To those who ascribe themselves to Atheists...

[- Qatada -]

To those who ascribe themselves to Atheists:

Maybe the cause for your sadness is because you've been taught by others that:-

- Your origins are by Chance,
- that you have Entered this world through an Accident,
- that you are in a state of Loss because no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self.

This is all that you have been taught, a belief system which isn't necessarily true. A belief system which isn't proven by History, nor by Science. Rather - it is an interpretation by some people who saw life from a Primitive perspective alone.



Appreciate...

Imagine, that you could appreciate life for who you are? So you don't look at yourself as an animal only, rather - you look at yourself as a human who has much more potential.


You are the human who has;

- been Honored with; an Intellect, the ability to Communicate, the ability to Crawl, Walk, Run, Swim, and even create machines by which you Fly long distances.
- you have a Purpose:
- a Purpose by which you can use your skills to Help others, and reap its Reward.

This is what Guidance is; giving you a step by step Example by which you higher your self to the next level.


How can it be that everything you have in life is designed for a positive purpose, yet you - who has all these crafted tools at your disposal; How can it be that you have nothing to advise you on how you should guide yourself?

How can it be that the Tools you use need instruction manuals, yet you do not?



Isn't it about time you bettered yourself?

You weren't that Cell who came into existence through a method which nobody knows.

You weren't that hairless Ape who never knew who his 'common ancestor' father was.

What if these are just fairytales ? They're not proven facts afterall.


So maybe you are that honored human, who has a purpose - serving the Originator, your Creator; who designed you in the best form, who made you unique - beneficial to society in your own special way.

Maybe your Creator did want you to enjoy His blessings? Maybe He wanted you to enjoy them by spending them on your self, your family, friends, and those who needed them? Isn't that a sign that you're a grateful servant?



The one who beautified the Earth and its Sky, and caused the Sky to rain and impregnate her by which she would give birth to Provisions of different Colours, and Sizes - enriching generations upon generations for thousands and millions of years...

Producing a wide selection of Flavoured; Foods, Drinks, Materials; Clothing, Styles, Beauties, Cultures, Languages, and amazingly - the potential for Unity, in between all the differences.


The One who causes this, causes it to occur over and over, and over again... So one generation dies, while another is brought to life..

..Until the last one, dies.



Why was there so much Evil on the Earth? Where was the Justice?

But, it wasn't the Earth's fault, nor was it the Sky's. They would run in harmony - completing their role in perfect timing & precision, for millenium upon millenium. Nature would run perfectly fine, without excessive human interruption.

Wasn't it that human's fault, who spread Corruption, and caused Problems between the people, Insulting some, while Not Spending on others who needed?



So the Originator will once again, Originate the Earth. Send down a rain - which will cause each and every human to grow out of the Earth like a plant (that same human who He created from a sperm drop.)

Gathered on one flat and vast location, every human will run on this Day, running away from who? The one he wronged. Each person will know that he will be Questioned on this Day for what he did in the temporary worldly life. No-one will be safe.. on this Day, Except the one who came with a Serene heart.

And who is the one with a Serene heart?

It is the one who knew that he will face this Day. So he believed in His Provider, and served Him by doing good - giving rights to his Creator, and giving rights to the creation.

He knew that he would made mistakes in the worldly life, but he knew that his Creator and Provider was extremely Merciful and supportive to His sincere servants. Having good hopes in His Provider, the Sincere servant - knowing he was a candle in a world filled with darkness, humbly and patiently continued to strive to uphold justice - until there came to him the Certainty (Death.)


So on this Day - his Rich Provider is Appreciative of his good, and rewarded him with a life of endless Provisions in beautiful Gardens beneath which rivers flow.

Gardens containing Mansions; a Beautiful Partner, a Beautiful Drink and a life of joy. If the Provider was able to give the evildoers temporary mansions in the worldly life, who can prevent Him from giving the good doers more, in an eternal world which doesn't end? Uniting him with others similar to him, the great Messengers; Noah, Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Muhammad and the righteous of all generations. And the greatest of all - the gift of meeting his Creator, and Provider, the All Rich, the Appreciative.


Those who denied the meeting with their Creator, and caused corruption in the Earth, even after the truth had come to them - they would be punished in a Fire, especifically created for the arrogant, ungrateful.

Ungrateful - being even more lowly than animals.

The Animals; Eat, Drink, have Children, survive in a world full of Challenges, and then gradually Die away. Do humans?



You - the human, have been given an Intellect, an Uprightness, an Ability - throughwhich you are Responsibe for upholding the Legislated Justice.

You are responsible to submit in Islam (Islam means Submission) to the guidance of the All Knowing, the All Wise.


Why? Because the Animal submits to the role the Creator has given to it - to the most of its ability, so you see the great Horse humbling itself before you - so you can ride it. You see the different Foods, humbling themselves - allowing you to benefit from the strength and energy they contain. You see Earth humble before you, as you extract her treasures of gold and silver.

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the Land and Sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference. [Quran 17:70]

Isn't the time near - that you left the Animal world, and rise up to the high Human standard which has been set for you?


So be the best of people - walking down a clear lighted path - certain and confident in your Journey and decisions in life.

Do not walk in darkness upon darkness, sniffing with Senses alone when deciding which way is wrong, or which way is right.


You have an Intellect, you are honored, you are Unique. You are that honored sperm drop which can spread Justice throughout the whole Earth - if only, you follow the Guidance given to you. That is because you are supporting the cause of your Provider, but those who oppose you have no-one but themselves.


Then wait - for the Promise of your Originator, you will come to know, and they too - will come to know, who was Truthful, and who was the liar, and then regret will be of no benefit...

[Pygoscelis]

It amazes me just how many straw men are fit into this post/article. ^o)

Maybe the cause for your sadness is because you've been taught by others that:

Your origins are by Chance
that you have Entered this world through an Accident
that you are in a state of Loss because no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self.

None of this is true. No sadness. Not taught by others. No claim that anything is by chance. No state of loss. More empathic than you think.

And

all that you have been taught, a belief system

Atheism is not a belief system, as much as religious folks want it to be. It just isn't. There is no dogma, no holy books, no doctrine, no preists, no prophets. There are no beliefs you must hold be qualify as an atheist whatsoever. You just have to lack a belief in God(s).

I didn't bother to read the rest of the article/post after noticing the above false assumptions / statements.

[Lynx]

Maybe the cause for your sadness is because you've been taught by others that:-


- Your origins are by Chance,
- that you have Entered this world through an Accident,
- that you are in a state of Loss because no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self.

Hi, here are some words of advice to you Qatada in order to avoid responses like Pygo's: if you want to preach to atheists, don't begin your sermon with something that is false or generalizing. If you think atheists are living in sadness or they don't trust people then perhaps you should get to know more atheists in hopes of remedying your blatant ignorance of them; this might make your attempts at preaching a little less ridiculous in the future, and perhaps a little more successful. Imagine a Christian's sermon to Muslims beginning with the following: "Maybe the cause of your violence is because you've been taught by your religion that: -you should terrorize infidels; -you should be intolerant of other beliefs" ETC.

I hope my point has been made ;)

[- Qatada -]

It amazes me just how many straw men are fit into this post/article. ^o)

I thought you never read the whole article? :)

None of this is true. No sadness.

Fair enough.


[quote]
Not taught by others. [quote]

Abiogenesis? Common Ancestor? Aren't these hypotheses which are taught?

No claim that anything is by chance.

If something isn't controlled, it's Coincidential, in other words - by chance. No?

And Atheism is not a belief system, as much as religious folks want it to be. It just isn't. There is no dogma, no holy books, no doctrine, no preists, no prophets. There are no beliefs you must hold be qualify as an atheist whatsoever. You just have to lack a belief in God(s).

You have a "belief" - that there is no God. That is just as similar to a "belief" that there is a God. Except on the other side of the spectrum.

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

[- Qatada -]

I hope my point has been made ;)

Read the above post. :)

[Ali Mujahidin]

There are no beliefs you must hold be qualify as an atheist whatsoever. You just have to lack a belief in God(s).

That's news to me. I always thought an atheist believed there is no need to have a god to explain how things happen. So I am wrong?

