Where are the "New Atheism" prophets?

[AntiKarateKid]

Muslims point to the character of Prophet Muhammad pbuh as the pinnacle of charity, kindness, justice... basically morality. In addition we have the other Prophets such as Moses pbuh and Jesus pbuh.

These figures and their teachings and have served as the inspiration for billions to follow in their shadows and uplift their lives. They have moved the entire world with their deeds and most of all, devotion to Allah. They turned savages into saints. They lived lives of simplicity. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh only owned the bare necessities of life and left only his mule and his small home after his death. Among his last words were: “We the community of Prophets are not inherited. Whatever we leave is for charity.”

What do they have in common? They were the most religious and pious human beings in history.

Where are the atheist parallels? What atheist has ever moved so many heart? Served as an example for so many lives?

None has. There has never been a comparable atheist in history to these figures. Why not? If these Prophets were liars or mad, surely it would be a simple matter to outdo them?

Important Note: Do not start talking about "religious people have done bad things in their name" because this is about the PROPHETS. Moreover, we all know that none of these religions ask us to be rapists or thieves and those sinful actions have no basis in the character of the Prophets. So drop it.

[Gubbleknucker]

Atheism has been so oppressed for so long that many great people may have been atheists, but were afraid of the consequences of being thought a heretic.

We are a minority.


Still, we have:


Albert Einstein : Left quite a warning regarding the consequences of aggression,
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Susan B. Anthony : Helped to free the female population

Ayn Rand : Inspired millions to live their lives for themselves

I won't go into all the philosophical and scientific accomplishments...

[Gubbleknucker]

Muslims point to the character of Prophet Muhammad pbuh as the pinnacle of charity, kindness, justice... basically morality.

Morality does not come from religion, if that's what you're implying.

[convert]

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels are the ones they generally worship, with Chairman Mao coming in close behind.

No offense, but this is kinda a dumb thread.

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

[Gubbleknucker]

Sorry, but apparently I can't edit my posts, so I'll have to make a lot of them as I get new ideas.

They were the most religious and pious human beings in history.

...And the only reason we even know about them is that they were religious leaders. The history is selective. Out of all the billions of people that ever lived, when you go that far back in time, we only know about a few.

We don't know about poor little Joe, who gave the last of his water to Jim while they were walking in the desert.

[Gubbleknucker]

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels are the ones they generally worship, with Chairman Mao coming in close behind.

Sorry, but no. Most of the atheists I know are libertarians, not communists.

We don't worship anything.

[convert]

Sorry, but no. Most of the atheists I know are libertarians, not communists.

We don't worship anything.

In that case: the almighty dollar.

[Zafran]

Morality does not come from religion, if that's what you're implying.

morality however was perfected by prophets - thats what he was implying i believe.

[ragdollcat1982]

Athiesm is a religion in and of itself. Atheist have faith there is no God and are adamant to spread that belief to others.

[Gubbleknucker]

Atheism is a lack of religion. On a list of religions to select from I would select "none." There is no faith involved. If you provide rational arguments for why a god exists I will listen.

In that case: the almighty dollar.

...more like human rights.

Libertarianism: a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize the state.

[Trumble]

Where are the atheist parallels? What atheist has ever moved so many heart? Served as an example for so many lives?

None has. There has never been a comparable atheist in history to these figures.

The Buddha is an obvious counter-example.

[Gubbleknucker]

The Buddha is an obvious counter-example.

Yeah, I'll except that. Mysticism without theism is still atheism, I suppose.

So would it be more accurate to call myself an amystic than an atheist?

[ragdollcat1982]

Yeah, I'll except that. Mysticism without theism is still atheism, I suppose.

So would it be more accurate to call myself an amystic than an atheist?

Buddism is a non theistic "religion". Maybe you should do some research on the Zen school of Buddism.

[Gubbleknucker]

@ Convert: Do you think both capitalism and communism is bad? If capitalism is not bad, then what is wrong with the dollar?

Buddism is a non theistic "religion". Maybe you should do some research on the Zen school of Buddism.

I have, and I disagree with the Buddha.

[ragdollcat1982]

I have, and I disagree with the Buddha.

Riight.:rollseyes

[Gubbleknucker]

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness in one way or another.

I rarely suffer.

2. Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.

Sorry, but I enjoy existence.

3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment

Desire is my internal drive. Without desire I may as well just be a stagnant puddle.

[AntiKarateKid]

The Buddha is an obvious counter-example.

Are there not buddhists who see him as a spiritual figure? Hardly the legacy of an "atheistic counter-example". Moreover, the buddhist texts are possibly more corrupted (people added and took out stuff) and mixed up than the Bible.

[Trumble]

Are there not buddhists who see him as a spiritual figure? Hardly the legacy of an "atheistic counter-example".

The counter-example of the Buddha undermines your thesis, at least insofar as any need for God or gods is concerned... and let's try and remember what 'atheism' actually means. You can still present a weakened version, though, that I (if not Gubbleknucker) would accept.

Certainly, like the Abramhamic prophets the Buddha is a religious figure, but the fact remains that he quite easily matches those prophets in all the respects you mentioned except, obviously, 'devotion to Allah'. And that really is the point; for religious figures being moral examplars is part of the job description, and obviously as religious figures the individuals - and stories of their conduct - become well known. No prophet could be a prophet, or at least one taken seriously, if he remained an unrepentant 'nasty piece of work'. Add to that a healthy historical distance and a history of (presumably) friendly editors and the explanation becomes clear. Even Mohammed had enemies - rather more of them than the Buddha I suggest - yet we never get to hear what they thought about his conduct.

Now look at the poor old 'modern' atheist - of the 'amystical' variety. No historical distance and friendly editors to hide behind, in most cases anyway. But even then they could live their whole lives as paradigms of morality, kindliness and altruism. And nobody, except those they met, would ever get to know about it.. indeed it is in the nature of such people to be humble. Exactly the same is true of those prophets and the Buddha, but the difference in their case is that because they were associated with 'religion' in some respect people recorded or remembered what they did and so we got to hear about it anyway.

[AntiKarateKid]

The counter-example of the Buddha undermines your thesis, at least insofar as any need for God or gods is concerned... and let's try and remember what 'atheism' actually means. You can still present a weakened version, though, that I (if not Gubbleknucker) would accept.

Certainly, like the Abramhamic prophets the Buddha is a religious figure, but the fact remains that he quite easily matches those prophets in all the respects you mentioned except, obviously, 'devotion to Allah'. And that really is the point; for religious figures being moral examplars is part of the job description, and obviously as religious figures the individuals - and stories of their conduct - become well known. No prophet could be a prophet, or at least one taken seriously, if he remained an unrepentant 'nasty piece of work'. Add to that a healthy historical distance and a history of (presumably) friendly editors and the explanation becomes clear. Even Mohammed had enemies - rather more of them than the Buddha I suggest - yet we never get to hear what they thought about his conduct.

Now look at the poor old 'modern' atheist - of the 'amystical' variety. No historical distance and friendly editors to hide behind, in most cases anyway. But even then they could live their whole lives as paradigms of morality, kindliness and altruism. And nobody, except those they met, would ever get to know about it.. indeed it is in the nature of such people to be humble. Exactly the same is true of those prophets and the Buddha, but the difference in their case is that because they were associated with 'religion' in some respect people recorded or remembered what they did and so we got to hear about it anyway.

I disagree with most if not all of your points. I got a paper to right, so forgive me if my answer seems a bit disorganized. I'll come back to what I missed later.

1. The Buddhist scriptures have no guarantee of authenticity. You have no clue as to if what you have today is what Buddha actually said. I suspect that the texts, just like in other religions, was edited as Buddhism evolved.

2. Saying Buddha was comparable to Muhammad saw is like saying the president of the politics club in school is comparable to the president of the United States. I don't see previously warring people united under one banner, entire systems of government, philosophy, and morality flourishing because of him. Buddhism is hardly as united as even Christianity, and to most people today, is reduced to crossing your legs on the floor, closing your eyes, and breathing deeply. Just a few examples as to why his actions and their repercussions across the globe and through history are not comparable to Muhammad's pbuh.

3. Though I understand atheism is the denial of God, theism is the belief in God and never have atheists been as united as Muslims.

4. I'm not going to get into the "atheists can live moral lives" debate. Too tired...

Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but also it is devotional ... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind.

[AntiKarateKid]

Atheism has been so oppressed for so long that many great people may have been atheists, but were afraid of the consequences of being thought a heretic.

