of truth really predicated on the existence of tangibility and provability to you? So the existence of numbers is bogus, and unprovable scientific or philosophical notions can’t be true? Do you really think truth is contingent on anything but itself when it is the quintessence of everything?

I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things. I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7! You wouldn't, because there is not a single shred of evidence for it, regardless of the many philosophical gymnastics taken to support it *( which I doubt philosophy would have a hard time debunking in and of itself).


Also, I'm greatful to be hear. You guys are by far the most intelligent bunch I have conversed with!

Assalaamu aleikum!

[CosmicPathos]

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!
Secondly, I didn't mean to sound arrogant or condescending, at all. So I apologize for that.
Thirdly, let's get this going:


I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.
But I still don't see how your argument disproves my point of needing to find quantitative and substantive evidence before forging preconceived notions about the universe and the human condition.


There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above. Perhaps it would seem less aggressive if I framed it otherwise. The reason it sounds so callous to all of us here, is because we are realizing the ridiculousness of a Pikachu powering up the Sun,we can all agree that it is ridiculous. This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable. This is to say, that the onus, is on the ones making the claim. In the same way, that you'd expect me to bring evidence of extra terrestrials, if I came in here and told you that I believed aliens had spoken to me. Because everything we've learned so far, tells us that there are no E.T on our planet currently. And a book written long ago, would not suffice in this, for you.


So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?
The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.


I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things. I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7! You wouldn't, because there is not a single shred of evidence for it, regardless of the many philosophical gymnastics taken to support it *( which I doubt philosophy would have a hard time debunking in and of itself).


Also, I'm greatful to be hear. You guys are by far the most intelligent bunch I have conversed with!

Assalaamu aleikum!

what religion were you born into? ex-Muslim? ex-Christian? ex- theistic Hindu?

[Ramadhan]

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

The above is very subjective. You don't know what's in the hearts of theists and you don't know the reasons why theists believe.

using your line of reasoning, i could very well say the same thing about atheists:

Atheists do not want to believe that there is God because it gives them scary thoughts. The idea that we all will be resurrected after death to account for what we did in this world scare the s**** (i am censoring this myself) out of an atheist, so they want to console themselves and want solace by brushing off the thought that God exists.
They read books by atheists and "they heard from so and so" and they convince themselves that God does not exist.

[IAmZamzam]

SpaceTime, a great deal of your post is stuff I have already addressed in “Why I Am Not an Atheist”, it can’t be more than a few threads down on this “comparative religion” page. As for the rest:

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!

Uh, thank you…

I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

Then you need to change what it says in your profile at the side of your posts.

There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above.

What did I say about “mal intent”??

This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable.

I wonder how many western non-Muslims have ever heard anything about our conception of heaven beyond the carnal parts? A very telling tendency. I would be very surprised if you could show me any hadith about hell being beneath our feet. I do know that what the Koran actually says is that heaven and hell are going to be brought about after God tears down and rebuilds the universe we currently have.

So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?

Very nicely poetic but it doesn’t seem to mean anything, unless you’re saying that I alleged atheism itself to be only a mood, and I certainly did not.

The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.

Unless you’re a pantheist or something I don’t see why that would be a problem, as the universe is itself on the whole inanimate and therefore it’s no more meaningful for it to be “indifferent” than it is for a chair or a gum wrapper to be “indifferent”.

I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things.

Again you seem to put words in my mouth. It’s not automatic and I didn’t say it was. I just speculated as to whether there was really some fear or other with you in particular, and connected it to a universal tendency in human nature itself. I didn’t even say it was necessarily the case at all with you. I just want you to consider the possibility.

I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7!

I didn’t ask that at all!

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything, or do anything else competent in any way. In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent. There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best. Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them, and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

[Pygoscelis]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope.

True. But it doesn't inhibit or prevent hope either. You don't need religion to have hope, or any of the other psychological benefits that come with religion. I do agree with you though that besides upbringing these psycholgoical benefits are a major cause of people becoming (or remaining) religious. I recommend "Amazing Conversions" by Bruce Hunsberger. They researched conversions and apostates and indeed did find that the vast majority of conversions happen following major life events and through emotional "connection" and most apostacy happens through stark cold reason (as you put it).

The various religions on the other hand do bring hope.

Amongst other things, some of them good (sense that justice will be served, sense of community, etc) and bad (I'll not list those here as to derail the thread).

[Pygoscelis]

There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best. Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them, and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

And this is somehow different once the phisolophers/theologists introduce the idea of Gods and relgious dressing?

[IAmZamzam]

And this is somehow different once the phisolophers/theologists introduce the idea of Gods and relgious dressing?

Theologians are philosophers too, and they are perhaps just as prone to being full of it, but you can't just lump religion itself in with philosophy like that. They're two completely different things.

[Lynx]

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything,

Really? That's a new one. Most criticisms of philosophy are that it can't find answers. I thought everyone agreed that at the very least philosophy was good at picking apart theories. Last time I checked critical reasoning is a field perfected by philosophers.

or do anything else competent in any way.

So since logic is a field of philosophy and has been worked on and advanced mostly by philosophers, logic must not be very competent. Interesting.

In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent.

Which one or two do you have in mind? Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd? Also do you doubt the competency of the following men: Plato (the republic), Aristotle (everything), Descartes (geometry, meteorology, optics), Immanuel Kant (Critique of pure reason), David Hume (empiricism), Bertrand Russell (principa mathematica), W.V.O Quine (math, logic), Adam Smith (wealth of nations), Karl Marx (das kapital), Leibniz (calculus), Newton, John Locke (empiricism, liberalism), John Stuart Mill (economics, on liberty)?

There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best.

I am not sure how you can measure the intelligence of men and women long dead but your statement here is interesting since if you remove the philosophers from a textbook on the history of ideas, I am not sure how many 'geniuses' at all would be left to pick from.

Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them,

Philosophy is the application of rational argument to solve some problem that is considered to be in the realm of the 'philosophical'; these tend to be questions asking about the fundamental nature of abstract concepts such as (but not limited to) math, science, right and wrong, knowledge etc. Traditionally philosophical literature emphasizes 3 things: logical argument (to find truth), clarity (so people can understand) and conciseness (so the crucial aspects of an argument are open for target). Modern analytical philosophy is a testament to how seriously philosophers take these factors; however, some topics are very abstract and some philosophers find it difficult to effectively translate their ideas into words, which tends to result in what laymen call obscure or nonsensical writing (as you appear to be accusing philosophy of). I guess, true to its history, philosophy is an esoteric branch of study that deserves more appreciation than it usually boasts.