[CosmicPathos]

Hi, here are some words of advice to you Qatada in order to avoid responses like Pygo's: if you want to preach to atheists, don't begin your sermon with something that is false or generalizing. If you think atheists are living in sadness or they don't trust people then perhaps you should get to know more atheists in hopes of remedying your blatant ignorance of them; this might make your attempts at preaching a little less ridiculous in the future, and perhaps a little more successful. Imagine a Christian's sermon to Muslims beginning with the following: "Maybe the cause of your violence is because you've been taught by your religion that: -you should terrorize infidels; -you should be intolerant of other beliefs" ETC.

I hope my point has been made ;)

I know many a atheists who are sad. Sad because of existentialist crises they are going through. They cannot live happily knowing (in their minds, according to their worldviews) they were a product of accidents.

So its you who needs to remove his ignorance. Maybe Qatada's post was not directed to ignorant happy atheists like yourself. Perhaps there are genuine curious sad atheists among your ilk, seems Qatada was addressing them.

[Pygoscelis]

Abiogenesis? Common Ancestor? Aren't these hypotheses which are taught?

It is also taught that the earth goes around the sun. None of this has anything to do with atheism. None of this is taught in the name of atheism or specifically to atheists.

If something isn't controlled, it's Coincidential, in other words - by chance. No?

There is nothing about atheism that requires atheists to beieve it's coincidental.

You have a "belief" - that there is no God. That is just as similar to a "belief" that there is a God. Except on the other side of the spectrum.

First, that is one definition of "atheist" but not the one most atheists use when they self-identify as atheists. They usually mean what I said, a lack of belief in God. That isn't the same as a belief there is no God.

But regardless of which definition of "atheist" we use, it still isn't comparable to religions, as it would only be one single belief, not a belief system, and not a belief about any of the things you assumed / claimed.

Imagine a Christian's sermon to Muslims beginning with the following: "Maybe the cause of your violence is because you've been taught by your religion that: -you should terrorize infidels; -you should be intolerant of other beliefs" ETC.

That is an excellent analogy. And I suppose some Christian who said it, upon being corrected, could make the same claim that mad_scientist made immediately above, that it isn't directed to all muslims, but just the ones it is true of. Of course, nowhere in either the OP or your analogy is that stated.

Finally, I know a lot of atheists. I know some who are not happy (just like I know people of all walks of life who are not happy). But I have never met an atheist who:

cannot live happily knowing (in their minds, according to their worldviews) they were a product of accidents.

Do you actually know such people? Where do you find them? I expect I know far more atheists than you, so why I have I never found one? Are they the product of living in muslim culture or something?

[- Qatada -]

It is also taught that the earth goes around the sun. None of this has anything to do with atheism. None of this is taught in the name of atheism or specifically to atheists.

If you don't believe in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, what do you believe caused life?

There is nothing about atheism that requires atheists to beieve it's coincidental.

First, that is one definition of "atheist" but not the one most atheists use when they self-identify as atheists. They usually mean what I said, a lack of belief in God. That isn't the same as a belief there is no God.

What's the difference?

But regardless of which definition of "atheist" we use, it still isn't comparable to religions, as it would only be one single belief, not a belief system, and not a belief about any of the things you assumed / claimed.

We're debating Atheism [non-belief in God] vs Theism [belief in God] right now, not religion. (see earlier post.)

That is an excellent analogy. And I suppose some Christian who said it, upon being corrected, could make the same claim that mad_scientist made immediately above, that it isn't directed to all muslims, but just the ones it is true of. Of course, nowhere in either the OP or your analogy is that stated.

Finally, I know a lot of atheists. I know some who are not happy (just like I know people of all walks of life who are not happy). But I have never met an atheist who:

If you've read the article, you'll figure it is talking to such a targetted audience. And this is why I never titled it; "those who are Atheists", rather i said - "those who ascribe themselves to Atheists."

Do you actually know such people? Where do you find them? I expect I know far more atheists than you, so why I have I never found one? Are they the product of living in muslim culture or something?

You're fooling yourself if you think every person who ascribes themself to Atheism is happy.

[IAmZamzam]

Qatada, you're just making us look bad. Are you familiar with the expression "lobbing softballs"?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


bro Yahya, trust me - there are professed atheists who really do want to see a different perspective on life.


I'll tell you something which the readers who don't know Advanced Grammar never noticed (so they gave the responses they did).



Allah says;

aladheena kafaroo [Verb form] - those who profess disbelief.

Kaafiroon [Noun form] - Disbelievers.


Verbs are temporary, Nouns are Permanent.

This article was addressing: aladheena kafaroo - 'those who profess disbelief' - i.e. they are temporarily upon disbelief because they do not see any other alternative. But if they saw another perspective which made more sense, they would believe.

This article was not addressing the Kafiroon - those who are Permanently stuck upon Disbelief, even if convincing alternatives come to them.



Just something to think about. :)

[Pygoscelis]

If you don't believe in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, what do you believe caused life?

I don't pretend to know. I'm ok with admittting I don't know.

What's the difference?

One is a belief. One isn't. You can't gather much information about a person from either.

We're debating Atheism [non-belief in God] vs Theism [belief in God] right now, not religion. (see earlier post.)

We're addressing yoru OP which made specific assumptions about what atheists believe and think, all of which have nothing to do with atheism.

You're fooling yourself if you think every person who ascribes themself to Atheism is happy.

I just specifically said the opposite. Did you miss that?

[- Qatada -]

One is a belief. One isn't. You can't gather much information about a person from either.

By denying God, you are believing He isn't existent.

We're addressing yoru OP which made specific assumptions about what atheists believe and think, all of which have nothing to do with atheism.

Generally, atheists will try argue in favour of such concepts. So I discussed such people.

[IAmZamzam]

bro Yahya, trust me - there are professed atheists who really do want to see a different perspective on life.

Some do, but that doesn't mean getting them into that perspective is liable to be an easy task. Touchy-feely armchair psychology never convinced anyone of anything, and among the atheists I've seen and talked to more often than not their atheism isn't caused by trust issues at all but seemingly by a virtually incurable all-or-nothing mentality about claims of the paranormal, believing on some level that the entire invisible world is a single multifaceted object that cannot have any part of it removed without the whole thing being unraveled. Not so much throwing the baby out with the bathwater as assuming all babies to make the bathwater as dirty as the one they grew up with. This is why you'll so often hear them make claims, which make sense only to themselves and other atheists, that if we are to believe in God or the angels then we may as well believe in leprechauns and fauns too. It's the same fallacy involved in the silly argument that the sheer number of religions in the world somehow makes the odds of any individual one of them being right lower: they don't grasp the possibility that the odds aren't automatically even between multiple things just because they have some similarity or connection between them. God's existence is supernatural and elves are supernatural, so God's existence must be as bogus as elves. (This is made all the worse by--and perhaps also partially caused by--the common circularity of their standards for evidence, that things which are not physical demand physical proof, and the only thing that would convince them of the supernatural is evidence from the natural world.) You'll notice as a result that while there are relatively very few theists indeed who believe in everything paranormal that is not too obviously contradictory to everything else, there are practically no atheists who are not hard materialists despite atheism itself not automatically denoting that. While some, if not most, of us theists examine proposed supernatural realities on their own merits, individually, and at the very worst reject them otherwise simply because they're inconsistent with supernatural beliefs we already hold, their perceptions apparently do not contain or notice any percentages between 0 and 100. Long story short, if you want to make an alternate perspective seem appealing to them then focus your energies on setting your own viewpoint above the herd. Don't explain to them why they need something more, only what's so special about the particular something more that we offer. You'll notice how racists who change their minds seldom do so because they suddenly understand something about the very logic of their view which undermines the way they look at the world itself, but instead because they have got to know people of the race they despise who are not what they expected them to be.

I made this post to give Qatada advice. I did not point fingers at any individual, specific people either on or off the board and I am not speaking to anyone else but Qatada: as such, I will not entertain any argument from anyone else here. Neither my hands nor my emotional state is up to the tedium of repeating the same debate we always have a twelfth time. Just save it.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


JazakAllah khayr bro :)

[Trumble]

By denying God, you are believing He isn't existent.