We are a minority.


Still, we have:


Albert Einstein : Left quite a warning regarding the consequences of aggression,
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Susan B. Anthony : Helped to free the female population

Ayn Rand : Inspired millions to live their lives for themselves

I won't go into all the philosophical and scientific accomplishments...

Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning. Check history to see how the pagans tried to commit genocide against the early Muslims. Christians and Jews underwent similar persecution.

Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists? Your leaders should have been braver!

And remember the note I put at the bottom of my first post. We are not talking about atheists in general. I am making the point that you have not had a single uniting leader to serve as an example and guide like us....ever.

[Gubbleknucker]

Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning. Check history to see how the pagans tried to commit genocide against the early Muslims. Christians and Jews underwent similar persecution.

Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists? Your leaders should have been braver!

It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.

And remember the note I put at the bottom of my first post. We are not talking about atheists in general. I am making the point that you have not had a single uniting leader to serve as an example and guide like us....ever.

Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.

[AntiKarateKid]

It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.



Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.

They couldn't even form a united movement against theism? Were their reasons lacking? Leadership lacking? Intellectuals lacking? Their examples lacking?

[AntiKarateKid]

Whoops forgot this for Trumble!

In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshipped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshipped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead."

[AntiKarateKid]

It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.



Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.

How did you think Islam started? A single individual. People were moved enough by him to follow him. Atheism is a belief, just like theism, and atheists have never had a leader to carry forward their banner.

[Ali_008]

Atheism has been so oppressed for so long that many great people may have been atheists, but were afraid of the consequences of being thought a heretic.

We are a minority.
Still, we have:
Albert Einstein : Left quite a warning regarding the consequences of aggression,
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

:sl:
By giving Einstein's example, I suppose you're saying that he was an athesit but here's one of his most famous quotes in which he acknowledged Religion and also highlighted its importance :

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Trumble]

I disagree with most if not all of your points. I got a paper to right, so forgive me if my answer seems a bit disorganized. I'll come back to what I missed later.

1. The Buddhist scriptures have no guarantee of authenticity. You have no clue as to if what you have today is what Buddha actually said. I suspect that the texts, just like in other religions, was edited as Buddhism evolved.

This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.

Nobody pretends that any Buddhist text is a verbatim report of the words of Siddhartha Gautama; the initial tradition was transmitted orally for several centuries before being written down for a start. If, though, you are somehow suggesting what he actually said and, in this context, how he behaved was somehow radically different from what many millions over more than two millennia have found no reason to doubt it really is up to you to "put up or shut up".

2. Saying Buddha was comparable to Muhammad saw is like saying the president of the politics club in school is comparable to the president of the United States. I don't see previously warring people united under one banner, entire systems of government, philosophy, and morality flourishing because of him. Buddhism is hardly as united as even Christianity, and to most people today, is reduced to crossing your legs on the floor, closing your eyes, and breathing deeply. Just a few examples as to why his actions and their repercussions across the globe and through history are not comparable to Muhammad's pbuh.

That is, frankly, just biased rubbish I thought twice about dignifying with a reply at all. I assume you couldn't come up with any constructive response in the context of the actual debate on the topic you introduced. The suggestion that no systems of philosophy and morality have flourished and indeed continue to flourish because of the Buddha's teaching is both ignorant and absurd. Buddhism has never made any claims to be a political system. Oh, and even your comment about previously warring people is completely wrong... you 'don't see' because you can't be bothered to look.

3. Though I understand atheism is the denial of God, theism is the belief in God and never have atheists been as united as Muslims.

Atheism is not the denial of God, it is the denial of the existence of God. It is also not a religion; and it is therefore meaningless to talk about atheists being 'united' or not... there is no reason for them to be. I'm certainly not 'united' with Gubbleknoucker for obvious reasons! In a different sense Buddhism is not 'united' because it simply has no reason to be. The fundamental beliefs are the same, and without being hamstrung by a need to worry about the exact words of God or a prophet, Buddhists are quite free to disagree about the details. They have never fought a war over them.

Atheism is a belief, just like theism, and atheists have never had a leader to carry forward their banner.

This is just plain silly. A banner 'saying' what? Like political ideologies, religions have positive manifestos and you can write those on banners, imaginary or otherwise. Atheism is the belief something doesn't exist.

By analogy, it's like comparing a group of Manchester United supporters with their scarves, shirts and banners with one guy standing in the park with a banner saying 'Soccer is boring '. Just because he isn't surrounded by a crowd of thousands doesn't mean there aren't plenty who agree with him.

[Ali_008]

This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.

Brother, I'm not here to make an argument between Islam and Buddhism. To be honest, I hardly know a thing about Buddhism but we Muslims have been ordered in the Qur'an to not insult the "gods" or "deities" worshipped by others. It is mentioned in Surah Anam, verse 108

Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.

Other than that, I'd like to make few other points as well that might please you. In the Qur'an, by name, only 25 Prophets are mentioned but the Qur'an also states in Surah Nahl, verse 36

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Taghut besides Allah).

And according to a Hadeeth, Allah had sent 124,000 Prophets on Earth. So based on this, many Buddhists who were impressed by Islam have asked questions like "Is it possible that Buddha was a Prophet of God?" The answer to this is "could be", and so out of the courtesy which Islam stretches towards non-Muslims as well, it could be possible that Buddha was a Prophet but it can't be said of a surety.

And in the response to Brother AntiKarateKid's post about the authencity of the Buddhist scriptures, you gave a strong reply and so I believe that you strictly believe in your scripture and now here's the big moment. If you believe your Buddhist scripture to be true then you must believe in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the message he brought i.e. the Glorious Qur'an. If you wanna ask me, how am I so confident then read the article in the following link. After having read it, if you have your ambiguities cleared and finally you see the light then I'm the first one to welcome you to the religion of Peace i.e. Islam with open arms. May Allah Guide You.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Buddhism

The post has been very random but I just tried to bring in everything between Islam and Buddhism.

:w:

[Trumble]

And in the response to Brother AntiKarateKid's post about the authencity of the Buddhist scriptures, you gave a strong reply and so I believe that you strictly believe in your scripture and now here's the big moment. If you believe your Buddhist scripture to be true then you must believe in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the message he brought i.e. the Glorious Qur'an. If you wanna ask me, how am I so confident then read the article in the following link. After having read it, if you have your ambiguities cleared and finally you see the light then I'm the first one to welcome you to the religion of Peace i.e. Islam with open arms. May Allah Guide You.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Buddhism

I'm afraid the answer is not "could be", it is "no". In terms of Buddhism, the very idea is totally ludicrous. While I accept your 'offering' in the spirit in which you make it (rep inbound) I'm afraid even an elementary knowledge of Buddhism is sufficient to show that that is pretty desperate stuff; quotes picked pretty much at random and presented as meaning something they don't. To be honest I was very surprised to see that from Zakir Naik rather than, say, Harun Yahya who specializes in such nonsense.

There is no 'prophecy' regarding Mohammed, or indeed prophecy about anything at all. Buddhas arise because according the Buddhist conception of how the Universe works it is inevitable that they will. The comments on linguistics are laughable. Sanskrit (which is the wrong language here anyway, it should be Pali - although the two are closely related) is the nearest we have to a proto-typical Indo -European language, and such parallels can be identified with all modern languages from that family as well as, to a lesser extent, the semitic languages such as Arabic.

As religions, Buddhism and Islam are totally incompatible. Buddhism simply has no basis for 'prophecy', let alone for the future coming of Prophets for a God that the whole of Buddhist philosophy and belief disqualifies from even existing.

[glo]

This site may be of interest: Doubters who changed the world

Unfortunately the information given on each person relates more to their stance on religion and God, rather on their influence in moral and ethical terms ... but that doesn't mean they didn't do that too.

It may just be a starting point for finding our more about Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Paul Heinrich Dietrich D'Holbach, Thomas Hobbes, Lucius Annaeus Seneca and Epicurus.

[Joe98]

Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning.

Check history to ..........

Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists?

You dont need history. My brother is an athiest and a keen traveller. In 2007 he spent one week in Iran as a tourist. When you enter the country it is compulsory to provide youre religion.

He wrote "Christian" because he knew he would be persecuted if he wrote "None".

-

[Joe98]

Athiesm is a religion in and of itself. Atheist have faith there is no God and are adamant to spread that belief to others.