At least that's my take on it.

and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

People do this with anything that sounds 'intelligent' so I don't see why you are picking on philosophy. If anything this happens least in philosophy as you don't really see people picking up copies of the Critique of Pure Reason (remember that scene in Superman 2 where Kitty is reading a copy of that book right before Lex Luthor walks in? heh)....But hey maybe that's just me; perhaps you live in an area where pop books aren't so pop.


As for the general thread:

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it :)

[Zafran]

As for the general thread:

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it

ofcourse beliefs are important they are the foundations for any moral actions - If your beliefs are not sound then your actions are not going to be as well. As the famous hadith says actions are Judged by Intentions.

"Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated." - Bukhari and muslim

[IAmZamzam]

Lynx, I am not interested in debating your philosophical apologetics. Everyone goes through the collegiate philosophy craze phase, and I'm sure you'll get over it within a couple of years like the rest of us. Suffice to say, I stand by everything I said, especially when it comes to people like Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. These types are the most overrated minds in human history and their problem is precisely that they did not hold to their principles of logic and critical thinking, or at least did not apply them very competently. Flaunting or historically "advancing" the notion of a principle is not the same thing as exemplifying it. If you want a few examples I've already given them via a famous work of Bertrand Russell in another thread. Philosophy consists of 50% using intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual--sometimes I wonder how much of a difference there is between the two) language to dress up statements so rudimentary and already known to the reader and every two-year-old that without said language they would appear asinine, and 50% using intellectual language to dress up statements so blatantly contradictory to things every two-year-old knows that they would appear ludicrous were they said any other way. There's very little middle ground. One thing that does bear mention is your presumption that I would automatically rule Muslim philosophers as the sole exceptions. As a matter of fact, the only philosopher I can easily think of who wasn't abysmally full of it, Alan Watts, was an atheist.

[Trumble]

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything, or do anything else competent in any way. In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent. There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best.

Hmmm... a good contender for the biggest load of pretentious cr*p ever posted to these forums. Plato? Aristotle? Descartes? Leibnitz? Kant? Mill? 'average' intelligence?! Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy.

Get outta here. Go read some philosophy rather than spouting nonsense about it. :rolleyes:

[IAmZamzam]

In the case of some, like Descartes, I would definitely say below average intelligence. For example, every five-year-old knows that things can't be more perfect than other things, but once frame such an idiotic thought in philosophical language and suddenly you're a genius. Bah. Then again, as Stephen King said in one of his non-fiction works, no one can be as intellectually slothful as a really smart person. Not having a brain, not using it, what difference does it make? It all amounts to the same in the end.

Why is what I said pretentious? Apparently just because you find it outrageous. Do you even know what "pretentious" means? It's possible that I'm just a cynic but there is no trace of pretense in anything I've said.

"Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy." Talk about a genetic fallacy! You may have a point all the same: perhaps that's what's wrong with academia.

[Trumble]

In the case of some, like Descartes, I would definitely say below average intelligence.

Is that supposed to be a joke? We are talking about the Descartes who came up with the Cartesian co-ordinate system, analytical geometry and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy?!

Why is what I said pretentious? Apparently just because you find it outrageous. Do you even know what "pretentious" means? It's possible that I'm just a cynic but there is no trace of pretense in anything I've said.

Oh, I know exactly what it means! I really think you need to be a little more honest with yourself if you really believe that second sentence is true. I don't find it outrageous, it's far too nonsensical to be taken seriously enough for that.

"Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy." Talk about a genetic fallacy! You may have a point all the same: perhaps that's what's wrong with academia.

It is not a genetic or any other variety of fallacy, just evidence highly suggestive that this supposed intellectual tragedy of yours never happened. If you want something more specific in relation to intelligence, try THIS. A few names you might recognise, like erm, Russell, Kant and the positively retarded Rene Descartes. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[IAmZamzam]

I don't claim to really know the various mental strengths and weaknesses of these people and frankly I don't even care. What matters is what we do and their philosophy was itself unintelligent. Mel Brooks really had the issue down pat in History of the World, Part 1--you know, that movie wherein the philosophers walk around literally just saying (to edit it for the board):

"B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S."
"B.S. B.S.?"
"B.S. B.S. B.S!"

That's philosophers for you. And yes, it is very much a genetic fallacy to say that B being an offshoot of A necessarily confirms A or even makes it any smarter. History consists largely of happenstance. Nor am I interested in what after-the-fact estimations there have been about anyone (no doubt by people who, like the rest of us, were raised in an atmosphere of positively skewed preconceived notions about the intelligence of philosophers). Even when I.Q. is actually taken via real testing during someone's lifetime it's still unreliable.

You still haven't told me what's pretentious about anything I've said, and I still am not at all convinced that the sole reason I strike you that way isn't just how much I disagree with your own views.

[Trumble]

I don't claim to really know the various mental strengths and weaknesses of these people and frankly I don't even care. What matters is what we do and their philosophy was itself unintelligent.

Again, I just find that claim utterly ludicrous. I don't see much point in taking that further; maybe you could point in the direction of anything you've written that even approaches the likes of Republic, the Meditations, The Critique of Pure Reason, On Liberty, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Being and Time, etc in regards of the insight, creativity and intelligence required to author them. You are a pygmy pointing at giants.

Mel Brooks really had the issue down pat in History of the World, Part 1--you know, that movie wherein the philosophers walk around literally just saying (to edit it for the board):

"B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S."
"B.S. B.S.?"
"B.S. B.S. B.S!"

Ah, my bad. I'll just throw away all the above to make room for the complete works of Yahya Sulaiman and Mel Brooks. It might take a while to figure out which is the intellectual and which is the comedian, though.

And yes, it is very much a genetic fallacy to say that B being an offshoot of A necessarily confirms A or even makes it any smarter.

It may well be, but I didn't make that claim. Strawman time ....

Even when I.Q. is actually taken via real testing during someone's lifetime it's still unreliable.

Of course, but how many people other than yourself would seriously present figures at the other end of the scale, based either on the same techniques or on their own reading of the books I listed (among a great many others)?! IQ tests are not necessary; reading the books is.

You still haven't told me what's pretentious about anything I've said, and I still am not at all convinced that the sole reason I strike you that way isn't just how much I disagree with your own views.

I didn't think that was necessary. You don't think presenting yourself as more intelligent than Rene Descartes (on the assumption you don't consider yourself to have below average intelligence), not to mention qualified to pass similar judgement on the others mentioned, is pretentious? I do.