No you aren't. You can deny God exists, but you can only deny God if you believe he does exist!

Maybe the cause for your sadness is because you've been taught by others that:-

- Your origins are by Chance,
- that you have Entered this world through an Accident,
- that you are in a state of Loss because no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self.

Nope. The third would make me very sad, if I believed it to be true - which it obviously isn't. As to the first two, I really can't see why they would trouble anybody. Origins in the dim and distant past, so what? 'Through an accident'? Well, actually my parents told me that! It never bothered me. Why do you find the idea of them so troubling?

[- Qatada -]

I'm surprised at your guys naivety and the lack of eloquence of language in this thread. Maybe it's just my inspiration from the Arabic language.

But anyway, the language used in this article was purposelly written the way it was.


Trumble, the statement you quoted was written that way with a double intent:

1 - to show that people do become sad when they don't know who their biological father is.

2 - and that they feel hurt when they realise their parents insult them by calling their child a 'mistake' or 'accident' (because they didn't wear a condom).

If they are a cause for sadness to the natural heart, then surely such questions in regard to human origin is equally important to the sincere heart.

If only you readers used your intellect!

[Pygoscelis]

Generally, atheists will try argue in favour of such concepts.

I think you have imagined that.

I have never heard an atheist argue that "no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self". Sure, an atheist COULD believe that, but it certainly isn't common amongst us, and hopefully isn't common amongst anybody else.

Your OP seems to declare it as a matter of fact applicable to atheists as a group. And as Lynx pointed out, that is about the same as stating as a matter of fact that muslims are violent terrorists. It is an offensive misperception that some people hold and like to push, even though its wrong regarding most atheists/muslims.

Read his post above. Read mine. Read Trumble's. Actually consider what has been said. You are missing the points being made perhaps, which is why you are dismissing us as inelequent simpletons.

Also note that calling people inelequent and "not using intelligence" isn't going to win you any converts, and will only make you look weak and defensive, especially when you miss the points that are being made by said people.

[- Qatada -]

I think you have imagined that.

I have never heard an atheist argue that "no-one can be trusted, and that every person cares for nobody but his own self". Sure, an atheist COULD believe that, but it certainly isn't common amongst us, and hopefully isn't common amongst anybody else.

Your OP seems to declare it as a matter of fact applicable to atheists as a group. And as Lynx pointed out, that is about the same as stating as a matter of fact that muslims are violent terrorists. It is an offensive misperception that some people hold and like to push, even though its wrong regarding most atheists/muslims.

I can retract such a statement and i don't mind in doing so. However, I will affirm that there are many atheist heads, such as Dawkings - who writ books such as 'the Selfish Gene', which influenced why i writ such a statement.

Read his post above. Read mine. Read Trumble's. Actually consider what has been said. You are missing the points being made perhaps, which is why you are dismissing us as inelequent simpletons.

Also note that calling people inelequent and "not using intelligence" isn't going to win you any converts, and will only make you look weak and defensive, especially when you miss the points that are being made by said people.

I have elaborated on my word useage in the article, which in many cases have been used purposelly to touch upon someone who is willing to look to another alternative in life.


The example Trumble gave, and my elaboration upon it is a clear example of that. It is no way a misunderstanding. And I - as the author - have the right to encourage people to use their mind to find more meaning to the article.

[ThePhilosopher]

Some do, but that doesn't mean getting them into that perspective is liable to be an easy task. Touchy-feely armchair psychology never convinced anyone of anything, and among the atheists I've seen and talked to more often than not their atheism isn't caused by trust issues at all but seemingly by a virtually incurable all-or-nothing mentality about claims of the paranormal, believing on some level that the entire invisible world is a single multifaceted object that cannot have any part of it removed without the whole thing being unraveled. Not so much throwing the baby out with the bathwater as assuming all babies to make the bathwater as dirty as the one they grew up with. This is why you'll so often hear them make claims, which make sense only to themselves and other atheists, that if we are to believe in God or the angels then we may as well believe in leprechauns and fauns too. It's the same fallacy involved in the silly argument that the sheer number of religions in the world somehow makes the odds of any individual one of them being right lower: they don't grasp the possibility that the odds aren't automatically even between multiple things just because they have some similarity or connection between them. God's existence is supernatural and elves are supernatural, so God's existence must be as bogus as elves. (This is made all the worse by--and perhaps also partially caused by--the common circularity of their standards for evidence, that things which are not physical demand physical proof, and the only thing that would convince them of the supernatural is evidence from the natural world.) You'll notice as a result that while there are relatively very few theists indeed who believe in everything paranormal that is not too obviously contradictory to everything else, there are practically no atheists who are not hard materialists despite atheism itself not automatically denoting that. While some, if not most, of us theists examine proposed supernatural realities on their own merits, individually, and at the very worst reject them otherwise simply because they're inconsistent with supernatural beliefs we already hold, their perceptions apparently do not contain or notice any percentages between 0 and 100. Long story short, if you want to make an alternate perspective seem appealing to them then focus your energies on setting your own viewpoint above the herd. Don't explain to them why they need something more, only what's so special about the particular something more that we offer. You'll notice how racists who change their minds seldom do so because they suddenly understand something about the very logic of their view which undermines the way they look at the world itself, but instead because they have got to know people of the race they despise who are not what they expected them to be.

I made this post to give Qatada advice. I did not point fingers at any individual, specific people either on or off the board and I am not speaking to anyone else but Qatada: as such, I will not entertain any argument from anyone else here. Neither my hands nor my emotional state is up to the tedium of repeating the same debate we always have a twelfth time. Just save it.

Actually, these claims do not only make sense to Atheists in general. I find it quite amusing that you brought this topic up. These claims also make sense to every other religion that does not adhere to Islamic principles (save the other Abrahamic religions of course). For example, while an Atheist (and any rational person) will laugh at the notion of angels and demons (as interpreted by Islam)---so will a Hindu, Animist, various polytheist religions, etc.

Then there is a case of blatant special pleading that you have attempted to conveniently compare with the analogy of the baby and the bathwater. You have no empirical evidence for an angel or a demon (various creatures such as unicorns and leprechauns are ironically more probable than something that can not be comprehended even in principle), Hindu's lack empirical evidence for Krishna or Vishnu. "Faith" is the only standard in which these may be measured by and so in the end it is a "my faith is better than your faith" argument which of course has no rational grounds attributed to it. You have faith that the illogical entities in your religion are real and Hindus similarly have faith in their own yet you attempt to explain that your own entities are real on the same basis that a Hindu (just one example religion btw) does. This is special pleading and it is not that Atheists categorize all absurdities to be non-existent, it is that all absurdities ARE non-existent as they all similarly lack evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence"
-Hitchens razor

Though, maybe Allah the almighty has not opened my heart yet and I am not able to understand, so please show me the way if I am misunderstanding. But, know that I was once a Muslim and a very religious one, so I am well acquainted with your own perspective as well as the one I have developed more recently.

[CosmicPathos]

Actually, these claims do not only make sense to Atheists in general. I find it quite amusing that you brought this topic up. These claims also make sense to every other religion that does not adhere to Islamic principles (save the other Abrahamic religions of course). For example, while an Atheist (and any rational person) will laugh at the notion of angels and demons (as interpreted by Islam)---so will a Hindu, Animist, various polytheist religions, etc.

Then there is a case of blatant special pleading that you have attempted to conveniently compare with the analogy of the baby and the bathwater. You have no empirical evidence for an angel or a demon (various creatures such as unicorns and leprechauns are ironically more probable than something that can not be comprehended even in principle), Hindu's lack empirical evidence for Krishna or Vishnu. "Faith" is the only standard in which these may be measured by and so in the end it is a "my faith is better than your faith" argument which of course has no rational grounds attributed to it. You have faith that the illogical entities in your religion are real and Hindus similarly have faith in their own yet you attempt to explain that your own entities are real on the same basis that a Hindu (just one example religion btw) does. This is special pleading and it is not that Atheists categorize all absurdities to be non-existent, it is that all absurdities ARE non-existent as they all similarly lack evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence"
-Hitchens razor

Though, maybe Allah the almighty has not opened my heart yet and I am not able to understand, so please show me the way if I am misunderstanding. But, know that I was once a Muslim and a very religious one, so I am well acquainted with your own perspective as well as the one I have developed more recently.