No, that comment is propoganda. An athiest doesn;t have "faith" as you define it above. Instead, to an athiest:

Something is true or;
Something is probable or;
Something is not probable or;
Something is not true.

There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required.

-

[Zafran]

No, that comment is propoganda. An athiest doesn;t have "faith" as you define it above. Instead, to an athiest:

Something is true or;
Something is probable or;
Something is not probable or;
Something is not true.

There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required.

-

Trying to be a mechine are we.........

[Joe98]

Trying to be a mechine are we.........

You can't think of any counter points :shade:

-

[Zafran]

You can't think of any counter points :shade:

-

so are you trying to become a mechine? - I just dont believe you - You simply dont believe in a God - thats preety much it.

It also depends on how you define true?

But in reality this is the part gives you away

There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required

Thats a belief

[believeByHEART.]

oh haram..

i agree with Zafran completely you have a 'belief' which you dont believe the existence of God/Allah is true.

however, i never thought athiests as a paricular religion???
they have no faith so how can a religion exist within it and have prophets??

Athiest is just a word developed for a person who needs 'visible' evidence to understand the existence of God/Allah -that simple really..

really want to go off topic right now.. xD

[Pygoscelis]

It almost like AntiKarateKid intends to misunderstand so he can build up straw men to attack. I know not much about Budhism but merely from what Trumble has posted here and in other threads (in which Anti has posted) I can see the clear (and I believe intentional) misunderstandings in the following.

1. The Buddhist scriptures have no guarantee of authenticity. You have no clue as to if what you have today is what Buddha actually said. I suspect that the texts, just like in other religions, was edited as Buddhism evolved.

First, all religions evolve, even Islam. Islam today is not Islam as it was originally, whether you choose to accept that or not. Read Karen Armstrong's "History of God" which is an excellent recounting of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as they have been over the ages.

Second, Budhism isn't based on revalation from God. It doesn't matter where the Budhist beliefs/rituals/etc came from. I totally respect this over the theistic religions. It isn't authority based, but instead based on what works for people. Buddhists appear to seek truth, and the source or "authority" isn't important.

2. Saying Buddha was comparable to Muhammad saw is like saying the president of the politics club in school is comparable to the president of the United States. I don't see previously warring people united under one banner, entire systems of government, philosophy, and morality flourishing because of him. Buddhism is hardly as united as even Christianity, and to most people today, is reduced to crossing your legs on the floor, closing your eyes, and breathing deeply. Just a few examples as to why his actions and their repercussions across the globe and through history are not comparable to Muhammad's pbuh.

This is completely self serving and ridiculus. As Trumble has said, there have been no wars over "proper" interpretation of buddhism and I don't think Buddhists set out to spread their religion by the sword either. I'll take the calm serene Buddhist over the self righteous muslim or christian every time.

3. Though I understand atheism is the denial of God, theism is the belief in God and never have atheists been as united as Muslims.

The only reason atheists ever unite is to fight off radical religionists. The only reason say Trumble (a budhist), myself and the other atheists in this thread would unite would be to defend ourselves and each other from people like you sir. We have no other common cause and we likely have disagreements on pretty much everything else. There is no Atheist cause. We have no prophets because we have no dogma. We are instead free to think for ourselves on these matters. This is not a bad thing.

4. I'm not going to get into the "atheists can live moral lives" debate. Too tired...

Theists can lead moral lives, but only because they have the same moral sense that atheists have. All religion adds is dogma, which just as often burries our inate moral sense as highlights it. I have no doubt that if you lost your faith in Allah tomorrow you'd still lead a fairly moral life. Why do you think that could be if morality comes from Allah?

[Pygoscelis]

Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning. Check history to see how the pagans tried to commit genocide against the early Muslims. Christians and Jews underwent similar persecution.

Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists? Your leaders should have been braver!

First, Get it through your head that we have no leaders in atheism. Atheism is not an organized system of thought. It is just one opinion on one question. NOTHING MORE. As much as you may like atheism to have dogma or prophets for you to attack, there simply are not any.

Second, I see MUCH more honour in doing good for the sake of good than doing good and then advertising your ideology or religion. That atheists who do great things for society don't come out pushing "atheism" is admirable. I with more religious people would do good works without an attached infomercial.

There often isn't nearly as much Pride in being atheist as there is in being [insert religion here]. Many atheists really don't care much if you don't know they are atheists. And many more will pretend to be theists if it serves their purposes. My grandmother thought I was a Christian until her death. It brought her comfort. I didn't see any reason to take that comfort from her. If I was threatened with death or whatever for being an atheist I'd see nothing wrong with pretending not to be religious (as Joe's brother did in his trip to Iran). Its not like I'd be punished by some mean spirited atheist god for doing so.

[Pygoscelis]

They couldn't even form a united movement against theism? Were their reasons lacking? Leadership lacking? Intellectuals lacking? Their examples lacking?

Since you seem to be being purposefully offensive here, I'll take off the kid gloves and give it to you straight. Many atheists see religion as a crutch for desperate or weak minded people and think it kind of cruel to take it from them, so there isn't much of a movement against anything but the radical religionists. Organizing a movement against basic religion would be like organizing a movement against Santas at the mall - why not let them have their fantasies if it makes them happy and doesn't harm anybody? If your loved one dies and somebody says "She's in a better place now", how does it benefit anybody for me to attack that comforting thought and say "No, she's just worm food"? Would be kind of pointlessly cruel of me to disrupt your comforting fantasy, would it not? That's why most of us atheists don't go around doing such things.

[KooKoo]

"Organizing atheists is like hurding cats"

-- Madalyn Murray O'Hair

:statisfie :statisfie :statisfie

[Zafran]

"Organizing atheists is like hurding cats"

-- Madalyn Murray O'Hair

:statisfie :statisfie :statisfie

The communists got some of them togather.

[KooKoo]

"Organizing atheists is like hurding cats"

-- Madalyn Murray O'Hair

:statisfie :statisfie :statisfie

*herding :D

[KooKoo]

The communists got some of them togather.

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization."

:giggling:

[Zafran]

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization."

:giggling:

:haha:

[Gubbleknucker]

The communists got some of them together.

I would not consider things like Stalin worship to be atheism.

[Muezzin]

To answer the thread's question, I suppose Buddha counts, in terms of influence.

Second, I see MUCH more honour in doing good for the sake of good than doing good and then advertising your ideology or religion. That atheists who do great things for society don't come out pushing "atheism" is admirable.

Please. Off-hand I can think of Richard Dawkins, who, while introducing the world to the concept of the meme, also never misses an opportunity to push atheism.

I with more religious people would do good works without an attached infomercial.

I think all people should help others without an attached infomercial of their beliefs, religious or not.

Many atheists see religion as a crutch for desperate or weak minded people

So it necessarily is?

If your loved one dies and somebody says "She's in a better place now", how does it benefit anybody for me to attack that comforting thought and say "No, she's just worm food"? Would be kind of pointlessly cruel of me to disrupt your comforting fantasy, would it not?

That particular example is a bad one because it has less to do with disrupting a comforting fantasy and more to do with being outright disrespectful to the recently departed. Belief systems don't enter the equation in this example, other than basic human empathy and etiquette.

[AntiKarateKid]

This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.

Nobody pretends that any Buddhist text is a verbatim report of the words of Siddhartha Gautama; the initial tradition was transmitted orally for several centuries before being written down for a start. If, though, you are somehow suggesting what he actually said and, in this context, how he behaved was somehow radically different from what many millions over more than two millennia have found no reason to doubt it really is up to you to "put up or shut up".



That is, frankly, just biased rubbish I thought twice about dignifying with a reply at all. I assume you couldn't come up with any constructive response in the context of the actual debate on the topic you introduced. The suggestion that no systems of philosophy and morality have flourished and indeed continue to flourish because of the Buddha's teaching is both ignorant and absurd. Buddhism has never made any claims to be a political system. Oh, and even your comment about previously warring people is completely wrong... you 'don't see' because you can't be bothered to look.



Atheism is not the denial of God, it is the denial of the existence of God. It is also not a religion; and it is therefore meaningless to talk about atheists being 'united' or not... there is no reason for them to be. I'm certainly not 'united' with Gubbleknoucker for obvious reasons! In a different sense Buddhism is not 'united' because it simply has no reason to be. The fundamental beliefs are the same, and without being hamstrung by a need to worry about the exact words of God or a prophet, Buddhists are quite free to disagree about the details. They have never fought a war over them.