[IAmZamzam]

I've got news for you: holding an uncommon opinion about someone else's intelligence does not automatically qualify someone as pretentious. Your insistence that it does only serves to prove what I've said, that you automatically associate ideas you consider to be outrageous with pretense. The only way pretense could be involved is if I'm adopting the attitude falsely so that I can be part of some clique or something like that. News flash: people are allowed to disagree with you. I'm not a cliquish sort. I didn't even make much of a point of what I said. I'm not the one who called undue attention to it: you and Lynx are. All I did was make one little offhand comment in the midst of an on-topic point and you've snowballed it into a total derailing of the thread. I would just as soon not have said anything more about it had I not been called on to defend myself so repeatedly at the behest of everything this thread is supposed to be about.

[Trumble]

I've got news for you: holding an uncommon opinion about someone else's intelligence does not automatically qualify someone as pretentious. Your insistence that it does only serves to prove what I've said, that you automatically associate ideas you consider to be outrageous with pretense.

It is not holding the opinion that is pretentious; it is presenting yourself as someone capable of making an informed judgement that defies all the evidence on the matter that is pretentious. We can agree, though that enough off-topic is enough. Back to worried (or serene) atheists, folks.

[IAmZamzam]

It is not holding the opinion that is pretentious; it is presenting yourself as someone capable of making an informed judgement that defies all the evidence on the matter that is pretentious.

Only if it's a given in that a judgment is going against the evidence in the first place! At worst I could still be unpretentiously holding a viewpoint that misunderstands or underestimates the evidence, or overestimates the evidence I have to the contrary! Holding an uncommon idea--even if it is inflammatory to some people--is an automatic sign of pretense only to the insistently closed-minded!

[Pygoscelis]

Back on topic...

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it :)

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

Any God primarily concerned with my belief in him (rather than my behaviour towards my fellows) isn`t worthy of being called God. And it would be my moral duty to stand up to a God as depicted in some parts of these holy texts (such as Exodus or Deuteronomy). Hell would become virtuous.

I don't worry about things I can't control or change so I don't worry about this kind of God existing. I would be powerless to oppose him, but morally obliged to do so, and thus doomed no matter what.

[- Qatada -]

Back on topic...

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

That = Ungratefulness. Why shouldn't a person thank and be obedient to a God who gave them all they have in the first place? You can only do good to others because God gave you these favours. [premise of discussion: God is your Provider].

[Ramadhan]

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

in the Qur'an, in all verses that mention who qualify to enter paradise, Allah SWT says "for those who believe AND do good deeds.."

again, you've been here for more than 4 years, but your islamic knowledge is abysmal.
haven't you learned anything about Islam in those years?

[Perseveranze]

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

Peace,

Suprised you would say that. It's probably the main difference in regards to; yes, in Islam you can't just talk (and just believe), you have to walk aswell.

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteous is the one who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict. These are they who are truthful; and these are they who keep their duty." [Ch. 2:177]

Please remember this. Praying to God alone isn't going to cut it, show true obedience through moral actions aswell; that's Islam.

[Pygoscelis]

Naidamar, why do you assume I was talking about the Qur'an? Especially when I specifically referenced the bible?

in the Qur'an, in all verses that mention who qualify to enter paradise, Allah SWT says "for those who believe AND do good deeds.."

So he cares equally if I believe in him as if I'm a good person. That isn't much better from where I'm standing. It says that obedience is just as (if not more) important than being good, and I would have to stand against such a Tyranical (by definition) God if one existed. To borrow an analogy, it would be like Celestial North Korea. Not for me.

And of course though I would be morally obliged to stand up to this God, given he is omnipotent I would be powerless and would be doomed. So why worry about what I can't control? So no I am not worried about God existing. First because I find it incredibly unlikely, and second because if one does exist and he's a tyranical one, I can do nothing about it.

[Pygoscelis]

Praying to God alone isn't going to cut it, show true obedience through moral actions aswell; that's Islam.

While my main sticking point with Christianity is vicarious redemption, I think my main sticking point with Islam is defacto unquestioning obedience to authority (Allah) being pushed as a virtue. I understand that my view on that is not welcome here, but it does form part of my answer to the question posed (do you worry? - No, because if a God exists I doubt he'd be tyranical and if he is I'm powerless and doomed anyway so I don't worry.), so there you have it.

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar, why do you assume I was talking about the Qur'an? Especially when I specifically referenced the bible?

of course I assume you were talking about Islam and the qur'an. any sane person would assume the same.
1. This is an Islamic board, not christian board
2. the thread starter is a muslim
3. in the last few pages stretching back few weeks, there is NO single christian joining in the debate.
4. even if you mentioned exodus and deuterenomy, that was not related to your statement "Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works. " that was in different paragraph and in relation about you standing up to god.
anyway, I dont get why you bringing up bible, as surely you understand the issue of credibility muslims have with bible.

[Ramadhan]

So he cares equally if I believe in him as if I'm a good person. That isn't much better from where I'm standing. It says that obedience is just as (if not more) important than being good, and I would have to stand against such a Tyranical (by definition) God if one existed. To borrow an analogy, it would be like Celestial North Korea. Not for me.

And of course though I would be morally obliged to stand up to this God, given he is omnipotent I would be powerless and would be doomed. So why worry about what I can't control? So no I am not worried about God existing. First because I find it incredibly unlikely, and second because if one does exist and he's a tyranical one, I can do nothing about it.

I wonder how you treat your parents?

[جوري]

I wonder how you treat your parents?

atheists are very tribal in their primitivism and crudity of course the more 'liberated' you're from religion, the more animal like you become!

:w:

[Perseveranze]

While my main sticking point with Christianity is vicarious redemption, I think my main sticking point with Islam is defacto unquestioning obedience to authority (Allah) being pushed as a virtue. I understand that my view on that is not welcome here, but it does form part of my answer to the question posed (do you worry? - No, because if a God exists I doubt he'd be tyranical and if he is I'm powerless and doomed anyway so I don't worry.), so there you have it.

Peace,

Your "powerless" is assuming you'll die as an Athiest? You don't know your future and even if you did, certainly no one here can say for sure how God will judge a person. But in Islam, we believe there's enough signs and I'm not just talking about religion here, just talking about the "existence of a Diviniy/Creator". By calling yourself powerless, your implying that God isn't being "fair" to you right? That may be your opinion, but Muslims believe God's done enough (however subtle you want to call it) to seperate true believers from the non-believers. At the moment, you don't believe God exists, now if God sent his angels down to you, who told you that God existed, would you then believe in God?

