Atheists are polytheists in disguise

[muslim dude]

bismillahir-rahmanir-rahim

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Kind
Peace and Blessings be upon Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets.

This is basically my opinion piece and as a human, am always capable of making mistakes. So I hope no one feels insulted and if they feel this piece has been unjustly insulting to them, then I can only offer my apologies and willingness to learn from any mistakes.

So do remember that any mistakes I make here and elsewhere are my fault and any good I state is from Allah.

Part 1

Throughout the history of humans, atheists, by which I mean those that actively deny the existence of the Creator and Sustainer of all creations a.k.a. God were in the minority.

This is because no matter the scientific knowledge, the technological level and cultural awareness of a nation, they worked out that everything pointed to the existence of a single Creator and Sustainer of all creations... i.e. the fact that we can look at objects nowadays, and verify that their was a point in time when these objects did not exist. Even, if we could not, we can then examine the behaviour of objects, thus verify that they are operating in a non-random manner, thus implying the existence of a higher being that is controlling all of creations in a manner that He (God) chooses.

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 9)
"And indeed if you ask them, 'Who has created the heavens and the earth?" They will surely say: "The All-Mighty, the All-Knower created them.'"


Then, right from the very first man Adaam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Messengers of God were sent to every nation with the message that only God was worthy of worship and no creation should ever be associated as partner to God.

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 9)
"And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): 'Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid Tâghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tâghût besides Allâh).' Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth)."


Ok, lets fast forward to ancient Roman empire and the teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Jesus (pbuh) was the last messenger sent to children of Is'rael specifically and was the second to last of the approx. 124K messengers of Allah. Again, the message of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the same as all the other prophets...

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl - The Bee): 36)
"'Verily, Allâh! He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). This is the Straight Path'"


Even though, Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was really just sent to the children of Is'rael specifically, Christian scholars do claim that his followers were instructed to spread the message that there is only One God and only God is the one worthy of worship. La ilaha illallah!

Of course, the Roman empire didn't mind the message being restricted to only the children of Is'rael, but they were getting concerned when it started spreading to the masses thanks to the courageous actions of the disciples...

...why the concern? Does it matter that some people will not associate creations as partners to the One who created all creations (who we in the west called God)? I mean, they will still pay all taxes and so forth even if they don't follow the official religion of the state.

However, the big implication of monotheism is just that. La ilaha illallah! There is no one worthy of worship except God! This meant that the people that believed in this had to follow the teachings of the messengers of God, which in this case is the teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So in effect, they would implement the shariah that's contained in the Gospel and Torah (i.e. the shariah that was revealed to Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)).

So now a problem presented itself to the Roman Emperor. If he accepts monotheism, he can only act as a caretaker, only implementing the revealed shariah (i.e. khalifah) and does not have any say interms of legislation according to his whims and desire, thus not really remaining an emperor. People who do not really truly believe in God and the hearafter will find it very, very hard to resist the worldly riches, which explains why he chose the other option to oppress and persecute the monotheist Christians in a vain attempt to stop the message in a way dictators usually do.

(Qur'an, Chapter 10 (Yunus-Jonah): 7-8),
"As for those who do not expect to meet Us and are content with the life of this world and at rest in it, and those who are heedless of Our Signs, their shelter will be the Fire because of what they earned"


(Qur'an, Chapter 11 (Hud - (The Prophet) Hud): 15-16)
"Whosoever desires the life of the world and its glitter; to them We shall pay in full (the wages of) their deeds therein, and they will have no diminution therein."
"They are those for whom there is nothing in the Hereafter but Fire; and vain are the deeds they did therein. And of no effect is that which they used to do."

[muslim dude]

Part 2

The Roman Emperor's plan to stop the monotheist is not working... this message of "There is no one worthy of worship except God" is spreading. What can the Roman Emperor do to convince his subjects that he should also have some power?!

Books were burned, pure places of monotheist worship (synagogues and churches) were destroyed and monotheist Christian and Jews (especially the scholars) were brutally murdered. As well as the fear created in upholding the rule of the law of the ancient Roman state, the knowledge disappeared which meant confusion spread amongst the mass followers of the teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Perhaps the original written gospel (if indeed the original gospel was ever written down?) was lost at this point and the original teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were being preached by the few faithful remaining Christian and Jewish scholars.