Hey murtid zindeeq,

Actually, Hindus do believe in "demons." For example, refer to Raavan or other such "idols." "Demons" actually exist in Buddhism as well. Refer to Maara. Just throwing it out there to point the inaccuracies in your illogical claim.

Regarding the existence of angels, you have convinced your mind that it is illogical. Islam actually openly asserts that belief in angels and the jinn is a belief in the Unseen. Islam is openly saying that we dont have any material evidence of such things. Yet belief in such things is possible if one believes in the existence of a Creator.

you left Islam, thank God, good riddance.

p.s. your god poor hitchens is dying a despicable death. his "razor" is blunt.

[ThePhilosopher]

Reading and comprehension is your friend. I clearly stated "(as interpreted by Islam)".

No, I have not convinced my mind that it is illogical. I, like you, cannot stipulate a definition for a term. The very definition of illogical encompasses this "unseen" you speak of.
Anyways, you have not contributed anything to the argument that I was putting forward. Why are your angels and demons more believable than what Hinduism or any other religion puts forward if they are all based on faith?

I'm not so sure your Allah would be pleased that you are thanking him for an apostate. Then again, according to Islamic jurisprudence and Muhammad himself, I am to be killed. :)

[CosmicPathos]

Reading and comprehension is your friend. I clearly stated "(as interpreted by Islam)".

No, I have not convinced my mind that it is illogical. I, like you, cannot stipulate a definition for a term. The very definition of illogical encompasses this "unseen" you speak of.
Anyways, you have not contributed anything to the argument that I was putting forward. Why are your angels and demons more believable than what Hinduism or any other religion puts forward if they are all based on faith?

I'm not so sure your Allah would be pleased that you are thanking him for an apostate. Then again, according to Islamic jurisprudence and Muhammad himself, I am to be killed. :)

neither have you contributed anything significant to the thread. All you have asked is a question. Well I can ask you a question too. Why were your ancestors ape-like animals?

[Ramadhan]

Reading and comprehension is your friend.

apparently reading and comprehension are both your enemies.

Yahya wrote in plain words and very specific:

I made this post to give Qatada advice. I did not point fingers at any individual, specific people either on or off the board and I am not speaking to anyone else but Qatada: as such, I will not entertain any argument from anyone else here. Neither my hands nor my emotional state is up to the tedium of repeating the same debate we always have a twelfth time. Just save it.

Do you have that much trouble understanding very simple things?

I find it quite amusing that you brought this topic up. These claims also make sense to every other religion that does not adhere to Islamic principles (save the other Abrahamic religions of course). For example, while an Atheist (and any rational person) will laugh at the notion of angels and demons (as interpreted by Islam)---so will a Hindu, Animist, various polytheist religions, etc.

Yahya did not even mention angels and demons. Stop clutching on strawman.

You have no empirical evidence for an angel or a demon (various creatures such as unicorns and leprechauns are ironically more probable than something that can not be comprehended even in principle),

Then show us how unicorns and leprechauns are more probable than angels and demons.

I will respond to your claim as an ex muslim:

But, know that I was once a Muslim and a very religious one, so I am well acquainted with your own perspective as well as the one I have developed more recently.

with your own words and belief:

"That which can be asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence" -Hitchens razor

[ThePhilosopher]

neither have you contributed anything significant to the thread. All you have asked is a question. Well I can ask you a question too. Why were your ancestors ape-like animals?

Actually, I showed you why your beliefs in illogical entities have the same basis of evidence as those of other religions. Then I asked how this case of special pleading can be explained. Though, I still have not gotten an answer.

Our ancestors were not "ape-like" creatures, they were "apes" just like we are apes. We are hominids. Really, this is a scientific fact backed up by mountains of evidence.

you got that right, hopefully you'll be killed off this forum too :statisfie though im inclined to think that you arent really an apostate but calming to be one for abit of attention-like, most Islam hate monger loosers....poor things, must not get enough attention at home. :nervous:

I think it is disgusting that you would encourage death for me due to the mere fact of wanting a different belief system than yourself. Even if you do dispute my right to a different belief system, I will not dispute your right.

I will admit, I do hate many concepts that Islam teaches and I hate many actions of the prophet, but I am not a hate monger and I respect everyone regardless of their religion.

Well, you may believe that I am an apostate or you may believe I am not. I was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. I came to Canada at the age of 3 and have lived here ever since. Islam was taught to me by my parents and I was a devout Muslim until I discarded the religion two years ago for reasons I will not discuss here (you are free to ask though). If you don't buy my story, it is ok.

Do you have that much trouble understanding very simple things?

I apologize, I thought that was not addressed to me as I am a new member and he would not have to repeat anything to me. Even so, this is a forum where people are free to engage in discussions and thus I put my point forward. If he does not want to answer, that is his choice.

Yahya did not even mention angels and demons. Stop clutching on strawman.

Actually, he specifically stated angels. Apparently, you do not know what a strawman fallacy is. I did not misrepresent Yahya's argument, my rebuttal is directly aimed at the point he was trying to make. Yayha was trying to explain that Atheists do not acknowledge a God or angels in the Quran because they compare it with other illogical entities from mythology (and im assuming other religions). If you read my argument, you would realize that I am directly responding to claims he made.

Then show us how unicorns and leprechauns are more probable than angels and demons.

I will respond to your claim as an ex muslim

I thought I was clear but I will reiterate for your sake. I am not in any way claiming that unicorns and leprechauns have any probability, just that when we are comparing it to entities that a. cannot be comprehended. b. do not exist in our dimension and c.has no precedence in which we may take, they become more probable due to the simple fact that they are entities that are based off real concepts. (i.e Unicorns based off horse.)
Though, this is beside the point as believing any over the other would be special pleading as I described before.

Honestly, it is of little importance if you believe I am an ex-Muslim or not. I already explained, and the only reason I stated I was one in the first place was so that all of you may assume I am well grounded when it comes to Islamic knowledge and refrain from trying to tell me the basics.

[Ramadhan]

I apologize, I thought that was not addressed to me as I am a new member and he would not have to repeat anything to me. Even so, this is a forum where people are free to engage in discussions and thus I put my point forward. If he does not want to answer, that is his choice.

Let me show you again his post, and this time I will underline the important words (just in case you misunderstand, again):

I made this post to give Qatada advice. I did not point fingers at any individual, specific people either on or off the board and I am not speaking to anyone else but Qatada: as such, I will not entertain any argument from anyone else here. Neither my hands nor my emotional state is up to the tedium of repeating the same debate we always have a twelfth time. Just save it.

As you infer even from this part alone that Yahya is currently suffering some sort of illnesses on his hand which prevent him from doing a lot of typing, and hence he requested no one to respond his post but Qatada.
And yet you, insisted on barraging him with your opinions, which I think is cowardice since you know he won't answer.

I did not misrepresent Yahya's argument, my rebuttal is directly aimed at the point he was trying to make. Yayha was trying to explain that Atheists do not acknowledge a God or angels in the Quran because they compare it with other illogical entities from mythology (and im assuming other religions). If you read my argument, you would realize that I am directly responding to claims he made.

While knowing full well that he won't be able respond to you because of his affliction?
Only yahya fully knows what he meant by his points, so you cannot expect anyone else to fully engage with on your rebuttal to his points.

I am not in any way claiming that unicorns and leprechauns have any probability, just that when we are comparing it to entities that a. cannot be comprehended. b. do not exist in our dimension and c.has no precedence in which we may take, they become more probable due to the simple fact that they are entities that are based off real concepts. (i.e Unicorns based off horse.)

No, you have not shown exactly how something that are based off real concepts are more probable than something outside our comprehension.
Does this mean that Ganesh, zeus, leprecahuns, spgahetti monster are more probable than God as the creator of everything?

Honestly, it is of little importance if you believe I am an ex-Muslim or not. I already explained, and the only reason I stated I was one in the first place was so that all of you may assume I am well grounded when it comes to Islamic knowledge and refrain from trying to tell me the basics.