Anyways, some interesting verses for the Athiests maybe;

"And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live (i.e. some people die and others live, replacing them) and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.” Say, “Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt.” But most of the people do not know."» [45:24]

"Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?"» [23:115]

"And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire. Or should We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like corrupters in the land? Or should We treat those who fear Allah like the wicked?"» [38:27]

"Or do those who commit evils think We will make them like those who have believed and done righteous deeds - [the evildoers being] equal in their life and their death? Evil is that which they judge [i.e. assume]. And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and they will not be wronged."» [45:21]

"And We did not create the heavens and the earth and that between them in play. We did not create them except in truth, but most of them do not know. Indeed, the Day of Judgment is the appointed time for them all."» [44:38]

"But those who disbelieve say, “The Hour (i.e. the Day of Judgment) will not come to us.” Say, “Yes, by my Lord, it will surely come to you. [Allah is] the Knower of the unseen.” Not absent from Him is an atom’s weight within the heavens or within the earth or [what is] smaller than that or greater, except that it is in a clear register - That He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. Those will have forgiveness and noble provision. But those who strive against Our verses [seeking] to cause failure (i.e. to undermine their credibility) - for them will be a painful punishment of foul nature."» [34:3]


"Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned."» [21:35]

These are just a few, but it's interesting for me (when I first read them), there weren't many "Athiests" at the time of the Prophet(pbuh), anywhere in the world. 1400 years ago, pretty much everyone had a belief of a divinity or some other kind of greater power that's beyond this realm (Athiesm really took off when Darwin came along). The verses almost make me feel like they are crying out with the most basic of messages; that yes, there is a Creator. And with Athiesm rising (read 9% rise of americans not believing in creationism), these verses really (for me atleast) make me think and it's signficance in world of today and the future (however long that may be, I assume faith will deteriorate in some way). We Muslims believe the Quran is for all times, so it's not so suprising if these very verses that say "so you think that last hour won't come will it?" may be more purposely directed at the people of the future than the people of 1400 years ago.

[Pygoscelis]

At the moment, you don't believe God exists, now if God sent his angels down to you, who told you that God existed, would you then believe in God?

I may, but the point is that I would not unquestioningly obey him or accept that all he says and does is something I must approve of. I can conceive of an evil God. Might does not make right.

[Pygoscelis]

I wonder how you treat your parents?

I treat them very well. They care a lot more about me being a good person than agreeing with all they say, and have never threatened me with eternal torment for disagreeing with them. They've also never flooded my house, drowned my pets, or told me to kill their children, or anyone else. If they had, I wouldn't treat them so well.

[Ramadhan]

I treat them very well. They care a lot more about me being a good person than agreeing with all they say, and have never threatened me with eternal torment for disagreeing with them. They've also never flooded my house, drowned my pets, or told me to kill their children, or anyone else. If they had, I wouldn't treat them so well.

Thankfully your parents did not give you life, did not give you air to breath, did not give you sustenance, did not protect you from danger every single day, did not give you intelligence for you to use to deny them....

[Lynx]

@Pygo

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

Honestly, as morally repugnant as it may seem, if God turned out to be like how Muslims and Christians claim then I am all for obedience, especially if the alternative was eternal hell-fire Lol. Self-preservation !

@Zafran

ofcourse beliefs are important they are the foundations for any moral actions - If your beliefs are not sound then your actions are not going to be as well

I agree with everything you said but can you please explain how this is relevant to anything I said ? Beliefs are important, sure; but they are not moral actions. If a person is able to 'see' Islam as the right religion, then good for him; how does that qualify him to go heaven? Similarly, if a person sees Agnosticism as the most reasonable belief then how does that qualify him to go to hell? Religious people always make it seem like to believe in God is akin to doing some morally good action but can't seem to explain how a belief is any sort of action at all... I believe God is smart enough to realize this and if he decided to create heaven and hell then the respective criteria for entry must be a little more umm RELEVANT to someone's actions, choices and characteristics.

[Trumble]

Thankfully your parents did not give you life, did not give you air to breath, did not give you sustenance, did not protect you from danger every single day, did not give you intelligence for you to use to deny them....

No, but they do/did exist to do an awful lot for me (and in later years vice versa), which is more than can be said for God. A fantasy might provide psychological comfort, but it can provide nothing else. Of course, that's a totally atheistic perspective, but the original question was asked of atheists. Yet again, I fail to understand why so many theists fail to grasp that atheists do not 'deny' God.. if they did that they would not be atheists. They simply do not believe God exists as a real entity as opposed to a human construction.

atheists are very tribal in their primitivism and crudity of course the more 'liberated' you're from religion, the more animal like you become!

:w:

Atheists' dealings with their parents are no different from anybody else's.

I don't know what's happened to you lately. In recent months you haven't made a single informative or otherwise positive post; every one is just a usually unjustified and frequently ad hominem snipe at other posters either individually or collectively. :hmm:

[M.I.A.]

@Pygo


Honestly, as morally repugnant as it may seem, if God turned out to be like how Muslims and Christians claim then I am all for obedience, especially if the alternative was eternal hell-fire Lol. Self-preservation !

@Zafran


I agree with everything you said but can you please explain how this is relevant to anything I said ? Beliefs are important, sure; but they are not moral actions. If a person is able to 'see' Islam as the right religion, then good for him; how does that qualify him to go heaven? Similarly, if a person sees Agnosticism as the most reasonable belief then how does that qualify him to go to hell? Religious people always make it seem like to believe in God is akin to doing some morally good action but can't seem to explain how a belief is any sort of action at all... I believe God is smart enough to realize this and if he decided to create heaven and hell then the respective criteria for entry must be a little more umm RELEVANT to someone's actions, choices and characteristics.

i think belief does equate to action, if they are moral or not is something we have to wait and see. an external judgement to supercede our own judgement.

the brain is really deceptive, if you ever are unlucky enough to remove that deception than what you would see is any level of hell or heaven you want.. at this point... belief equates to moral action OR not.

as for me, i try my hardest not to take advantage of any situation... i can understand what this implies for self preservation as well as i can understand this world, its people and its workings.

i still believe in my god and the day of judgement will be the only day it is proven, a few short days in hell may be the perfect training lol

[Zafran]

@Pygo

@Zafran


I agree with everything you said but can you please explain how this is relevant to anything I said ? Beliefs are important, sure; but they are not moral actions. If a person is able to 'see' Islam as the right religion, then good for him; how does that qualify him to go heaven? Similarly, if a person sees Agnosticism as the most reasonable belief then how does that qualify him to go to hell? Religious people always make it seem like to believe in God is akin to doing some morally good action but can't seem to explain how a belief is any sort of action at all... I believe God is smart enough to realize this and if he decided to create heaven and hell then the respective criteria for entry must be a little more umm RELEVANT to someone's actions, choices and characteristics.

If a person is agnostic then his or her deeds are ultimatly for this life and have no bearing in the next - If he does a good deed or action they will have some worldly reason but have nothing to do with an after life - the Hadith I quoted shows that clearly.

This is the main difference between the religious people (atleast the Abrahamic faiths) and the non religious - the belief in the afterlife and how serious people take it.