However, added to mix, were "scholars" with "dodgy concepts and ideas" both independent and sponsored by the ancient Roman empire which further spread confusion. The most famous of these people is the one known as "St Paul" (boo, hiss in a pantomime style ;) ). This resulted in many gospels that contained so many of the innovations and false concepts appearing in the land. Each sect ended up with their own version of the gospel.

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 65)
But the sects from among themselves differed. So woe to those who do wrong (by ascribing things to 'Iesa (Jesus) that are not true) from the torment of a painful Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)!


The main ideas were:

1) Acclaiming divinity to creation. Of course this was the hardest concept for St Paul to pull off as there were scholars who had enough knowledge of the original gospels to refute St Paul in that. St Paul mainly relied on the lay peoples deep love for Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and twisting the words of the original gospel to suit his purposes.

Example 1 - "son of God" in Hebrew/Aramaic was commonly understood to mean "slave of God" but St Paul confused the people who did not have knowledge of the language that it really meant a "biological son". It looks like the peoples deep love of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made them exaggerate the status of Jesus (pbuh) and made them susceptible to this clearly false notion.

Example 2 - Knowledgeable scholars knew that "Holy Spirit" really referred to the Angel Gabriel (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but St Paul took advantage of lay peoples ignorance, and changed that to mean the literal "Spirit of God".

Thus we have the birth of the so called "holy trinity". It can be noticed, a few man-made verses to support this interpretation were thrown in for good measure. St Paul, went even further and stated that "Holy Spirit" can visit very pious people and actually visited him.

This following concept is very important. St Paul now stated that all previous laws of God have been abrogated and Christians no longer had to follow the shariah of the bible as the so called sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh) means all their sins were forgiven and now they were guaranteed paradise no matter what they did or who they followed. What was his evidence? Well, he said that he was visited by God in the form of the "Holy Spirit"...

St Paul and others like him managed to convince a lot of people of his ideas.

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 79)
"Then woe to these who write the book with their own hands and then say 'This is from Allah', to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they will earn thereby"


The Roman Emperor was jumping from joy at this turn of events. Now, he has found his champion in St Paul, which is to change monotheistic Christianity to something where creations were given part of divinity. From the Roman Emperor's point of view, it was only a matter of time before divinity given to "dead" unseen creations were passed on to "alive" creations i.e. himself. This is how the Roman Emperor will maintain his rule and also contain the threat of the original teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which was La ilaha illallah!

[muslim dude]

Part 3

However, the true Christians were not going to take it lying down and the various sects including the ones with better understanding of Jesus's (pbuh) original teachings fought against each other. However, the might of the Roman Empire proved too much and although the Empire couldn't eliminate Christianity, it had thrown enough resources to ensure St Paul's slant on the original teachings was dominant.

In the end, after decades of bitter struggle, "peace" conferences were held by the Roman Empire to allow the scholars of the various sects of Christianity to come to a common understanding. One such conference was the (in)famous Nicea held in AD325. No surprise to learn that St Paul's views were mostly adopted and this brand of Christianity was so beloved by the Roman Emperor, that he declared it the official state religion, and this religion was called Roman Universal Church better known by it's Latin name of Roman Catholic Church.

The scholars of this new Christianity were indeed very well paid, inorder to spread and maintain these concepts including holy trinity and crucifiction. Since these doctrinal changes allowed priests to assign divinity to creations, the priests eventually gave themselves the rights to "make up" legislations on behalf of God, rather than following the revealed shariah which was the original teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). This was fine with the Roman Emperor as it allowed him power over the physical world, whilst the Roman catholic priests ensured no one can challenge their authority by ruthlessly denouncing any opposition to their authority as heretics. The Roman Emperor expressed this "separation of the church and state" as follows:

[King James Bible: Book of Mark chapter 12 verse 17]
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

Still, the true followers of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) managed to ensure that some Good News did remain in those modified gospels... this is the glad tidings of the final messenger of God yet to come with clear signs on recognising the seal of the prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 146)
"Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him as they recognise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it"


Also, they ensured that future generations would recognise that those current day gospels are not the Word of God as originally revealed to Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and have been corrupted by men:

[Bible: Jeremiah chapter 8 verse 8]
"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

So, the elite were happy with the material power they retained from this new brand of Christianity and the priests were happy to support these elites with the modifications to the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh). It certainly helped that the priests got a piece of the material pie. Of course, the claim being made is not that they did not believe in God, it was just that they compromised worshipping God alone due their love of this world by giving themselves the divine right of legislation.