I thought as an atheist you always require hard physical evidence for something that we can believe in? Otherwise you discard those?
I am only playing by your own rule.

[ThePhilosopher]

No actually as a new member I was not aware that he was suffering an illness that prevented him from typing. In that case I do apologize and I sincerely hope that his illness may pass.

Though, I think it is cowardice on your part that you are refusing to answer my questions. He is not able to answer, so I will direct them towards you.

"that are based off real concepts are more probable than something outside our comprehension"

I think that just proved my point. Yes, all of those are just as probable if not more than God being the creator of anything because similarly none have any evidence to back up the claim. Unless you claim that there is evidence for God being the creator of everything. If so, pray tell.

Again, being an ex-Muslim or not is beside the point, I dont care if you do not believe me.

[Ramadhan]

I think that just proved my point. Yes, all of those are just as probable if not more than God being the creator of anything because similarly none have any evidence to back up the claim

You keep saying they are more probable, but have not shown exactly how.

[CosmicPathos]

Actually, I showed you why your beliefs in illogical entities have the same basis of evidence as those of other religions. Then I asked how this case of special pleading can be explained. Though, I still have not gotten an answer.

Our ancestors were not "ape-like" creatures, they were "apes" just like we are apes. We are hominids. Really, this is a scientific fact backed up by mountains of evidence.



I think it is disgusting that you would encourage death for me due to the mere fact of wanting a different belief system than yourself. Even if you do dispute my right to a different belief system, I will not dispute your right.

I will admit, I do hate many concepts that Islam teaches and I hate many actions of the prophet, but I am not a hate monger and I respect everyone regardless of their religion.

Well, you may believe that I am an apostate or you may believe I am not. I was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. I came to Canada at the age of 3 and have lived here ever since. Islam was taught to me by my parents and I was a devout Muslim until I discarded the religion two years ago for reasons I will not discuss here (you are free to ask though). If you don't buy my story, it is ok.



I apologize, I thought that was not addressed to me as I am a new member and he would not have to repeat anything to me. Even so, this is a forum where people are free to engage in discussions and thus I put my point forward. If he does not want to answer, that is his choice.



Actually, he specifically stated angels. Apparently, you do not know what a strawman fallacy is. I did not misrepresent Yahya's argument, my rebuttal is directly aimed at the point he was trying to make. Yayha was trying to explain that Atheists do not acknowledge a God or angels in the Quran because they compare it with other illogical entities from mythology (and im assuming other religions). If you read my argument, you would realize that I am directly responding to claims he made.



I thought I was clear but I will reiterate for your sake. I am not in any way claiming that unicorns and leprechauns have any probability, just that when we are comparing it to entities that a. cannot be comprehended. b. do not exist in our dimension and c.has no precedence in which we may take, they become more probable due to the simple fact that they are entities that are based off real concepts. (i.e Unicorns based off horse.)
Though, this is beside the point as believing any over the other would be special pleading as I described before.

Honestly, it is of little importance if you believe I am an ex-Muslim or not. I already explained, and the only reason I stated I was one in the first place was so that all of you may assume I am well grounded when it comes to Islamic knowledge and refrain from trying to tell me the basics.

well many afghanis come to canada as refugees, are you one? You remind of this crazy kabuli dude from youtube named zulfitareen, I hope its not him, if it is, then you need to get a big huge boot on your head on these forums too.

When you say that your ancestors were apes, not ape-like, you have committed a scientific blunder. Apes are an offshoot of a common ape-like ancestor, just like humans are. I do not know the tree in details but I do know that the branch through which Homo sapeins evolved separated from the branch that gave rise to the Great apes a long time ago. And the common ancestor was certainly not ape, but rather an ape-like creature. Yes, I think you need to acquaint yourself more with your own myths and ideas.

For hindus believing in their crap, what evidence do they have for their myths? The evidence for the "myths" of Quran is Quran itself. Quran is a divine book, if you can produce any Arabic text like the Quran, I will admit that the stories of angels and jinns in Quran are also made up by Muhammad pbuh, just like the stories of Hindu myths in their scriptures. Secondly, the stories of myths in Hindu scriptures were written by sages and rischis, they never claimed it was a revelation from God. Rather they themselves claim its an inspired word. Inspired word is human.

Regarding unicorns being more real than angels, are you an idiot? Unicorns are a man-made conception, an artistic tangent of a fool who thought that horses with horns might make good myths. So some idiot came up with a concept of unicorns, it is based on the existence of horses. While the concept of angels is not based on any created material thing that a human being can see. So comparing angels with unicorns is like comparing two entirely different things.

[Ali Mujahidin]

This a direct question to ThePhilosopher. Before we can go any further with this discussion, please consider the following:

1. The Merriam-Webster defines an atheist as one who believes that there is no deity.
2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

I would like to know if ThePhilosopher describes himself as an atheist according the above-mentioned definitions.

[ThePhilosopher]

well many afghanis come to canada as refugees, are you one? You remind of this crazy kabuli dude from youtube named zulfitareen, I hope its not him, if it is, then you need to get a big huge boot on your head on these forums too.

No, rest assured I am not him. You wanting to exhibit violence on him leads me to believe he has disrespected you. As you may be able to tell by what I have posted so far, I mean no disrespect to anyone and have not expressed anything that is blatantly disrespectful.

When you say that your ancestors were apes, not ape-like, you have committed a scientific blunder. Apes are an offshoot of a common ape-like ancestor, just like humans are. I do not know the tree in details but I do know that the branch through which Homo sapeins evolved separated from the branch that gave rise to the Great apes a long time ago. And the common ancestor was certainly not ape, but rather an ape-like creature. Yes, I think you need to acquaint yourself more with your own myths and ideas.

No, we are part of the Great apes.

The Hominidae (anglicized hominids, also known as great apes), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans. In the past, the term was used in the more restricted sense of humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees.

Wiki.

For hindus believing in their crap, what evidence do they have for their myths? The evidence for the "myths" of Quran is Quran itself. Quran is a divine book, if you can produce any Arabic text like the Quran, I will admit that the stories of angels and jinns in Quran are also made up by Muhammad pbuh, just like the stories of Hindu myths in their scriptures. Secondly, the stories of myths in Hindu scriptures were written by sages and rischis, they never claimed it was a revelation from God. Rather they themselves claim its an inspired word. Inspired word is human.

I am not so sure the Quran itself would be logical evidence for a divine creator.
Your argument is:

P1 Quran is a perfect book that cannot have been written by man in the 7th century. (Including Science and linguistics)

Therefore,

C2 The Quran is from God

Firstly, not only is the Science and linguistics being "perfect" debatable but even assuming it was perfect, you still have "assume" that it from a divine creator. Man being knowledgeable enough to write it at the time, aliens being responsible for its construction, time travelers writing it, etc are all more probable than a non-existent-existent being, being responsible.

Secondly, there is no evidence for God in the first place.

Thirdly, similar claims can be made.

P1 Humans did not have the knowledge to create the great Pyramid during the time period it was created

Therefore,

C2 An Egyptian god(s) was responsible or they were guided by those said god(s)

P1 Humans did not have the knowledge to create the Antikythera mechanism in 200 BC

Therefore,

C2 The Greeks were divinely guided

Regarding unicorns being more real than angels, are you an idiot? Unicorns are a man-made conception, an artistic tangent of a fool who thought that horses with horns might make good myths. So some idiot came up with a concept of unicorns, it is based on the existence of horses. While the concept of angels is not based on any created material thing that a human being can see. So comparing angels with unicorns is like comparing two entirely different things.

In regards to it being a man-made conception, the same can be said for the Quran and the various entities that are said to exist within it. Except, that someone made it to be able to control people instead of conceptual mythology. The concept of angels not being based on anything that is real is what makes it less probable.

This a direct question to ThePhilosopher. Before we can go any further with this discussion, please consider the following:

1. The Merriam-Webster defines an atheist as one who believes that there is no deity.
2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

I would like to know if ThePhilosopher describes himself as an atheist according the above-mentioned definitions.

I do not believe in a God. I do not claim that a God does not exist for I do not have the knowledge to make such a claim. Though, due to the absence of evidence for a God, I do not believe in one.