Al Ghazzali talks alot about this in a religious context and how we have to keep our intentions pure and remembering the afterlife in his "revival of the religious sciences"

Ultimatley your actions are what you intend them to be - thats how they will be Judged.

[جوري]

I don't know what's happened to you lately. In recent months you haven't made a single informative or otherwise positive post; every one is just a usually unjustified and frequently ad hominem snipe at other posters either individually or collectively.

sorry.. it wasn't directed at you anyway..

peace

[Lynx]

If a person is agnostic then his or her deeds are ultimatly for this life and have no bearing in the next - If he does a good deed or action they will have some worldly reason but have nothing to do with an after life - the Hadith I quoted shows that clearly.

This is the main difference between the religious people (atleast the Abrahamic faiths) and the non religious - the belief in the afterlife and how serious people take it.

Al Ghazzali talks alot about this in a religious context and how we have to keep our intentions pure and remembering the afterlife in his "revival of the religious sciences"

Ultimatley your actions are what you intend them to be - thats how they will be Judged.

sorry i don't quite see the relationship between what you're saying and my claim that beliefs are not moral actions. sure our intention guide our actions...so what?

as a side, i think if an atheist is doing something good for the sake of his belief that his action is good then he's morally superior to a theist who does good for the sake of an afterlife reward.

[Zafran]

sorry i don't quite see the relationship between what you're saying and my claim that beliefs are not moral actions. sure our intention guide our actions...so what?

as a side, i think if an atheist is doing something good for the sake of his belief that his action is good then he's morally superior to a theist who does good for the sake of an afterlife reward.

Afterlife in meeting God. I never said about reward - nobody worships the reward.

You dont seem to get the point of doing an action for the world and doing an action in the name of God who humans will meet in the afterlife.

The big difference between an athiest/agnostic and believer.

Our actions ARE what we intend them to be. Thats how God will judge them.

what you gave me is a wordly action that you think is moral in a world that wont last long.

[IAmZamzam]

The only actions that matter, the only things God grades us on in this test, are intentions or efforts. Therefore, as the sunnah says, there will be people whose actions are ostensibly Islamic--even martyrs--who will rightly be d-a-m-n-e-d (please let us type that word already; this is a religious forum). It is a simple and obvious corollary that the converse will also be true. How often disbelief in God ever turns out to be excusable is a separate issue altogether and most of what I see is not encouraging, just the result of closed-minded refusal to accept the existence of anything immaterial or unprovable or unscientific; or else misdirected hostility against religion (usually as some tool for controlling the masses, as if that would automatically negate the truth of religion even if it were the case) masquerading as a logical argument against theism itself. Sometimes it seems to be only a refusal to accept the existence of God if His motives are the least bit inscrutable or unclear to you--as if one could protest a nonexistent entity. But it would be very unrealistic to expect there never to be any atheists who are just honestly mistaken due to innocent flawed reasoning. It can happen to anyone. Incorrectness is not a sin, folks (and if you don't believe me, look at surah 2, verse 286).

[Lynx]

Afterlife in meeting God. I never said about reward - nobody worships the reward.

You dont seem to get the point of doing an action for the world and doing an action in the name of God who humans will meet in the afterlife.

The big difference between an athiest/agnostic and believer.

Our actions ARE what we intend them to be. Thats how God will judge them.

what you gave me is a wordly action that you think is moral in a world that wont last long.

OH okay. So if Bob feeds the poor then he's judged on why he fed the poor, right? So if he fed the poor for the sake of Allah then he's done something worthy of heaven (for example) whereas if he did it for some wordy reason (like virtue-if that's wordly) then he's judged as doing something for a wordly cause and not deserving of reward (and i guess hellfire?) is that right? it seems to me the questions is unanswered; why does his belief come into play at all. your response seems to presuppose that believing in God is a good thing hence actions with god as their intention are better than without.

[جوري]

OH okay. So if Bob feeds the poor then he's judged on why he fed the poor, right? So if he fed the poor for the sake of Allah then he's done something worthy of heaven (for example) whereas if he did it for some wordy reason (like virtue-if that's wordly) then he's judged as doing something for a wordly cause and not deserving of reward (and i guess hellfire?) is that right? it seems to me the questions is unanswered; why does his belief come into play at all. your response seems to presuppose that believing in God is a good thing hence actions with god as their intention are better than without.

Bob plays the piano by ear and he is excellent at it chris went to juilliard and plays the piano he is excellent at it.. would you then be surprised when chris gets a nice paying job with the philharmonic while bob struggles for gigs at various downtrodden bars?

Olivia studies hard makes it to medical school, Sally really likes playing doctor her heart is in the right place, are we then surprised when Olivia is an assistant professor at John's Hopkins whereas Sally strikes a tent and charges premium for homemade snake oil?

It is really not a difficult thing to grasp.. except in the beginning and end judgment lies with God.. so when/if you should find yourself in that place where what you've denied all along is a reality state your grievances right there and then as to why neither your intentions nor your deeds were in the right place!

all the best

[Zafran]

OH okay. So if Bob feeds the poor then he's judged on why he fed the poor, right? So if he fed the poor for the sake of Allah then he's done something worthy of heaven (for example) whereas if he did it for some wordy reason (like virtue-if that's wordly) then he's judged as doing something for a wordly cause and not deserving of reward (and i guess hellfire?) is that right? it seems to me the questions is unanswered; why does his belief come into play at all. your response seems to presuppose that believing in God is a good thing hence actions with god as their intention are better than without.

If you do an action for the world your reward is in the world - whatever reason Bob is doing that action is still unclear? why is he doing the action for the temporal world? why is he doing that virtue? God will Judge at the end.

If you do an action in the name of God your reward is with God. Agian God will judge.

His belief/intention is important as God will judge actions by there intentions - if your intentions are for the world then you get what you desire from the world. Why would you think of getting something from God in the hereafter when your intentions were nothing to do with the creator of the universe?

Simple as that.

[Lynx]

Bob plays the piano by ear and he is excellent at it chris went to juilliard and plays the piano he is excellent at it.. would you then be surprised when chris gets a nice paying job with the philharmonic while bob struggles for gigs at various downtrodden bars?

Olivia studies hard makes it to medical school, Sally really likes playing doctor her heart is in the right place, are we then surprised when Olivia is an assistant professor at John's Hopkins whereas Sally strikes a tent and charges premium for homemade snake oil?

No we are not surprised at the outcome of the example because we know that medical school makes someone better at being a doctor than simply playing doctor all your life. What we are trying to establish is what makes a belief in God morally good when beliefs aren't actions; you've just assumed what you've set out to prove is true in the example you presented so I am afraid you've begged the question.