((Qur'an, Chapter 9 (Al-Taubah: The Repentance): 31)
"They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One God. None is worthy of worship but He. Glorified is He from having the partners they associate"

[muslim dude]

Part 4

Now lets fast forward a few more centuries to what the Europeans called "post-enlightenment" period. The Roman Catholic priests rigorously enforced their version of the gospels to the masses to avoid them thinking about the contradictions in their modified gospels. In the past, these priests may have also modified the gospels with the scientific knowledge of the day in order to cement their authority of the masses and to stop them thinking about the contradictions within these texts. However, recent scientific discoveries and theories put forward during that time did not correspond to the modified gospels. This led to a backlash led by academics and merchants who felt upset by the intellectual and material restrictions imposed on them by the church. So they started spreading their ideas (supported by the powers of the day who were also a little bit too concerned on how their powers will be diluted by the authority of the church) to the masses backing them up with scientific data showing how certain parts of the gospels did not correspond with the reality. Thus the authority of the church was so weakened over time that they have split up into two camps. One who rejected science completely and withdrawn from society, i.e. monasticism. The other group blindly accepted everything they were told by the these anti-church academics even if the ideas went against the oneness of God. How ironic! The priests who were entrusted by God to preserve the gospels modified it so much to gain the wealth, power and status of this world ended up as the laughing stock of this world, mercilessly mocked by the anti-church academics.

Of course, no matter what the state of the so called leaders of religion in the west, people still by default believed in God. It is the only logical and scientific explanation of how the world came about and just because some parts of the gospels contained contradictions and scientific inaccuracies, this was rather the fault of the christian leaders who failed in their duty to God to preserve the gospels rather than any negativity in the notion of the oneness of God. The anti-church groups knew that as long as people realised the importance of worshipping God, the authority of the church will never be broken and so resolved to come up with explanations that in their mind meant that God will not have to be mentioned ever again.

Why was this important to them? They never wanted to ever have God's law enforced upon them. They believed men should be free to follow whatever they want and this meant that God should not be be worshipped anymore. In short, these anti-church groups defined themselves as atheists and secularists claiming they denied the existence of God or that God is not meant to be worshipped alone (the latter are also known as agnostics).

(Qur'an, Chapter 35 (): 40) "Say (O Muhammad ): 'Tell me or inform me (what) do you think about your (so-called) partner-gods to whom you call upon besides Allâh, show me, what they have created of the earth? Or have they any share in the heavens? Or have We given them a Book, so that they act on clear proof therefrom? Nay, the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong*doers, etc.) promise one another nothing but delusions.'")!"


Of course, as science tells us that there was a point in time when we did not exist, and after a point in time we did! Hence the the existence of a Creator and Sustainer that has to be explained in such a way that the masses will only ever submit to the law of men rather than the law of God.

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

[muslim dude]

Conclusion

Now of course they were not the first group of people to follow this philosophy in history, as we all know. The others included ancient Greeks, Romans and Hindus and now we have the atheists!

What did all these people have in common?

They were polytheists meaning that they in some way or other associated creation as partners with God. Sure, most people will accept that the ancient Greeks, pre-christian romans and hindus are polytheists - although they believed in God, the Creator and Sustainer.

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 87)
"And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: "Allâh". How then are they turned away (from the worship of Allâh)"


The mistake that was made was they gave attributes of God to creation, stating that God needed to delegate to helpers. This concept arose because they said God was everything so all creations were part of God. Some like the hindus even said that "good" humans will achieve success by becoming part of God (they called God, "Brahma") when they die "thus breaking the cycle of re-incarnation".

This meant logically everything is worthy of worship as everything is part of God which is in reality the total opposite of monotheism. I think Dr Zakir Naik summed it up brilliantly when he said the difference between muslims and hindus is an apostrophe. This is that hindus believe everything is God whereas muslims believe everything is God's.