[Ramadhan]

No, rest assured I am not him. You wanting to exhibit violence on him leads me to believe he has disrespected you. As you may be able to tell by what I have posted so far, I mean no disrespect to anyone and have not expressed anything that is blatantly disrespectful.

Oh really?
Maybe you use far lower standard of respect that common sense dictate. In your 13 posts only so far you have made:
First, you responded to and started arguing with someone who respectfully and specifically asked that no one respond to his post.
Second, you started arguing a point that a muslim made in a thread, which by the title of the thread, intended for muslims only.

[Woodrow]

To Everybody who is active on this thread:

The thread has been woken up. Please stay on topic and direct all replies to the topic, not the the character of, nor your opinion of the person posting.

[Ali Mujahidin]

As salaam mualaikum.

Let me share a little story.

Once upon a time, there was a room. The room was so high that when you looked up, you cannot even see where the ceiling was. The room was also so wide and long that when you look around, you could not even see where the walls were.

In the room, there were many balls. Some were big and some were small. Some were even very big and some were really very small. The balls were in all kinds of colors. There were balls all over the place. Some balls were on the floor. Some were bouncing up and down. There were also some balls floating in the air. Some balls were moving around. Other balls were just sitting there not going anywhere.

In the room, there was a man. Not a very big man but he was definitely very full of himself. Imagine Rumpelstiltskin in a suit and tie, and you would have this man down pat. This man called himself, A the Ist. The way he said his name, it sounded like he was announcing the presence of Alexander the Great or Arthur the son of Uther or some other grand-sounding title like that.

A the Ist looked at the balls. He picked one up and threw it into the air. The ball promptly fell to the ground again.

"Aha!" declared A the Ist, "What goes up must come down."

He did not bother to look at some of the balls which were floating in the air. To A the Ist, it was sufficient that he had just proven that whatever went up must come down and therefor it must be the truth.

A the Ist picked up another ball. He threw it to the ground. The ball bounced right back up.

"Aha!" he declared, "Every cause has an equal and opposite effect."

He picked up another ball and threw that to the ground, too. The ball hit the ground and stayed right there.

"Aha!" he declared, "The exception proved the rule."

It's going to a long story but I think you should get the general drift by now. Insha Allah.

[Ramadhan]

^
Me likes this.
It is a refreshing and intelligent take on the thought process of atheists.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

I think it is disgusting that you would encourage death for me due to the mere fact of wanting a different belief system than yourself.

i didnt say i wanted you dead. YOU have assumed that. and i certainly haven't said that i wanted you dead because of different belief system that you hold other then mine. YOU have assumed that.

Even if you do dispute my right to a different belief system, I will not dispute your right.

though you are more than happy to attack my belief? oh let me guess, you're just asking questions, right?

I will admit, I do hate many concepts that Islam teaches and I hate many actions of the prophet, but I am not a hate monger and I respect everyone regardless of their religion.

so far you have demonstrated otherwise :><:

[Pygoscelis]

I was going to stay out of this thread after my last post, but this needs a reply

First, you responded to and started arguing with someone who respectfully and specifically asked that no one respond to his post.
Second, you started arguing a point that a muslim made in a thread, which by the title of the thread, intended for muslims only.

1. People should not be posting if they do not want people to respond to them. They should be using private messages or not be posting. This is a public board. People will respond.

2. The title of the thread specifically and explicitly invites atheists and is posted in the comparative religion section. You may have a point had this been a thread in a muslim fellowship section of the board.

[Pygoscelis]

As salaam mualaikum.

Let me share a little story.

Once upon a time, there was a room. The room was so high that when you looked up, you cannot even see where the ceiling was. The room was also so wide and long that when you look around, you could not even see where the walls were.

In the room, there were many balls. Some were big and some were small. Some were even very big and some were really very small. The balls were in all kinds of colors. There were balls all over the place. Some balls were on the floor. Some were bouncing up and down. There were also some balls floating in the air. Some balls were moving around. Other balls were just sitting there not going anywhere.

In the room, there was a man. Not a very big man but he was definitely very full of himself. Imagine Rumpelstiltskin in a suit and tie, and you would have this man down pat. This man called himself, A the Ist. The way he said his name, it sounded like he was announcing the presence of Alexander the Great or Arthur the son of Uther or some other grand-sounding title like that.

A the Ist looked at the balls. He picked one up and threw it into the air. The ball promptly fell to the ground again.

"Aha!" declared A the Ist, "What goes up must come down."

He did not bother to look at some of the balls which were floating in the air. To A the Ist, it was sufficient that he had just proven that whatever went up must come down and therefor it must be the truth.

A the Ist picked up another ball. He threw it to the ground. The ball bounced right back up.

"Aha!" he declared, "Every cause has an equal and opposite effect."

He picked up another ball and threw that to the ground, too. The ball hit the ground and stayed right there.

"Aha!" he declared, "The exception proved the rule."

It's going to a long story but I think you should get the general drift by now. Insha Allah.

Now picture this Ist guy writing down the claims he made above and leaving the paper on the floor when he leaves, along with some other claims he just made up based on how he feels that day.

A second guy enters the room and finds the message. He does not test anything. He has faith in the message. It must be true because he really likes it and thinks it very poetic and beautifully written, and that it is written perfectly.

Now picture a third guy enters the room. The second guy tells the third guy about the great revelation he had and shows him the paper. The third guy tells him he just sees a piece of paper and that he doesn't take what is written on authority and instead he goes on to do some thorough testing of the balls in the room, forming theories as he goes. He tests them repeatedly and replaces them when he finds new evidence. Over time his theories become more and more robust and the claims on the paper still carry little or no evidence.

Then as more people enter the room the guy with the piece of paper waves it frantically and demands equal time and equal attention and respect be paid to his "revelation" as is paid to the other guy's "science".

Is that where your story was going?

[Ramadhan]

1. People should not be posting if they do not want people to respond to them. They should be using private messages or not be posting. This is a public board. People will respond.

Per usual, without checking all the facts, you are making assumptions, which in light of things make you look like a fool.
I was alluding to him about a very specific post where the writer asked clearly and politely that his post was intended for one person only as he was still suffering from from some illness. Even thephilosopher apologized.

. The title of the thread specifically and explicitly invites atheists and is posted in the comparative religion section. You may have a point had this been a thread in a muslim fellowship section of the board.

Huh?
Are you really that ignorant or just dense?
anyone who have been reading my exchange of posts with thephilosopher in the last week would know right away that the thread that I was alluding is not this thread, but the thread of "Why do know Islam is the truth" in the general section where he was making a lot of mess and being extremely rude, before his posts were cleaned up by the mods.

Again, stop being so tribal, and start learning one things or two.
(I like using the word that you have often used to accuse some muslims here)

[Lynx]

As salaam mualaikum.

Let me share a little story.

Once upon a time, there was a room. The room was so high that when you looked up, you cannot even see where the ceiling was. The room was also so wide and long that when you look around, you could not even see where the walls were.

In the room, there were many balls. Some were big and some were small. Some were even very big and some were really very small. The balls were in all kinds of colors. There were balls all over the place. Some balls were on the floor. Some were bouncing up and down. There were also some balls floating in the air. Some balls were moving around. Other balls were just sitting there not going anywhere.

In the room, there was a man. Not a very big man but he was definitely very full of himself. Imagine Rumpelstiltskin in a suit and tie, and you would have this man down pat. This man called himself, A the Ist. The way he said his name, it sounded like he was announcing the presence of Alexander the Great or Arthur the son of Uther or some other grand-sounding title like that.

A the Ist looked at the balls. He picked one up and threw it into the air. The ball promptly fell to the ground again.

"Aha!" declared A the Ist, "What goes up must come down."

He did not bother to look at some of the balls which were floating in the air. To A the Ist, it was sufficient that he had just proven that whatever went up must come down and therefor it must be the truth.

A the Ist picked up another ball. He threw it to the ground. The ball bounced right back up.

"Aha!" he declared, "Every cause has an equal and opposite effect."

He picked up another ball and threw that to the ground, too. The ball hit the ground and stayed right there.