It is really not a difficult thing to grasp.. except in the beginning and end judgment lies with God.. so when/if you should find yourself in that place where what you've denied all along is a reality state your grievances right there and then as to why neither your intentions nor your deeds were in the right place!

all the best

Well God knows that at least some non-theists are not actively pretending God does not exist for the heck of it.

His belief/intention is important as God will judge actions by there intentions - if your intentions are for the world then you get what you desire from the world. Why would you think of getting something from God in the hereafter when your intentions were nothing to do with the creator of the universe?

So God is only concerned if the action is done in his name regardless of whether or not the person has upheld his principles? :S

Let's assume what you say is true. Why would God send people to hell for their disbelief then? Your explanation attempts to show people aren't worthy of reward, but how are they worthy of punishment ? Why doesn't God just vanish non-theists from existence once they die instead of sending them to hell? Again, the reason is because of their sole nonbelief in God but what is it about that nonbelief in God that makes someone worthy of eternal hell-fire.

[جوري]

No we are not surprised at the outcome of the example because we know that medical school makes someone better at being a doctor than simply playing doctor all your life. What we are trying to establish is what makes a belief in God morally good when beliefs aren't actions; you've just assumed what you've set out to prove is true in the example you presented so I am afraid you've begged the question.

we're not surprised that having a good career by going through the proper channels guarantees you a better outcome than winging through life under pretenses no matter how well intending! You can't get a job as a doctor outside of academia and you can't get into the eternal house without religion. As for what makes ones beliefs morally good, well it depends on the outcome and ultimately those are judged by the creator.

Well God knows that at least some non-theists are not actively pretending God does not exist for the heck of it.

I am not concerned with that and it doesn't bother me.. it is something that those individuals will have to answer for if there is a God.. so there is really no point in making mention of it to me or anyone else for that matter!

[Ramadhan]

So God is only concerned if the action is done in his name regardless of whether or not the person has upheld his principles? :S

I dont know how many times we have to explain the same thing to you (atheists, agnostics), but it has been repeatedly written in this thread alone, that both intentions and actions are important, as Allah SWT repeatedly say in the qur'an about those who will be the winners in the life after this world: "for those who believe and do good deeds"

Is that really difficult to understand, lynx?
Is that why you remain a non-muslim?

[جوري]

What is astonishing to me personally is why people who don't believe in the afterlife or God preoccupy themselves so much with what happens in the afterlife and with God.. does that make sense?

[IAmZamzam]

What is astonishing to me personally is why people who don't believe in the afterlife or God preoccupy themselves so much with what happens in the afterlife and with God.. does that make sense?

It's the age of the internet and the way the internet works is that most people never see any reason to use it for talking about anything except their hatemongering diatribes. The atheists talk about the issues they don't believe in so often because either (a) that will allow them to let off more steam from their soreheaded grudge with religion, and (b) they're trying to "talk sense" to us so they can bring us up to the top of some imaginary intellectual food chain where surprise surprise, only people who agree with their own views naturally reside. You know, civilizing the superstitious natives.

[جوري]

It's the age of the internet and the way the internet works is that most people never see any reason to use it for talking about anything except their hatemongering diatribes. The atheists talk about the issues they don't believe in so often because either (a) that will allow them to let off more steam from their soreheaded grudge with religion, and (b) they're trying to "talk sense" to us so they can bring us up to the top of some imaginary intellectual food chain where surprise surprise, only people who agree with their own views naturally reside. You know, civilizing the superstitious natives.

Hate to agree with you but I do!

:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Yes motives are key. If somebody's conception of "good" is defined as "God's will" and they do good only to please God and not for its own sake, they they are being obedient, not moral. Obedience is not morality, and the two can conflict. Abraham ready to murder his son for God is a good example. Other, non-religious, examples can be found repeatedly throughout human history.

we're not surprised that having a good career by going through the proper channels guarantees you a better outcome than winging through life under pretenses no matter how well intending! You can't get a job as a doctor outside of academia and you can't get into the eternal house without religion. As for what makes ones beliefs morally good, well it depends on the outcome and ultimately those are judged by the creator.

How does Hell work into this doctor analogy? Nobody judges you for not becoming a doctor. You are not tortured for all eternity for not becoming a doctor.

What is astonishing to me personally is why people who don't believe in the afterlife or God preoccupy themselves so much with what happens in the afterlife and with God.. does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense. If I conceived of, and more importantly, worshiped, obeyed and followed, a God who you knew didn't exist but who was blatantly immoral and tyranical, that would say a lot about me, my intentions, my values, etc. And then if I equated morality with obedience to this God and declared those who dislike or disbelieve in this God as Evil, that would also say something about my mindset.

You do not have to believe in something to see it as a negative, or as a positive for that matter. I can agree with much of what certain prophets said and appreciate the effect people believing in them has on believers. I don't have to be a believer myself for that. I can read passages in the Quran, for example, and see how they will lead people to kindness and good behaviour and be thankful that it says that instead of something leading them to cruel and bad behaviour. I can appreciate and admire that Islam lacks the Christian concept of vicarious redemption for example.

Imagine how different world history may be had the Christian Bible (which was held as holy by those who conquered most of the planet) explicitly forbid slavery, instead of half-condoning it. Imagine also if the Ten Commandments started with a call to morality instead of the call to obedience ("I am the Lord thy God, thou shall have no Gods before me" being instead the golden rule or rules against rape and slavery etc)

[aamirsaab]

...Let's assume what you say is true. Why would God send people to hell for their disbelief then? Your explanation attempts to show people aren't worthy of reward, but how are they worthy of punishment ? Why doesn't God just vanish non-theists from existence once they die instead of sending them to hell? Again, the reason is because of their sole nonbelief in God but what is it about that nonbelief in God that makes someone worthy of eternal hell-fire.

Because the belief in Allah is central to Islam. It's the very essence, the core, of the religion. Not having it is akin to blasphemy, especially when you have lived amongst His creations (your body being one of them).

On the day of judgement, God is not going to say "well lynx, you were a pretty good lad for 90% of your life, but for the mere fact of not believing I existed in the remaining 10%, you can go to hell". It's not a case of thought-crime, so that rules out punishment for non-belief. It is however a case of what actions you did in relation to those thoughts.

Having doubts, yeah you wouldn't be human otherwise (heck, almost every muslim I know at one point in their lives had serious doubts and even cases of neglecting Islam alltogether [some would consider it apostacy]), but don't write yourself off completely, the test isn't over - you are still in control of your fate.