This is just plain silly. A banner 'saying' what? Like political ideologies, religions have positive manifestos and you can write those on banners, imaginary or otherwise. Atheism is the belief something doesn't exist.

By analogy, it's like comparing a group of Manchester United supporters with their scarves, shirts and banners with one guy standing in the park with a banner saying 'Soccer is boring '. Just because he isn't surrounded by a crowd of thousands doesn't mean there aren't plenty who agree with him.

1. What kind of an answer was that? You have no evidence that what is said today is said by Buddha and moreover, just because as you say "many people" don't doubt it, doesn't give it any more merit than many people believing the Vedas are uncorrupted.

2. Your example of Buddha is off topic. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" so drop it.

3. Atheism is a belief like you said. You don't have any leaders providing an example and unifying force for that belief. Just because something isn't a religion, doesn't mean people can't be united upon it. Buddhists are free to disagree huh? I believe the Japanese religion during ww2 was a twisted from of Buddhism. Anyways, buddhists fought in wars just like any other people but whether they fought it under the banner of Buddhism is different. The religion, to my knowlege, doesn't give a world view to strive or any reason to spread their version of the truth for so I can understand why.

[AntiKarateKid]

Let me reiterate my second point in the previous post.


Buddha/Buddhism is not a valid answer to the thread's question. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" or being in any way shape or form taking him as a model for their collective lives and being united upon it.

So please drop it.

[Trumble]

Let me reiterate my second point in the previous post.

Buddha/Buddhism is not a valid answer to the thread's question. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" or being in any way shape or form taking him as a model for their collective lives and being united upon it.

So please drop it.

No. You can 'reiterate' all you like but just because you don't like an answer is no reason to 'drop it'. Actually a lot of atheists think just that; they happen to be called 'Buddhists'. Again, you don't see because you don't look.

You have no evidence that what is said today is said by Buddha and moreover, just because as you say "many people" don't doubt it, doesn't give it any more merit than many people believing the Vedas are uncorrupted

The Buddha's teachings represent a particular solution to a particular problem, the cessation of suffering. To Buddhists, those teachings as we know them today make far more sense as a candidate solution both intellectually and experientially than any of the alternatives, including that offered by the Abrahamic religions. That is all the evidence that is needed and is, I venture to suggest, far more than Islam or Christianity is capable of offering.

To answer the thread's question, I suppose Buddha counts.

Another example of a 'non-prophet', although perhaps not strictly an atheist (as we have no idea what he may have believed in that sense.. except taht it was extremely unlikely to be monotheist) would be Confucius. In the context of duty, morality and indeed good government his teachings have had and still have a massive influence on billions of people.

[AntiKarateKid]

No. You can 'reiterate' all you like but just because you don't like an answer is no reason to 'drop it'. Actually a lot of atheists think just that; they happen to be called 'Buddhists'. Again, you don't see because you don't look.




Another example of a 'non-prophet', although perhaps not strictly an atheist (as we have no idea what he may have believed in that sense) would be Confucius. In the context of duty, morality and indeed good government his teachings have had and still have a massive influence on billions of people.

Really? Buddhist atheists are not even close to the majority. Hardly unified. Next example. Moreover Buddhism doesn't even SPREAD atheism which is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.

Atheists have never done that. Moreover atheist "buddhists" who believe in reincarnation sounds contradictory.

[Muezzin]

No, that comment is propoganda. An athiest doesn;t have "faith" as you define it above. Instead, to an athiest:

Something is true or;
Something is probable or;
Something is not probable or;
Something is not true.

There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required.

-

Depends on the athiest.

Some can indeed be awfully preachy. But it's only because they're telling the truth, unlike all those religious preachers.

Obviously.

[AntiKarateKid]

Depends on the athiest.

Some can indeed be awfully preachy. But it's only because they're telling the truth, unlike all those religious preachers.

Obviously.

As I recall, a universal negative is impossible to prove philosophically right? Atheists deny the existence of God and have faith that there isn't one.

[Trumble]

Really? Buddhist atheists are not even close to the majority. Hardly unified. Next example. Moreover Buddhism doesn't even SPREAD atheism which is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.

Your whole 'argument' seems to depend on some ludicrous strawman, that atheism is some sort of alternative religion that needs 'leaders' and 'unity'. It isn't.. it is simply the belief that God or gods do not exist.

Why, therefore, would a 'good atheist leader' (and surely by now even you can grasp that atheists have no need of a leader) even suggest there is an atheistic 'slant on life' that extends beyond one basic belief, let alone that it is somehow 'better' than all the alternatives? Even if there were, logically the atheist position is 'neutral' and doesn't exclude the possibility it might even be worse.. perhaps people do actually live happier and more productive lives if they believe in God and and life after death. Just because they happen to believe it, though, doesn't make it true...

Moreover atheist "buddhists" who believe in reincarnation sounds contradictory.

Only to someone unfamiliar with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, which is not the same as the Hindu one. Neither, though, contradicts an atheist viewpoint in any way. Karma and dependent origination is responsible, not God or gods.

[Trumble]

Atheists deny the existence of God and have faith that there isn't one.

Atheists believe there is no God. You can't generalize, of course, but most believe that on the basis that, in their opinion, the weight of available evidence suggests it to be true. That may be a judgement call, but it is not 'faith'. Faith, in the religious context, is belief without or in spite of such evidence.

[Hamayun]

Atheists believe there is no God. You can't generalize, of course, but most believe that on the basis that, in their opinion, the weight of available evidence suggests it to be true.

In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?

Peace :)

[Pygoscelis]

In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?

Peace :)

Depends on who you ask. "Atheism" is a word that many disagree on. Some (mostly the religious folks) will say that it means "a disbelief in the existence of God". Others (and most atheists I've met) define it instead as "a lack of belief in a god or gods". This semantic issue sometimes leads to confusion and arguments.

[Trumble]

In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?

Yes. It is actually defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" or, in reverse "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (wordnetweb.

The second is perhaps the most illuminating in the context of this discussion. How many times does a 'lack of belief' in something lead to vast worldwide popular movements, leaders, 'unity' and people dying for the cause? The answer is pretty much 'never'; what may sometimes appear a similar response is actually a positive one in favour of some alternative. For example, people do not take to the streets and demonstrate because they lack the belief that the current government should be running the country. They take to the streets and demonstrate because they believe somebody else should be running the country.. even if the aren't totally sure who that somebody might be.

[Pygoscelis]

is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.

Have you read any of the responses to your posts here? Are you asking your questions in sincerity or are you just hoping to rile people up? I ask this in all seriousness. This clear misunderstanding of what atheism is has already been answered at least 10 times to you in this thread and others.

[AntiKarateKid]

Your whole 'argument' seems to depend on some ludicrous strawman, that atheism is some sort of alternative religion that needs 'leaders' and 'unity'. It isn't.. it is simply the belief that God or gods do not exist.

Why, therefore, would a 'good atheist leader' (and surely by now even you can grasp that atheists have no need of a leader) even suggest there is an atheistic 'slant on life' that extends beyond one basic belief, let alone that it is somehow 'better' than all the alternatives? Even if there were, logically the atheist position is 'neutral' and doesn't exclude the possibility it might even be worse.. perhaps people do actually live happier and more productive lives if they believe in God and and life after death. Just because they happen to believe it, though, doesn't make it true...



Only to someone unfamiliar with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, which is not the same as the Hindu one. Neither, though, contradicts an atheist viewpoint in any way. Karma and dependent origination is responsible, not God or gods.

You know, beyond your condescending tone, you make poor points. I never said atheism was a religion. Moreover, who says it needs to be a religion to be unified? Can't people be unified under an idea? Beyond that, I suspect you know that there has never been an atheist leader who espoused morals without God and led a moral revolution like the Prophets. The lack of atheist leaders is not because they "don't need them" which is a ridiculous statement for any denomination of people. Just look at all the fanfare beyond people like Dawkins, off the top of my head.

I also find your attempts at harmonizing forces like karma with an atheistic universe amusing. If there is nothing but our physical world in an atheistic universe, then how can determining forces like Karma exist?

Anyways, from the shambles of your post, I can see that even you understand that there has never been an atheistic parallel to the Prophets despite your collective assertions that religion is not necessary for morality or that it isn't necessary to inspire people and civilizations (not a debate I'm getting into here).

[AntiKarateKid]

Have you read any of the responses to your posts here? Are you asking your questions in sincerity or are you just hoping to rile people up? I ask this in all seriousness. This clear misunderstanding of what atheism is has already been answered at least 10 times to you in this thread and others.