Again, lets think about this verse:

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 87)
"And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: "Allâh". How then are they turned away (from the worship of Allâh)"


Believing in God, The Creator and Sustainer of all the exists, is indeed the default disposition ("fitra" in arabic) for human beings. There is just no logical and scientifically credible explanation of that fact that there was a time when the worlds did not exist, and then a time when the worlds has come into existence.

So what the atheists have done is to follow their predecessors. Those who wanted to submit to the will of man rather than the Will of God by claiming God is everything, thus everything is worthy of worship including man. Of course, they did not want to use the term God, because if they did that, then it would still give the christian church some authority, because some of the christians seemed to have adopted this polytheistic attitude to God by giving divinity to (Jesus and "Holy Ghost" a.k.a. Angel Gabriel (peace and blessings be upon them both and Subhanallah, both are innocent of this greatest crime), St Paul and Roman Emperors, Kings and Archbishops, Popes and Prime Ministers, Priests and Politicians etc.)

((Qur'an, Chapter 9 (Al-Taubah: The Repentance): 31)
"They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One God. None is worthy of worship but He. Glorified is He from having the partners they associate"


(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 82)
"Glorified be the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne! Exalted be He from all that they ascribe (to Him)"


(Qur'an, Chapter 27 (An-Naml - The Ants): 60) "Is not He (better than your gods) Who created the heavens and the earth, and sends down for you water (rain) from the sky, whereby We cause to grow wonderful gardens full of beauty and delight? It is not in your ability to cause the growth of their trees. Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Nay, but they are a people who ascribe equals (to Him)!"

The atheists also follows the same concept of God as the hindus, which was to combine the Creator and the creation into one entity. They used the same name that was used by the ancient Greek polytheistic philosophers, which were their forerunners. What is this name? Nature.

This is what they called the higher being who created and sustained this world. By combining the creation with the Creator meant to them that they can do what they like, totally ignoring the fact when they die they will have to account for their time in this world. This is why I feel atheists are polytheists in disguise.

(Qur'an, Chapter 39 (Az-Zumar - The Groups): 67) "They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!"

[HeiGou]

This is what they called the higher being who created and sustained this world. By combining the creation with the Creator meant to them that they can do what they like, totally ignoring the fact when they die they will have to account for their time in this world. This is why I feel atheists are polytheists in disguise.

So basically the author is saying, Islam is right, everything else is wrong, I don't like atheism therefore atheists must be Hindus?

Have I missed a subtlety here?

[root]

And muslims are just christians in disguise I guess. ;D

[Skillganon]

I think the poster is going somewhere with this!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

So basically the author is saying, Islam is right, everything else is wrong, I don't like atheism therefore atheists must be Hindus?

That seems to be the thrust of it!

Clearly a lot of effort has gone into producing this article, but it's got all sorts of problems with it. The structure is badly in need of some attention. It appears to be intended as an article about atheists, but atheists aren't mentioned until the essay is nearly over. There are huge passages which don't seem to be related to the title at all (e.g. the huge precis of the history of Christianity).

Perhaps if some actual argument was included, rather than the lengthy accumulation of facts, the essay would be more effective. Also, having only one text to quote from and include in the bibliography will not win the author any marks for academic rigour.

Peace

[muslim dude]

So basically the author is saying, Islam is right, everything else is wrong, I don't like atheism therefore atheists must be Hindus?

Just to give you some insight to overcome your confusion...

The gist of the article is not that atheists are hindus (well unless you are a atheist living in India...) but you share the same polytheistic notion of God.

For example, a monotheist scientist would say the Sun, the Moon and this world came into existence by the Will of God where as a polytheistic scientist would say the Sun came into existence by its own will, the Moon came into existence by its own will and this world came into existence by its own will. This is shirk (polytheism) pure and simple. They are just created objects and could not have bought themselves into existence. No creation could have come into existence had it not been by the Will of the Creator and Sustainer, the Lord of all that exists.


(Qur'an, Chapter 35 (Fatir - The Originator): 40) "Say (O Muhammad ): 'Tell me or inform me (what) do you think about your (so-called) partner-gods to whom you call upon besides Allâh, show me, what they have created of the earth? Or have they any share in the heavens? Or have We given them a Book, so that they act on clear proof therefrom? Nay, the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.) promise one another nothing but delusions.'")!"