"Aha!" he declared, "The exception proved the rule."

It's going to a long story but I think you should get the general drift by now. Insha Allah.

Interesting story. I often find religious people drawing conclusions without ever considering the 'big picture'. When a piece of evidence or some sort of reasoning is shown to contradict their conclusions, instead of abandoning their conclusions or re-examining the premises from which their conclusion was drawn, they try to fit their original conclusions with contradictory data. The result is a truly messy world-view. So good story :P

[Ramadhan]

I often find religious people drawing conclusions without ever considering the 'big picture'

Funny, this is exactly how I feel about atheists.

[Ali Mujahidin]

the 'big picture'

Just curious. Do you know of anyone who knows the 'big picture'?

[Lynx]

Funny, this is exactly how I feel about atheists.

i know. that was my point: these little criticisms about people's thought-processes (like the story by ThisOldMan) are so pointless b/c everyone else thinks the same about you.

Just curious. Do you know of anyone who knows the 'big picture'?

Well some people can see more of the picture than others, that's for sure.

[Ramadhan]

i know. that was my point: these little criticisms about people's thought-processes (like the story by ThisOldMan) are so pointless b/c everyone else thinks the same about you.

Frankly, I believe it is as pointless as atheists' obsessions with spaghetti monsters, elves and unicorns.
I don't think anything can match that kind of pointlessness and childishness dressed up as "little criticisms"

[Woodrow]

I notice from reading mythology that the belief and worship in many invisible supernatural beings seems to have been a world wide trend. Probably reaching it's apex among the Greeks, Romans and Norse. The general evolution seems to have been a period of strong worship among the people of a specific culture, the building of many statues and/or temples soon followed by a collapse and complete disbelief in those ancient Deities.

However, after many centuries I do not see that as having happened in the belief of the Abrahamic Monotheistic God(swt), it seems it has always had a pattern of continued growth. I do agree there have been and continue to be disagreement over the proper way to worship, but over all, belief in one God(swt) continues to grow and unlike polytheism it is not limited to a specific people.


Any explanations as to why that would be?


Before anybody notices, I did not mention Hinduism. Not because it appears to be a polytheistic religion that does not follow the evolutionary pattern. But because the Hindus I met seem to view Hinduism as being monotheistic with a view similar to the concept of Trinity, except for increasing the size from 3 to a large number.

[Pygoscelis]

Woodrow,

Maybe it is because the polytheistic Gods are more concrete and personalized and less abstract? The polytheistic Gods warred amongst themselves, interacted on a regular basis with humans, and were basically a higher "class" of being but still beings we could very much relate to. Perhaps this led them to be seen as mythical figures. Some of them may have been even meant originally to be seen as figurative instead of literal beings, or as aspects of the divine (as in Hinduism) while they still may considered a top God or creative force which was more abstract and distant. The abrahamic monotheistic God is more universal and abstract. Maybe that gives the idea greater longevity.

Aso, how long did these polytheistic gods last? And has the monotheistic abrahamic God outlasted them yet? Has he done so in the way we currently envision him? Or has he morphed numerous times and become numerous different conceptions of monotheistic God? I think the latter is more the reality. We may think that we see God the same way the ancient Abrahamics did, but I doubt that.

[Ali Mujahidin]

Well some people can see more of the picture than others, that's for sure.

Agreed. We are, much as we wish otherwise, not created equal. The problem with some people is that just because they know a little bit more, they begin to delude themselves into thinking that they know everything. Said everything, of course, is an impossibility. I have nothing against deducing knowledge from what we perceive. This process is how we learn. What I find ridiculous is that just because a person can learn new knowledge, he thinks that he will eventually learn everything. Said everything, as I said above, is an impossibility. Not sure if this applies to present company, but I believe it is this notion that a person can eventually learn everything that makes said person deny the truth that there is One that actually knows everything.

Hope I have expressed myself more clearly. Insha Allah.

[Pygoscelis]

This sums it up nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ33e9BK9aU

"It is the unknown that defines our existence". It is the not knowing that makes life worthwhile.

[Ali Mujahidin]

It is the not knowing that makes life worthwhile.

My apologies if you feel offended by this observation but somehow that makes me think of the man who prefers to make love with the lights switched off because it's more exciting for him to do it in the dark. So if you prefer to grope your way through life in the darkness which you created yourself by shutting your eyes tight, what can I say?

[Woodrow]

Woodrow,

Maybe it is because the polytheistic Gods are more concrete and personalized and less abstract? The polytheistic Gods warred amongst themselves, interacted on a regular basis with humans, and were basically a higher "class" of being but still beings we could very much relate to. Perhaps this led them to be seen as mythical figures. Some of them may have been even meant originally to be seen as figurative instead of literal beings, or as aspects of the divine (as in Hinduism) while they still may considered a top God or creative force which was more abstract and distant. The abrahamic monotheistic God is more universal and abstract. Maybe that gives the idea greater longevity.

Aso, how long did these polytheistic gods last? And has the monotheistic abrahamic God outlasted them yet? Has he done so in the way we currently envision him? Or has he morphed numerous times and become numerous different conceptions of monotheistic God? I think the latter is more the reality. We may think that we see God the same way the ancient Abrahamics did, but I doubt that.

I agree you make some very good points there. Especially in the last paragraph. Which to me only confirms my belief that the Torah and Injil did not remain as originally given. The last sentence I see as being similar to my belief that the Qur'an restored what had been lost.

[Pygoscelis]

My apologies if you feel offended by this observation but somehow that makes me think of the man who prefers to make love with the lights switched off because it's more exciting for him to do it in the dark. So if you prefer to grope your way through life in the darkness which you created yourself by shutting your eyes tight, what can I say?

I don't think you understood what I was referring to. Did you watch the clip?

[Ali Mujahidin]

I don't think you understood what I was referring to.

I was referring to the words which you posted which were as follows:

It is the not knowing that makes life worthwhile.

[Pygoscelis]

Which I don't think you understand what I meant by it, as evidenced by your peculiar example of intentionally keeping one's eyes shut. read the context of the thread, including your own previous post, and watch the clip and then you'll have a better idea.

[IAmZamzam]

Some [atheists] do [want to see a different perspective on life, as you’ve said, Qatada], but that doesn't mean getting them into that perspective is liable to be an easy task. Touchy-feely armchair psychology never convinced anyone of anything, and among the atheists I've seen and talked to more often than not their atheism isn't caused by trust issues at all but seemingly by a virtually incurable all-or-nothing mentality about claims of the paranormal, believing on some level that the entire invisible world is a single multifaceted object that cannot have any part of it removed without the whole thing being unraveled. Not so much throwing the baby out with the bathwater as assuming all babies to make the bathwater as dirty as the one they grew up with. This is why you'll so often hear them make claims, which make sense only to themselves and other atheists, that if we are to believe in God or the angels then we may as well believe in leprechauns and fauns too. It's the same fallacy involved in the silly argument that the sheer number of religions in the world somehow makes the odds of any individual one of them being right lower: they don't grasp the possibility that the odds aren't automatically even between multiple things just because they have some similarity or connection between them. God's existence is supernatural and elves are supernatural, so God's existence must be as bogus as elves. (This is made all the worse by—and perhaps also partially caused by—the common circularity of their standards for evidence, that things which are not physical demand physical proof, and the only thing that would convince them of the supernatural is evidence from the natural world.) You'll notice as a result that while there are relatively very few theists indeed who believe in everything paranormal that is not too obviously contradictory to everything else, there are practically no atheists who are not hard materialists despite atheism itself not automatically denoting that. While some, if not most, of us theists examine proposed supernatural realities on their own merits, individually, and at the very worst reject them otherwise simply because they're inconsistent with supernatural beliefs we already hold, [the atheists’ own] perceptions apparently do not contain or notice any percentages between 0 and 100. Long story short, if you want to make an alternate perspective seem appealing to them then focus your energies on setting your own viewpoint above the herd. Don't explain to them why they need something more, only what's so special about the particular something more that we offer. You'll notice how racists who change their minds seldom do so because they suddenly understand something about the very logic of their view which undermines the way they look at the world itself, but instead because they have got to know people of the race they despise who are not what they expected them to be.