The only misunderstanding is on your part. How hard is it to try and respond to my assertion that there was no great atheist figure that taught so many people and civilizations to be moral. No atheist philosopher or scholar or anything.

It's a simple matter and I feel like you're dancing around it.

[Trumble]

I also find your attempts at harmonizing forces like karma with an atheistic universe amusing.

That, I'm afraid, is because you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

If there is nothing but our physical world in an atheistic universe, then how can determining forces like Karma exist?

Karma is not a 'determining force', it is a process.. specifically the processes of cause and effect that exist quite happily in a purely materialistic model of the universe.

Anyways, from the shambles of your post, I can see that even you understand that there has never been an atheistic parallel to the Prophets despite your collective assertions that religion is not necessary for morality or that it isn't necessary to inspire people and civilizations (not a debate I'm getting into here).

If you can 'see' that I'm afraid you have severe comprehension difficulties. I have already named two such parallels, the Buddha and Confucius. Had you actually taken the trouble to read my posts carefully before spewing such arrogant clap-trap you might have noticed I have never claimed 'religion' is not necessary. I happen to believe it is not, but even Confucianism is viewed as a 'religion' by some. What I have demonstrated not to be necessary are either prophets, the existence of God, or a belief in either.

[AntiKarateKid]

That, I'm afraid, is because you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.



Karma is not a 'determining force', it is a process.. specifically the processes of cause and effect that exist quite happily in a purely materialistic model of the universe.



If you can 'see' that I'm afraid you have severe comprehension difficulties. I have already named two such parallels, the Buddha and Confucius. Had you actually taken the trouble to read my posts carefully before spewing such arrogant clap-trap you might have noticed I have never claimed 'religion' is not necessary. I happen to believe it is not, but even Confucianism is viewed as a 'religion' by some. What I have demonstrated not to be necessary are either prophets, the existence of God, or a belief in either.

Enough of this. I suspect you know what I am talking about but keep shoving Confucious and Buddha down my throat. Their religions are hardly an example seeing as how many sects have infused supernatural elements into them and would disagree with you. Many Buddhists even worship Buddha.

Your whole point rests on the assertion that your version of Buddhism is right and there is no supernatural element to it. You have demonstrated nothing. Other than the contradiction between your supposed atheistic view of Buddhism and such things as reincarnation.

I understand this is a somewhat controversial topic but you should tone your comments down lest you look more like a child than the pseudo-intellectual your trying to look like.

Here's some food for thought that not everyone agrees with Trumble, the self-proclaimed expert on Buddhism and confucianism, who asserts it has no spirituality.

Few followers of Confucius (550–478 BC) today have a clear belief in any Divine existence. Yet they believe in the world of spirits and souls, and some even practise ancestor worship.

[AntiKarateKid]

Back on topic, I'll restate my opening question slightly more clearly, so some people don't throw fits.

Why has there never been an atheistic "prophet" who asserted that freedom from religion was the best path for Humanity and developed a system of moral codes and lived a lifestyle that inspired the world?

If the Prophets were indeed madmen or liars then they were regular humans who could be outshined by others. But no pro-atheistic has ever lived a comparable life to them. By pro- I mean the above in addition to actively spreading atheism.

[Ali_008]

I'm afraid the answer is not "could be", it is "no". In terms of Buddhism, the very idea is totally ludicrous. While I accept your 'offering' in the spirit in which you make it (rep inbound) I'm afraid even an elementary knowledge of Buddhism is sufficient to show that that is pretty desperate stuff; quotes picked pretty much at random and presented as meaning something they don't. To be honest I was very surprised to see that from Zakir Naik rather than, say, Harun Yahya who specializes in such nonsense.

There is no 'prophecy' regarding Mohammed, or indeed prophecy about anything at all. Buddhas arise because according the Buddhist conception of how the Universe works it is inevitable that they will. The comments on linguistics are laughable. Sanskrit (which is the wrong language here anyway, it should be Pali - although the two are closely related) is the nearest we have to a proto-typical Indo -European language, and such parallels can be identified with all modern languages from that family as well as, to a lesser extent, the semitic languages such as Arabic.

As religions, Buddhism and Islam are totally incompatible. Buddhism simply has no basis for 'prophecy', let alone for the future coming of Prophets for a God that the whole of Buddhist philosophy and belief disqualifies from even existing.

What can I say brother, a daee ought to be boycotted. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself was persecuted with all his glorious & righteous past and the divine revelations he had then Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya are nothing when compared to the Prophet. Surah Anam, verse 69 says

Those who fear Allah, keep their duty to Him and avoid evil are not responsible for them (the disbelievers) in any case, but (their duty) is to remind them, that they may avoid that (mockery at the Qur'an).

Well I've seen criticism for Zakir Naik but its the first time I've come across someone who accusses,the exemplary Harun Yahya, of falsehood. The man dedicated his entire life in various studies just to prove that Qur'an comes from God and even Zakir Naik's efforts have been no less. Its absolutely obnoxious to see such Human Reformers being criticised. Anyway, I think we've already swayed from the topic.

[Pygoscelis]

How hard is it to try and respond to my assertion that there was no great atheist figure that taught so many people and civilizations to be moral. No atheist philosopher or scholar or anything.

Because such people do not identify their movements with their atheism. Once you understand that atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in something you will understand this point. If the point you are trying to make is that atheism doesn't inspire people to do great things, I would agree with that. Atheism is not an ideology or a motivator. Atheists are motivated by things other than their lack of belief in something.

And clearly you do misunderstand if you think of atheists as people who oppose religion. Those are anti-theists. I lean in that direction. Most atheists do not.

[Gubbleknucker]

And clearly you do misunderstand if you think of atheists as people who oppose religion. Those are anti-theists. I lean in that direction. Most atheists do not.

I do. I think everyone would be better off without fairy worship.

Just think of all the time you would save if you did not have to pray.

Just think of all the lives that would be saved if there were no holy wars.

Just think...

[Ali_008]

Ya Allah, guide each and every one of them

Man, this thread has had so many blunt replies that quoting each of them will take a complete page. Lets put it in a very simple form. The atheists are firm that there's no God and seem to be having an inclination towards Buddhism to the most but my Atheist brothers let me tell something which religion gives you and regardless of what you do you'll never be able to attain it without religion. Its something called Peace. Trust me the tranquility you come across by being Pious, by being Religious, by following the doctrines is unparallel. An atheist does whatever he want, he has no set of standards. To be honest, every terrorist who claims to be a Jihadist or Islamic is in actuality an Atheist. yeah, I say that again Every Terrorist is an Atheist because killing innocent people is not encouraged in any religion. Zero. Moreover, Islam considers killing of just a single human being equal to the killing of entire humanity, as stated in Surah Mai'da, verse 32:

If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.

The terrorists just like Atheists follow their own opinions and just "claim" that they're serving Islam. If you want to know what a world full of Atheists will be like then imagine one where each and every citizen is a Criminal. One's a terrorist, the other's a thief, the 3rd guy's a rapist and the guy right across the street is a drug addict, the girl you see leaning on the lamppost is known for her promiscuity etc. An atheist's definiton could be someone who doesn't believe in God and so subsequently doesn't believe in any of the scriptures which means that he has his own standards of right and wrong. So, an Atheist might not consider rape to be a crime but a fair and laborous way of satisfying a need. Stealing would become totally widespread based on the claim "there has to be equality." And I advise you guys to read the book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley which gives a picture of a world without faith and consequently a world with only tragedy and worries.

We are mere specks when compared to God and we are born stupid. Its God mercy that he keeps forgiving and guiding us no matter how much we sin. We don't know whats right for us, Allah does. Coming back to what I was saying about peace of mind. The calmness that runs through the veins of the believers is something you'll never be able to attain. The satisfaction. The Tranquility. The joy. Once you start believing, it follows you. Tell me my atheist brothers, when was the last time you rejoiced at a loss (because you know that the loss is your actual gain), the last time you felt so so so so so so so so so happy that you couldn't resist from saying "Thank you Allah, I love you Allah". The last time tears came in your eyes because of the excessiveness of happiness and you were reminded of someone's never ending mercy on you.

But still, Atheists are better than non-Muslims because they have at least proclaimed half of the shahadah i.e. La Ilaaha which means there's no God and for us Muslims to prove to the atheists is just the other half i.e. Illallah which means "but Allah".:D

[جوري]

Just think of all the time you would save if you did not have to pray.

better spent undoubtedly browsing internet porn and returning to a more animal like state..