[Zafran]

So God is only concerned if the action is done in his name regardless of whether or not the person has upheld his principles? :S

Let's assume what you say is true. Why would God send people to hell for their disbelief then? Your explanation attempts to show people aren't worthy of reward, but how are they worthy of punishment ? Why doesn't God just vanish non-theists from existence once they die instead of sending them to hell? Again, the reason is because of their sole nonbelief in God but what is it about that nonbelief in God that makes someone worthy of eternal hell-fire.

what does your first point actually mean - its dead straight forward - You believe in God and hold his principles by acting upon your belief in God - why are you making a distincton between God's principles and In God's name is beyond me as its the same thing. To even to uphold God's principles you have to do the first step actually believe in God.

If you dont believe in God your doing your actions for a different reason all togather its not for God. Its simple as that.

People who do not worship God will worship something else from desires to idols - they will do there actions other then in the name of God - they are ultimatly living there lifes for a totally different reason - opening up the door that God has already warned us about.

[جوري]

gee wilkers to what do I this response!

Yes motives are key. If somebody's conception of "good" is defined as "God's will" and they do good only to please God and not for its own sake, they they are being obedient, not moral. Obedience is not morality, and the two can conflict. Abraham ready to murder his son for God is a good example. Other, non-religious, examples can be found repeatedly throughout human history.

That is a slogan that atheists have adopted as part of their tenets, has positively no basis in reality. Like the benefits of prayer, people will only see in it what their own psyche dictates.
Some see it as a form of exercise, some view it as spiritual growth, some see it as a time out, some see it as a therapy session. Is it anyone of those things, is it all those things.. The answer really can't be surmised by the atheist mind nor should it be left to their pedantic explanations!

How does Hell work into this doctor analogy? Nobody judges you for not becoming a doctor. You are not tortured for all eternity for not becoming a doctor.

One doesn't worship for rewards or punishments.. again that is part of the atheist credo and a way to lull themselves into believing their beings more altruistic when nothing can be further from the truth. Further still everything comes with price.. I'd hate to pay the ultimate price, but let's get back to the doctor analogy not working for a good degree whatever it maybe renders one a bum, and many repercussions come from being a bum. There was a recent study meant to see how many prisons should be built by 2025 and they assessed that risk of criminality by the drop out rate from school.. so not getting an education is in fact proportional to punishment unless you consider prison an all expenses paid hiatus!

It makes perfect sense. If I conceived of, and more importantly, worshiped, obeyed and followed, a God who you knew didn't exist but who was blatantly immoral and tyranical, that would say a lot about me, my intentions, my values, etc. And then if I equated morality with obedience to this God and declared those who dislike or disbelieve in this God as Evil, that would also say something about my mindset.

This is alot of drivel.. I really can't make sense of it, perhaps you can articulate yourself better?

You do not have to believe in something to see it as a negative, or as a positive for that matter. I can agree with much of what certain prophets said and appreciate the effect people believing in them has on believers. I don't have to be a believer myself for that. I can read passages in the Quran, for example, and see how they will lead people to kindness and good behaviour and be thankful that it says that instead of something leading them to cruel and bad behaviour. I can appreciate and admire that Islam lacks the Christian concept of vicarious redemption for example.

Ok and can I say what a blessing it is to have your nod of approval!

Imagine how different world history may be had the Christian Bible (which was held as holy by those who conquered most of the planet) explicitly forbid slavery, instead of half-condoning it. Imagine also if the Ten Commandments started with a call to morality instead of the call to obedience ("I am the Lord thy God, thou shall have no Gods before me" being instead the golden rule or rules against rape and slavery etc)

How different would it be? I doubt any change would become of it-- we've certainly seen people's behavior sans religion and it wasn't far better, in fact nothing at all was holding them back!

all the best

[Zafran]

Yes motives are key. If somebody's conception of "good" is defined as "God's will" and they do good only to please God and not for its own sake, they they are being obedient, not moral. Obedience is not morality, and the two can conflict. Abraham ready to murder his son for God is a good example. Other, non-religious, examples can be found repeatedly throughout human history.

who defines morality here? - you even have to call to authority to make an act moral like your emotions which your using now - we've had this discussion before authority is needed to form any morality or moral system. - No authority No morality.

You keep repeating yourself - why are you here?

[Pygoscelis]

Nazi soldiers were obedient. They were not moral. The two are not the same.
Abraham ready to kill Isaac was obedient. It was not moral. To label empathy or mutual benefit as "authoirty" is to miss the point. Both are not perfect but both require some actual moral thought. "Might Makes Right" or "Obey your maker" does not.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular in this forum, but it always amazes me on other forums or in person when some religious people make the claim that atheists can't have morals, becuase morality needs a "law giver". It makes me wonder if these people would be raping and murdering if they lost their faith. I do not think they would be. I think they have just burried their own internal moral compass so far beneath their religious dogma that they no longer realize it is there.

[جوري]

Nazi soldiers were obedient. They were not moral. The two are not the same.

So religion equals Nazism? I always love your quest to be even more venomous!

Abraham ready to kill Isaac was obedient. It was not moral. To label empathy or mutual benefit as "authoirty" is to miss the point. Both are not perfect but both require some actual moral thought. "Might Makes Right" or "Obey your maker" does not.

Abraham wasn't to kill Issac it was Ishmael.. be that as it may..
Abraham Also had this:


وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ ۖ قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِنْ ۖ قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي ۖ قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا ۚ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ {260}
[Pickthal 2:260] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.

He had a first hand account of truth than the rest of the lay people.. and you know what.. he didn't sacrifice, it was a test of his faith and love of God, who giveth and who taketh away.. Everything in life is temporal. Those who are given the message are meant for it. They're meant to be fickle atheists with no faith!

This is not aimed at anyone in particular in this forum, but it always amazes me on other forums or in person when some religious people make the claim that atheists can't have morals, becuase morality needs a "law giver". It makes me wonder if these people would be raping and murdering if they lost their faith. I do not think they would be. I think they have just burried their own internal moral compass so far beneath their religious dogma that they no longer realize it is there.

It is because your baseline for morals is the stuff of satanists. It only has to do with Hedonism and what feels right.. not because there is anything good or decent about it. Believe me you couldn't offend even if you tried.

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ لَوْلَا يُكَلِّمُنَا اللَّهُ أَوْ تَأْتِينَا آيَةٌ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ قَالَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ مِثْلَ قَوْلِهِمْ ۘ تَشَابَهَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ ۗ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ {118}
[Pickthal 2:118] And those who have no knowledge say: Why doth not Allah speak unto us, or some sign come unto us? Even thus, as they now speak, spake those (who were) before them. Their hearts are all alike. We have made clear the revelations for people who are sure.


you're not that much different than those who preceded you -- we're all very familiar with your psychology!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

Nazi soldiers were obedient. They were not moral. The two are not the same.
Abraham ready to kill Isaac was obedient. It was not moral. To label empathy or mutual benefit as "authoirty" is to miss the point. Both are not perfect but both require some actual moral thought. "Might Makes Right" or "Obey your maker" does not.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular in this forum, but it always amazes me on other forums or in person when some religious people make the claim that atheists can't have morals, becuase morality needs a "law giver". It makes me wonder if these people would be raping and murdering if they lost their faith. I do not think they would be. I think they have just burried their own internal moral compass so far beneath their religious dogma that they no longer realize it is there.