I made this post to give Qatada advice. I did not point fingers at any individual, specific people either on or off the board and I am not speaking to anyone else but Qatada: as such, I will not entertain any argument from anyone else here. Neither my hands nor my emotional state is up to the tedium of repeating the same debate we always have a twelfth time. Just save it.

[In reference to the, "This is why you'll so often hear them make claims, which make sense only to themselves and other atheists, that if we are to believe in God or the angels then we may as well believe in leprechauns and fauns too," part, even though the rest is quoted.] Actually, these claims do not only make sense to Atheists in general. I find it quite amusing that you brought this topic up. These claims also make sense to every other religion that does not adhere to Islamic principles (save the other Abrahamic religions of course). For example, while an Atheist (and any rational person) will laugh at the notion of angels and demons (as interpreted by Islam)---so will a Hindu, Animist, various polytheist religions, etc.

Then there is a case of blatant special pleading that you have attempted to conveniently compare with the analogy of the baby and the bathwater. You have no empirical evidence for an angel or a demon (various creatures such as unicorns and leprechauns are ironically more probable than something that can not be comprehended even in principle), Hindu's lack empirical evidence for Krishna or Vishnu. "Faith" is the only standard in which these may be measured by and so in the end it is a "my faith is better than your faith" argument which of course has no rational grounds attributed to it. You have faith that the illogical entities in your religion are real and Hindus similarly have faith in their own yet you attempt to explain that your own entities are real on the same basis that a Hindu (just one example religion btw) does. This is special pleading and it is not that Atheists categorize all absurdities to be non-existent, it is that all absurdities ARE non-existent as they all similarly lack evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence"
-Hitchens razor

Though, maybe Allah the almighty has not opened my heart yet and I am not able to understand, so please show me the way if I am misunderstanding. But, know that I was once a Muslim and a very religious one, so I am well acquainted with your own perspective as well as the one I have developed more recently.

As you can see, I don’t even have to hurt my fingers by entertaining any argument here. Anyone can see for themselves, if I just show the quotes together, how blatantly ThePhilosopher has not only seized in, yes, an intellectually cowardly way onto one tiny little piece of my original quote while still keeping yet utterly ignoring the rest, but also made himself miss the point of the one little out-of-context snippet he did quote—and in addition to all that demonstrated the main principle of the text he deliberately glossed over, and in doing so demonstrated how true it was quite well with his declaration that any belief in angels without also a belief in supernatural creatures of contradictory systems is automatic “special pleading” because all absurdities (notice how he didn’t establish his claim that they were all absurd, he just declared it) are non-existent since they all lack evidence equally (another mere assertion). This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Don’t argue, folks; just read it for yourself and you’ll see. Notice how he absolutely ignored everything but one single sentence in an extremely long paragraph, the very next part of which established why the illogic I discussed in that one sentence is false.

Probably no doubt he’ll take that as an invitation to desperately attempt a belated true refutation now, but watch for the same tricks next time. I trust you folks not to let his nonsense slip by you or to let any silent readers of this thread from on or off the board be fooled either. I myself should not make any more posts here until I get a refill of indomethacin, and my patience is wearing thin with this guy already. And anyone who says that any rational person will automatically laugh at someone else's beliefs does not deserve to be dignified with a response. Leave him alone and perhaps he'll grow up someday.

[Aztec-Revert19]

This is not a good way to give dawah. Firstly, the reasons given are simply not true for a vast majority of atheists. Atheists do not disbelieve because they are sad, or because they are pessimistic. On the contrary, those are reasons why people turn to religion, not turn away. They simply disbelieve for a lack of evidence.

Also, they are not atheists because this is what they are taught. Also on the contrary, it is the religious people that are generally religious because of what they are taught. Very few people are brought up as atheists. Most of them come from religious families.

[siam]

This sums it up nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ33e9BK9aU

"It is the unknown that defines our existence". It is the not knowing that makes life worthwhile.

I havn't read the whole thread....just jumping in with a comment on the video.....

Interesting Pygo....perhaps that may be why "salvation" is not guarenteed in Islam...?....if we already knew with certainty we were going to end up in paradise---what would be the point in striving........?.......

If what we do (or don't do) determines the consequences....it places the burden of responsibilty for what happens to our fellow human beings (and all of God's creations) squarely on our shoulders........

However, I do have to point out, without guidelines, any game is chaos---rules create a frameowrk that enables a game to be played smoothly......

[Trumble]

They simply disbelieve for a lack of evidence.

Partly. It's more a balance of evidence (or lack or it) between believing in God or not. Most atheists consider that evidence suggesting there is no God is far weighter than any that suggests there is/might be a God. For example, I have said on these boards many times that if someone could come up with a solution to the 'Problem of Evil' that was even remotely plausible, let alone satisfactory to me, I might see that as grounds to revisit the question. And I don't just mean people here; I'm perfectly familiar with all the usual arguments. But nobody ever has.

The position you describe is perhaps more of an agnostic one.

Also, they are not atheists because this is what they are taught. Also on the contrary, it is the religious people that are generally religious because of what they are taught. Very few people are brought up as atheists. Most of them come from religious families.

Regarding the last, that would depend where they come from. It's certainly not true of most of Western Europe. I'd agree that very few are 'brought up as atheists' anywhere, because it just doesn't work that way (except maybe in the Dawkins household!). It's just that if the parents don't discuss religion or attend places of worship then their kids won't either, and the topic just doesn't become important to them, at least at an early age. I suppose there have been historical exceptions, such as in Soviet Russia and Mao's China.

[Pygoscelis]

I havn't read the whole thread....just jumping in with a comment on the video.....

Interesting Pygo....perhaps that may be why "salvation" is not guarenteed in Islam...?....if we already knew with certainty we were going to end up in paradise---what would be the point in striving........?.......

If what we do (or don't do) determines the consequences....it places the burden of responsibilty for what happens to our fellow human beings (and all of God's creations) squarely on our shoulders........

However, I do have to point out, without guidelines, any game is chaos---rules create a frameowrk that enables a game to be played smoothly......

Yes. I think you may be on to something there.

[Gator]

However, I do have to point out, without guidelines, any game is chaos---rules create a frameowrk that enables a game to be played smoothly......

True, I guess where people differ, is how we can all agree on a set of rules.

[siam]

True, I guess where people differ, is how we can all agree on a set of rules.

Do we need to agree? perhaps it is better to have choices according to our dispositions? Ultimately we play to win.....so perhaps what matters is, whatever game we choose, we play it well and play to win?


-----only the prize at the end might be differ according to the game of our choice.....

[Gator]

Do we need to agree? perhaps it is better to have choices according to our dispositions? Ultimately we play to win.....so perhaps what matters is, whatever game we choose, we play it well and play to win?


-----only the prize at the end might be differ according to the game of our choice.....

I was coming at this from more of a societal basis. If people want to live together to make a successful community, they have to have some common rules to which they adhere to.

We can cooperate so that we all win.

[siam]

I was coming at this from more of a societal basis. If people want to live together to make a successful community, they have to have some common rules to which they adhere to.

We can cooperate so that we all win.

I have been thinking about what might make a "successful community". I do agree about rules/law---but I also think we have too much of it---these "laws" are being used as band-aid solutions to social problems because we don't want to make the effort to solve the root causes.....take crime for example---some of it is a social problem caused by lack of opportunities, lack of good education, an environment of dispair...etc ....these can be solved---and crime can be somewhat reduced----but no one wants to bother, and instead we end up making tougher and tougher "laws" that put more and more people into jail.
.........Yet, time is spent catering to the needs of the superrich--bailouts, tax loopholes, favourable accounting practices....etc....
This type of society only creates a few winners and a lot of losers. To have a society in which everyone can win---one needs to have clear expectations about responsibility...everyone should have an equal opportunity to create wealth, those that are better at it must have the responsibility of helping out those who are not so good at it, the governments should be responsible for the welfare of all of its citizens---not simply cater to the needs of the rich and powerful......and all that stuff....

I think it was ibn Khaldun (14th century) who wrote that high taxes and large armies stifle bussiness enterprises ...so the opposite should be the government policy....sounds good to me.:D