Just think of all the lives that would be saved if there were no holy wars.

Just think...

lives are better lost on 'un'holy wars and declaration of atheist states such as was under Enver Hoxha ..

yeah imagine that :rollseyes

[Pygoscelis]

If you want to know what a world full of Atheists will be like then imagine one where each and every citizen is a Criminal. One's a terrorist, the other's a thief, the 3rd guy's a rapist and the guy right across the street is a drug addict

If this is what you would become if you lost your faith in Islam, then I hope you never lose your faith. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't turn into the killing, stealing, raping drug addict you fear you would if you did lose your faith. I'm pretty confident that you have the same sense of empathy and moral compass that I do, only you've burried it so far under religious dogma that you no longer recognize its there.

[Gubbleknucker]

I am saddened that you actually believe these things. I can think of absolutely no atrocities committed in the name of atheism. To stereotype us as murderers is so incredibly offensive that I have seen people banned from even the theistic forums for it.

If fear of hell is necessary for you to lead a moral life, that does not make you moral by any stretch of the imagination. If you were to stop believing, do you honestly think that you would start killing, raping, maiming?

I hope not.

[Gubbleknucker]

When was... The last time tears came in your eyes because of the excessiveness of happiness

Yesterday, actually.

[Ali_008]

If this is what you would become if you lost your faith in Islam, then I hope you never lose your faith. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't turn into the killing, stealing, raping drug addict you fear you would if you did lose your faith. I'm pretty confident that you have the same sense of empathy and moral compass that I do, only you've burried it so far under religious dogma that you no longer recognize its there.

:statisfie Though you misinterpreted my saying but I'll clarify it again. My dear brother, so by your response I assume that you consider the aforementioned things to be bad. But from where did you come to know that its bad. Over the milleniums it has been the scriptures that have given the sense of right and wrong. Whatever is left today of our understanding of Justice and good and evil is our little belief in the scriptures. Faith is getting worn out with time. At the beginning of time, a woman searing skimpy was considered immodest by both men and women because it was the word of God that women must dress modestly and the people followed it but today it is quite OK for a woman to wear anything she wants. Today, there's so much immodest dressing only because of people swaying away from religion and just claiming to be a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew and not following the principles. In the same regard, there might come a time when there won't be any faith at all and then the things I mentioned above will become common and may be even fashionable (God forbid). I hope you got my point, if you didn't, I've all the time in the world to explain you more.:thumbs_up

[جوري]

I am saddened that you actually believe these things. I can think of absolutely no atrocities committed in the name of atheism. To stereotype us as murderers is so incredibly offensive that I have seen people banned from even the theistic forums for it.

I find it equally offensive you liken the originator of the universe to fairies, and/or delegating any war that took place to be for some 'religious' holy purpose.. as it so happens the worst massive murders that have happened, we are talking millions, have in fact happened by command of atheist leaders, and atheists have in fact declared states of atheism where they equally oppressed religious folks.. what is human life but a bunch of haphazard molecules that have no apparent purpose save for hedonistic pleasure and no spiritual fulfillment? It isn't really that different a line of thought than yours, except on a greater caliber!

If fear of hell is necessary for you to lead a moral life, that does not make you moral by any stretch of the imagination. If you were to stop believing, do you honestly think that you would start killing, raping, maiming?

I hope not.

Again, another pathetic sterotype that the only impetus for good work is dear of eternal ****ati*n -- in fact that should be the least of any religious person's concern.. no one goes to heaven or hell because of their deeds.. rather through God's grace and mercy.. perhaps you should shift gears and think that the drive maybe me immortality, meeting up with your loved ones, any number of reason if you'd let an abstract thought get through...

No one who truly belives in God would commit a major sin knowingly ... those who are given knowledge and higher state of spirituality are a handful. Those who commit crime will find some way to justify it to themselves.

I don't particuarly care for threads addressing atheists, and only see to comment when I read one of the common banalities peddled by atheists, comical indeed is their level of choler and surprise when they feel that they shouldn't be met with a like response...

fact is, you are no different than any religious zealot, only standing a dimetrical opposite..


Enjoy-- I am out of this thread

Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”




all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Ali_008,

I understand your point perefectly. You think that morality comes from your religion/scripture. I completely disagree. You have an inate sense of empathy and morality. You have just burried it so deep beneath your religious beliefs that you can't tell its there anymore. But it is.

[Ali_008]

Brother Pygoscelis
I'm happy that I could give you a clear picture but there's more to it. Even what we consider moral is today isn't exactly moral. Today, you'll call a person good and caring only when he helps you and thats perfectly appropriate but whats inappropriate is how he helps you. You will call someone a good friend when he helps you find excuses for showing up late at office or college, someone who shows you answers in an exam (cheating), someone who gives you special preference over others if he's charged with some authorities. The examples given make you narrow-minded in which you are only concerned about yourself. A person deprives a boss of his right of having his employees at the right time in the office, a teacher is deprived of getting to evaluate his students on a fair basis, others waiting in the queue are deprived of their rights of equal hospitality. I know its very very difficult to attain that perfect state but practice makes a man perfect and thats what we, the so-called "theists", do. No man is sinless but the one who prospers is the one who repents and makes amends.

[Pygoscelis]

You will call someone a good friend when he helps you find excuses for showing up late at office or college, someone who shows you answers in an exam (cheating), someone who gives you special preference over others if he's charged with some authorities.

I will call none of those things good. Do you really think this lowly of us non-religious people?

[Ali_008]

^^ No, no, absolutely not. I'm not saying that this is done by just atheists or non-religious people. What I was trying to say was that we've distanced ourselves so much from goodness and blinded ourselves that everything's become grey for us. There's no black or white, no clear cut definitions of good and bad. I get into inappropriate behavior a lot of times myself. In this age, when bad has overshadowed good, it gets more important to be the best and not just good,to keep the hope of the return of peace and happy times alive. We are already neck deep in problems and disbelief will create more problems both for disbelievers and believers though for different reasons.

[Trumble]

Enough of this.

Indeed, although I think I'll respond one more time, more in hope than anticipation of a sensible response. Let's take your latest one point at a time, although perhaps not in order.

Here's some food for thought that not everyone agrees with Trumble, the self-proclaimed expert on Buddhism and confucianism, who asserts it has no spirituality.

I am not a self-proclaimed expert on anything, let alone Confucianism. I am, however, a Buddhist and have been for over twenty years, and have studied Buddhism in both academic and monastic environments. I humbly suggest I might have picked up just a few things beyond your 'knowledge' of the subject, which seems to have been picked up from reading the back of a matchbox. Of course, I 'asserted' nothing of the sort... it's yet another product of your strawman factory.

Few followers of Confucius (550–478 BC) today have a clear belief in any Divine existence. Yet they believe in the world of spirits and souls, and some even practise ancestor worship.

I am impressed that your knowledge of Confucianism extends to the dates of Confucius life! However, back to reality - are you really claiming that a system of moral conduct and good government that influences billions and puts them on the 'right' moral track could exist on the basis of the worship of spirits, souls and ancestors, but not without it?!! If so, how do reconcile this with your first post? If not, what is your point?

I suspect you know what I am talking about but keep shoving Confucious and Buddha down my throat.

Of course I understand the point you are attempting to make, it is both simple and simplistic. It just happens, in my opinion, to be wrong. I'm not going to go over why - again - as that is obviously pointless. Whereas other posters might present a carefully considered case opposing that opinion, all we see from you are puerile whines of "drop it" and "off topic". You are like a small child who prefers to stick fingers in ears and chant 'la, la, la' rather than hear something they don't like.

Their religions are hardly an example seeing as how many sects have infused supernatural elements into them and would disagree with you. Many Buddhists even worship Buddha.

Your whole point rests on the assertion that your version of Buddhism is right and there is no supernatural element to it. You have demonstrated nothing.

I could only gasp in disbelief at this. I have already stated that I cannot put up much of a case for religion not being necessary - although I don't happen to believe it is. But, your claim was not for the necessity of religion, but for God and prophets. I really shouldn't have to tell you what your own claim is!! Whatever 'supernatural elements' may, or may not, exist or have existed in Buddhism or Confucianism are totally irrelevant; they do not extend to a monetheistic God or His prophets.