And how did that compass get there? From your parents? From society? We're being obedient to someone one way or another.

[Lynx]

I dont know how many times we have to explain the same thing to you (atheists, agnostics), but it has been repeatedly written in this thread alone, that both intentions and actions are important, as Allah SWT repeatedly say in the qur'an about those who will be the winners in the life after this world: "for those who believe and do good deeds"

Is that really difficult to understand, lynx?
Is that why you remain a non-muslim?

The only way your post is even relevant is if you're saying someone with the intention of finding the 'truth' but failed to see Islam as that truth has the same chance of entering heaven that a Muslim does. If you are not saying that then go back and re-read my posts.

On the day of judgement, God is not going to say "well lynx, you were a pretty good lad for 90% of your life, but for the mere fact of not believing I existed in the remaining 10%, you can go to hell". It's not a case of thought-crime, so that rules out punishment for non-belief. It is however a case of what actions you did in relation to those thoughts.

So you think a morally upright atheist can go to heaven, right? That's what I am getting from your response so please correct me if I am wrong; you seem to say there is no such thing as a 'thought-crime' so no atheist is guilty for anything pertaining to his/her beliefs.

what does your first point actually mean - its dead straight forward - You believe in God and hold his principles by acting upon your belief in God - why are you making a distincton between God's principles and In God's name is beyond me as its the same thing. To even to uphold God's principles you have to do the first step actually believe in God.

Well by principles of God I mean the general moral character God prescribes in the scriptures. Someone can follow those guidelines without actually believing in God; it's not impossible for someone to have an internal moral compass pointing them towards the same sort of behavior that Islam prescribes for its followers.

If you dont believe in God your doing your actions for a different reason all togather its not for God. Its simple as that.

People who do not worship God will worship something else from desires to idols - they will do there actions other then in the name of God - they are ultimatly living there lifes for a totally different reason - opening up the door that God has already warned us about.

You're equivocating on the word 'worship' but besides that you haven't answered my question; why does doing things for something other than God (for moral reasons, selfish reasons, etc) make one worthy of Hell? The logical conclusion of your stance is that non-Muslims (or non-theists if we are speaking generally) are not deserving any reward and not deserving any punishment.


@Lily

You can't get a job as a doctor outside of academia and you can't get into the eternal house without religion. As for what makes ones beliefs morally good, well it depends on the outcome and ultimately those are judged by the creator.

You're confusing beliefs with actions. Picking up a water bottle is an action; studying hard for my exam is an action; believing 1+1=2 or Islam is true is NOT an action so your analogy is inaccurate.

[جوري]

You're confusing beliefs with actions. Picking up a water bottle is an action; studying hard for my exam is an action; believing 1+1=2 or Islam is true is NOT an action so your analogy is inaccurate.

Actively choosing and seeking God's mercy and the life of the righteous takes action when we pray, fast, make pilgrimage, give charity what do you call that? It is very much an action, faith is built on study no different than any other.. Thus it is your line of thinking that is faulty and to be honest I really don't give a da mn to have some calisthenics with words with you or any other non-believer.. As stated you're happy in your state of atheism, don't concern yourself so much with theism, and if you should find yourself of the poor on the day of recompense then state your grievances then...

with this post I am done and with the forum as well!

all the best

[aamirsaab]

...So you think a morally upright atheist can go to heaven, right? That's what I am getting from your response so please correct me if I am wrong; you seem to say there is no such thing as a 'thought-crime' so no atheist is guilty for anything pertaining to his/her beliefs.

A morally upright athiest would not go to heaven because he doesn't believe in God. And I would not be able to understand how such a combination is possible: if you were to live according to all the islamic principles; follow the Qur'an; be the ideal muslim yet at the exact same time not believe in Allah, then that would be an act of hypocricy - that explains the punishment of hellfire.

Like I said in previous post, the belief in Allah is central to Islam. Without having that fundemental, how can you even hope to enter His paradise? But there is a difference between doubt and disbelief - that's what I was trying to get at before.

[highway4]

Assalamu Alaikum,
Regardless which way you put it, Athesim is a belief itself.. the question would be to why is it natural for a human to need belief? Why does every human been question themselves naturally to what is the reason for his existing in the first place? must be a reasonable question...we could of simply walk on this earth on the first place without a thought to ask that question but we did Why?... You wouldn't be on this forum in the first place if any of these thoughts never occured to you? You wouldnt be trying to justify your belief?
Everything on this Earth has a purpose...A tree has a purpose...a key has a purpose, a roof has a purpose but a human being as a whole doesn't??
If you believe in no existance of God then you dont believe in the prophets or the divine revelations...whats there to guide you or your children from right and wrong? to have morals or even have fear in been punished for wrongdoing? Through books of revelation and prophets from God he has given us a guide for us all to lead an acceptable, justified and moral way of life. Nothing can give you that here except through the knowledge that God has revealed...
If you were to steal...we know its a bad thing and that person needs to be punished right?
how would you prove that its wrong?
If this person is an atheist...
I dont see the benefits in been an atheist at all...Its like life is but a waste...
I dont see no benefits to ones character...
EVERYTHING that you have done in this life will be forgotten...even if your children were to remember some of your memories and achievements, they too will forget you and so on so forth...Then you will be forgotten as if you didnt exist... If your mother or father or even your child were dieing is that it...theres no hope...nothing?? i find that in itself unjustified!
Thankyou for your time

[Zafran]

Well by principles of God I mean the general moral character God prescribes in the scriptures. Someone can follow those guidelines without actually believing in God; it's not impossible for someone to have an internal moral compass pointing them towards the same sort of behavior that Islam prescribes for its followers.

Then you would be a muslim.

You're equivocating on the word 'worship' but besides that you haven't answered my question; why does doing things for something other than God (for moral reasons, selfish reasons, etc) make one worthy of Hell? The logical conclusion of your stance is that non-Muslims (or non-theists if we are speaking generally) are not deserving any reward and not deserving any punishment.

If your acting upon selfish reasons your worshipping your nafs - If your acting upon "Moral reasons" - here you'll have to define these moral reasons - you are worshipping those moral reasons. Those reasons are more important then God?