Other than the contradiction between your supposed atheistic view of Buddhism and such things as reincarnation.

As I have explained no such 'contradiction' exists (stick those fingers in your ears again), and any perception of same is solely the result of your own ignorance. You simply do not know what you are talking about. That might not be obvious to muslims but it is painfully obvious to Buddhists, this one at least. With that in mind;

I understand this is a somewhat controversial topic but you should tone your comments down lest you look more like a child than the pseudo-intellectual your trying to look like.

I can only suggest you follow your own advice. Whether you do or not please have the courtesy to keep such arrogant drivel to yourself in future. Attempting to patronise is bad enough at the best of times, but doing so when you are as totally out of your depth as you are is the act of a **** . Fill that in yourself.

[Trumble]

Well I've seen criticism for Zakir Naik but its the first time I've come across someone who accusses,the exemplary Harun Yahya, of falsehood. The man dedicated his entire life in various studies just to prove that Qur'an comes from God and even Zakir Naik's efforts have been no less. Its absolutely obnoxious to see such Human Reformers being criticised. Anyway, I think we've already swayed from the topic.

Yes, it is off topic, but I think you deserve a brief reply at least. I have never criticized Harun Yahya (or Zakir Naik) for what they might say about the Qur'an or Islam; a topic they both know infinitely more about than I do. I have, however, read what Yahya has to say about Buddhism and indeed endured the 'movie'. Both, and I can only tell you this from the perspective of a Buddhist, are full of misunderstandings and deliberate misrepresentations. I make no apologies for calling him out on that, although I do apologise for any offence you may have taken on his behalf.

Peace.

[Muezzin]

I am saddened that you actually believe these things. I can think of absolutely no atrocities committed in the name of atheism.

Stalin's persecution of Christians and other genocidal tendencies?

Mao Tse-Tung's genocidal tendencies?

Pol Pot's crimes against humanity?

EDIT: I do not believe that a lack of belief in God necessarily denotes a lack of morals. However, by that same token, I dispute the insidious and insipid argument that all things harmful to humanity originate in theism.

[Zafran]

I would not consider things like Stalin worship to be atheism.

atheism is a broad term - I'm not sure if the people that followed stalin (possibly out of fear rather then choice) were worshiping him.

People followed stalin because they thought he was meant to implement the communist agenda - not because they loved stalin or worshipped him.

[Charzhino]

Well I've seen criticism for Zakir Naik but its the first time I've come across someone who accusses,the exemplary Harun Yahya, of falsehood. The man dedicated his entire life in various studies just to prove that Qur'an comes from God and even Zakir Naik's efforts have been no less. Its absolutely obnoxious to see such Human Reformers being criticised. Anyway, I think we've already swayed from the topic

I know this is off-topic but of course Harun Yahya can be accussed of falsehood, anyone who writes a book rejecting evolution which is a widely accepted scientific fact and has been debunked time and time again. There is no reason why he cannot be immune to this.

[Ali_008]

I know this is off-topic but of course Harun Yahya can be accussed of falsehood, anyone who writes a book rejecting evolution which is a widely accepted scientific fact and has been debunked time and time again. There is no reason why he cannot be immune to this.

STOP!! RIGHT THERE. You must be the first person ever to use the words "fact" and "evolution" together. If you're here to advocate Evolution then answer this. Have you ever heard of anything called Fact(s) of Evolution? What you're referring is known by the name of "Theory" of Evolution throughout the world. Read that again, "theory" not "fact". And as we all know a theory is something which is based on assumptions. :)

[Uthman]

I think we've already swayed from the topic.

Yes, it is off topic, but

I know this is off-topic but

I know this is off-topic but can we please return to the original subject of the thread?

Thank you. :)

[Charzhino]

STOP!! RIGHT THERE. You must be the first person ever to use the words "fact" and "evolution" together. If you're here to advocate Evolution then answer this. Have you ever heard of anything called Fact(s) of Evolution? What you're referring is known by the name of "Theory" of Evolution throughout the world. Read that again, "theory" not "fact". And as we all know a theory is something which is based on assumptions. :)

I don't want to strecth this out in this thread, but evolution is FACT. You are mistaking evolution with the THEORY of evolution which describes how it happens. Take the comparison with gravity. Gravity is fact. The THEORY of gravitational attraction is one of the explanations used to describe the phenomena. Understood now, science lesson over.

[Gubbleknucker]

^^
He's right, you know. They don't just let any crackpot hypothesis become a theory. It's not the same as the layman term "theory."
Do not let the semantics fool you.

Back to the earlier topic: Morality came from prophets? From God?


What if God merely acknowledges morality, and he did not create it?

[AntiKarateKid]

Let me try to reset this topic.

If you look at atheist celebrities like Bill Maher who call for atheists to unite against religion just like Islam calls Muslims to unite against polytheism, you wonder why there has not been someone who could unite atheists just like Maher wanted. People like Dawkins call for atheist uprisings but there is an absence of atheist leaders to lead that uprising. Why is that?

As you can see from Gubbleknucker's immediate response to my first question, he said the lack of leaders is due to persecution. But religions like Islam were forged in the face of persecution.

[Gubbleknucker]

Let me try to reset this topic.

If you look at atheist celebrities like Bill Maher who call for atheists to unite against religion just like Islam calls Muslims to unite against polytheism, you wonder why there has not been someone who could unite atheists just like Maher wanted. People like Dawkins call for atheist uprisings but there is an absence of atheist leaders to lead that uprising. Why is that?

It is because most atheists don't seriously oppose religion.

One of my dearest friends said it was kind of like the annoying fly that isn't even worth the effort of swatting.

You enjoy talking to your fairy, and I don't think anyone has the right to take that away from you.

[AntiKarateKid]

Indeed, although I think I'll respond one more time, more in hope than anticipation of a sensible response. Let's take your latest one point at a time, although perhaps not in order.



I am not a self-proclaimed expert on anything, let alone Confucianism. I am, however, a Buddhist and have been for over twenty years, and have studied Buddhism in both academic and monastic environments. I humbly suggest I might have picked up just a few things beyond your 'knowledge' of the subject, which seems to have been picked up from reading the back of a matchbox. Of course, I 'asserted' nothing of the sort... it's yet another product of your strawman factory.

?


I am impressed that your knowledge of Confucianism extends to the dates of Confucius life! However, back to reality - are you really claiming that a system of moral conduct and good government that influences billions and puts them on the 'right' moral track could exist on the basis of the worship of spirits, souls and ancestors, but not without it?!! If so, how do reconcile this with your first post? If not, what is your point?

I see I wasn't clear enough. I am objecting to your use of Confucianism and Buddhism because many sects have infused them with spiritual aspects. As per atheism, gods don't exist so how could spirits?

Of course I understand the point you are attempting to make, it is both simple and simplistic. It just happens, in my opinion, to be wrong. I'm not going to go over why - again - as that is obviously pointless. Whereas other posters might present a carefully considered case opposing that opinion, all we see from you are puerile whines of "drop it" and "off topic". You are like a small child who prefers to stick fingers in ears and chant 'la, la, la' rather than hear something they don't like.

No. The only one childish here is you. See below for a more precise restatement of my initial question. Moreover, I asked you to drop those things because they were irrelevant to my initial post. But due to a lack of clarity on my part, you are arguing about something which I didn't intend to stray to. If I am a child, you are a rabid dog who prefers to froth at the mouth instead of discussing things in a civilized manner.


I could only gasp in disbelief at this. I have already stated that I cannot put up much of a case for religion not being necessary - although I don't happen to believe it is. But, your claim was not for the necessity of religion, but for God and prophets. I really shouldn't have to tell you what your own claim is!! Whatever 'supernatural elements' may, or may not, exist or have existed in Buddhism or Confucianism are totally irrelevant; they do not extend to a monetheistic God or His prophets.

I can only gasp in disbelief at your dramatics. My claim was not an accurate representation of my point which is why so much confusion exists here. See below for a clarification. Also, like I said before, I object to your using philosophies/religions which have spiritual elements to them as atheistic examples when atheists deny anything metaphysical.


As I have explained no such 'contradiction' exists (stick those fingers in your ears again), and any perception of same is solely the result of your own ignorance. You simply do not know what you are talking about. That might not be obvious to muslims but it is painfully obvious to Buddhists, this one at least. With that in mind;

I know exactly what I am talking about. The only one lacking in knowledge here is the one who happens to lack manners also.

I can only suggest you follow your own advice. Whether you do or not please have the courtesy to keep such arrogant drivel to yourself in future. Attempting to patronise is bad enough at the best of times, but doing so when you are as totally out of your depth as you are is the act of a **** . Fill that in yourself.

The only arrogant drivel is the one you are spewing. Like a mad dog you argue about a point that I didn't mean to bring up, heap insult upon insult, and litter your "argument" with condescension. Either get some manners or keep your argument to yourself because I debate with people not animals.

See above. But try not to lose your head.

[AntiKarateKid]

It is because most atheists don't seriously oppose religion.

One of my dearest friends said it was kind of like the annoying fly that isn't even worth the effort of swatting.

You enjoy talking to your fairy, and I don't think anyone has the right to take that away from you.

Really? According to your first post, it was because of persecution.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hilarious thread. :D

Classic example of AKK just not getting it.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,

Hilarious thread. :D

Classic example of AKK just not getting it.

Peace

Do tell. Besides my admitted confusion between "new atheism" and atheism. The only thing really hilarious, is the melodramatics of the atheists responding. :D

1. Your overarching points were that atheism is not a unified body of thought. I know that. But was arguing against New Athiesm. Specifically the type that wants to abolish religion and is militant. And why there has never been a leader to do that.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Do tell.

It's all been explained to you so many times, what would be the point of me attempting it as well?

The only thing really hilarious, is the melodramatics of the atheists responding. :D

I think it's more likely to be just sheer amazement at your refusal to even try to understand what's being put in front of you.

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


It's all been explained to you so many times, what would be the point of me attempting it as well?



I think it's more likely to be just sheer amazement at your refusal to even try to understand what's being put in front of you.

Peace

To be honest, I was trying to do a paper and respond to whatever caught my eye as I skimmed over some posts quickly. Now that I know specifically what I was referring to, this thread can go somewhere without me not paying attention and your cohorts (Tumble) frothing at the mouth because of it.

This is the atheism I was referring to

New Atheism as described by a subscriber involves: intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

[Trumble]

My claim was not an accurate representation of my point which is why so much confusion exists here.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

Now that I know specifically what I was referring to

I've heard you can actually die laughing. :statisfie I wonder if that's true?


I'm sure we all now understand that, from the word go, you were actually talking about these 'new atheists' rather than atheists in general. Ahem. The answer to your question, though, is still the same as has been given several times before. The vast majority of atheists have no desire at all to 'unite against religion', and hence no need to find and follow leaders to help them do it. They just do not believe in God themselves and don't want the religion of others forced down their throats particularly in such forms as civil law and education.

I hope the paper went well.

[Gubbleknucker]

Really? According to your first post, it was because of persecution.

You're the one who brought it to modern times by bringing in Dawkins.
I explained one of the reasons why Dawkins has not started a major movement against religion.

Now that secular states exist, people are free to believe what they want. I would be lying if I said there was any way I could believe (besides the direct manifestation of a deity, of course).

Now that we are free, and the pious no longer oppress us, there is no longer a justification for the use of force against religion.

[Pygoscelis]

So this guy WAS purposefully being obtuse and ignoring everything we wrote about what atheism is and what atheists think and believe? And instead had his mind closed at the start that the only atheists he wanted to think about are people like Dawkins and Maher?

What an immense waste of our time. I think I'll bookmark this thread and link to it everytime AKK tries to ask a question, to show that nobody should waste any time on him.

[AntiKarateKid]

So this guy WAS purposefully being obtuse and ignoring everything we wrote about what atheism is and what atheists think and believe? And instead had his mind closed at the start that the only atheists he wanted to think about are people like Dawkins and Maher?

What an immense waste of our time. I think I'll bookmark this thread and link to it everytime AKK tries to ask a question, to show that nobody should waste any time on him.

Purposefully? Naw. Stuff got in the way of paying attention to it. Mind closed? Nope. I was talking about one thing, you the other. I already said I udnerstood atheism was not a unified body and couldn't be united like I was suggesting.

But you can bookmark whatever you want. The only opinion you would invalidate by doing so is yours when you refuse to answer my questions and proceed on character assassination.

I'll just paste this link under your link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

or even this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[AntiKarateKid]

I've heard you can actually die laughing. :statisfie I wonder if that's true?


I'm sure we all now understand that, from the word go, you were actually talking about these 'new atheists' rather than atheists in general. Ahem. The answer to your question, though, is still the same as has been given several times before. The vast majority of atheists have no desire at all to 'unite against religion', and hence no need to find and follow leaders to help them do it. They just do not believe in God themselves and don't want the religion of others forced down their throats particularly in such forms as civil law and education.

I hope the paper went well.

You can. I almost did by seeing how many of you were getting your pants in a knot by this thread.

In the context of New Atheists, and not the "vast majority" please.

[Pygoscelis]

The sudden change of the thread name only goes to show ... well... I'll not say it. What a waste of time this guy has been for us all.

[- Qatada -]

Pygo, you gota think. You're on an Islamic forum and sometimes, people think they've wasted time on others too.

[AntiKarateKid]

The sudden change of the thread name only goes to show ... well... I'll not say it. What a waste of time this guy has been for us all.

Quit crying and get over it. Sudden change? One word was added to the title. So put up or shut up.

[Gubbleknucker]

Quit crying and get over it. Sudden change? One word was added to the title. So put up or shut up.

One word can often change the meaning entirely.

By the way, if there are any "new atheism" prophets, they are still alive.

Many of Dawkins' speeches are extremely thought-provoking.

Here's a good one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28560462155344

[AntiKarateKid]

One word can often change the meaning entirely.

By the way, if there are any "new atheism" prophets, they are still alive.

Many of Dawkins' speeches are extremely thought-provoking.

Here's a good one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28560462155344

Ok so you take him as your type of "prophet". Now we can start comparing between prophets. Dawkins' polemics against religion are ridiculous. Muhammad pbuh, the example for all religious Muslims, through his actions in life seems to be a far better and thought provoking example. What has Dawkin's brand of New Atheism produced?

[Trumble]

Pygo, you gota think. You're on an Islamic forum and sometimes, people think they've wasted time on others too.

Islamic forum or not, the point is a fair one. 'One word' or not, AKK has completely changed his own topic seven or so pages in having, he claims, suddenly been blessed with a belated insight as to what it actually was he meant to talk about in the first place. That seems to amount to the utterly staggering non-claim that Mohammed has had a bigger impact on the history of civilization than Richard Dawkins. I'm sure even Dawkins would happily concede that one.

Many people have taken the time and effort to reply to what the thread was originally about before AKK changed his mind, and their time has indeed been completely wasted.

[AntiKarateKid]

Islamic forum or not, the point is a fair one. 'One word' or not, AKK has completely changed his own topic seven or so pages in having, he claims, suddenly been blessed with a belated insight as to what it actually was he meant to talk about in the first place. That seems to amount to the utterly staggering non-claim that Mohammed has had a bigger impact on the history of civilization than Richard Dawkins. I'm sure even Dawkins would happily concede that one.

Many people have taken the time and effort to reply to what the thread was originally about before AKK changed his mind, and their time has indeed been completely wasted.

I simply provided a more narrow definition of the atheism I was talking about. Further, instead of wasting your posts on personal insults you could have asked for more clarification about what I was talking about.

And "many people"? I see the same 3 atheists replying for most of the thread. And now even after I have clarified, you insist on twisting my position. I said that they characters were not comparable which is strange thing for New Atheists who claim religion breeds only chaos or evil which if you had the sense to match your arrogant posts, you would have seen.

I'm sure you'll ignore the bulk of this post also. But believe it or now, my posts are not made for the benefit of your time. I had a question and created a topic. So get real.

[AntiKarateKid]

A mod might as well close this thread because it has devolved into a bunch of people throwing insults at each other for ridiculous reasons.

People complaining about "wasted time" should get it through their thick skulls that topics are sometimes created to answer the questions of the TC.

So Pygo and Trumble, plug it because the only thing this thread had taught me is that not only is atheism not a unified body of thought (like you have been barking about), but it sometimes spawns uncivilized and juvenile cretins who are possibly more full of **** than they are with themselves an probably lost their manners with their faith.

You two can fill that in yourselves. Insults are the only thing you're good for.

[Whatsthepoint]

You've probably seen this video already, but it's nice. It doesn't show parallels to Muhammad, John Paul II or anyone like that for that matter, but it demonstrates how atheists can be moral too, and smart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

Before the thread is closed...