Have I missed a subtlety here?

All this is about a battle between two contradictory ideas.

1) One idea is monotheism where we truly worship our Creator alone and do not associate any creations as partners with Him.

2+) The other idea which you seem to ascribe to is where you setup rivals with God. You state that the creations does things out of its own accord without the need of a Creator and Sustainer. This is in essense polytheism. This is the reason why I feel atheists are in reality polytheists.

[muslim dude]

And muslims are just christians in disguise I guess. ;D

You are not too far from the truth except it will be more accurate to state that muslims are the true inheritors of Jesus Christ (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as we are the main group that follows his original teachings without taking on board the modifications by these with vested interests such as St Paul's. And what was the true teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It was the following:


(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl - The Bee): 36)
"'Verily, Allâh! He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). This is the Straight Path'"

[muslim dude]

There are huge passages which don't seem to be related to the title at all (e.g. the huge precis of the history of Christianity).

The reason why the history of Christianity was delved into was to make people aware that atheism's rise in Europe was a reaction against the clergy of Christendom who compromised on Jesus's (pbuh) original teachings to worship God alone for worldly gain. The rise of atheism (polytheism) in present day has nothing to do with the so called technological advances, but rather is political in origin and it all begun when believers compromised on worshipping God. And its not even the first time this happened. It has happened throughout history, for example the arab pagans whose ancestors used to follow the monotheistic teachings of Ismail (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 9)
"And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): 'Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid Tâghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tâghût besides Allâh).' Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth)."

Also, having only one text to quote from and include in the bibliography will not win the author any marks for academic rigour.

LOL you want the muslims to give up quoting from the Qur'an? You have a better chance of getting America to give up its nukes first!

Subhanallah, look how Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 22)
"Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allâh (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped)."

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 165)
"And of mankind are some who take others besides Allâh as rivals. They love them as they love Allâh. But those who believe, love Allâh more. If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that all power belongs to Allâh and that Allâh is Severe in punishment"


You know what? The banner of monotheism has passed on to the muslims from the christians who tripped up due to the glitter of this world. Indeed it is up to the muslims to spread this call of La ilaha illallah! There is no one worthy of worship except God! And indeed the muslims will strive with this message until the day of judgement.

Isn't it time you stopped worshipping creations and worship God alone? You have some time to make the decision... ...although be quick... for you only have as much time as Allah gives permission for your heart to beat.

(Qur'an, Chapter 17 (Al-Isra: The Journey by Night): 15)
"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)."

[Skillganon]

brother muslim dude. may I add that for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God.
The worship material. Man-Made thing, like the polytheist worshiping idols (man-made).

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

The reason why the history of Christianity was delved into was to make people aware that atheism's rise in Europe was a reaction against the clergy of Christendom who compromised on Jesus's (pbuh) original teachings to worship God alone for worldly gain.

This could be a possible reason for the rise of atheism, but if so it's certainly not the only one. People witnessing the corruption of the Church throughout its history may well have been turned off established religion for that reason, but the roots of philosophical atheism go much deeper than that.

The idea that Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Hume might have adopted atheism because they felt that the Christian clergy had strayed too far away from Jesus' message to humanity is quite bizarre, to say the least.

The rise of atheism (polytheism) in present day has nothing to do with the so called technological advances, but rather is political in origin and it all begun when believers compromised on worshipping God.

What do you mean by compromised?

LOL you want the muslims to give up quoting from the Qur'an?

No. When did I ever say that?

My point was simple. If you quote from one text, you've got one point of view. If you can back that up with arguments and ideas from other texts, your position will be much stronger. Why not quote from a few other books as well as the Qur'an?

Subhanallah, look how Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!

Any evidence for this?

While I'm here, I'd like to give my thoughts as an atheist on this bizarre notion that I am, in fact, a polytheist. I've been called many things in my life, but this is the first time I've been called a polytheist. Let's look at what the word means:

polu- (Greek) = many
theos (Greek) = god

So, someone who worships many gods.

What is a god? Here we are (from dictionary.com):

god
n.
1. God
(1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.)
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Of these definitions, 1 and 2 are literal, 3 is a transferred ostensive definition, and 4,5 and 6 are metaphorical. A polytheist, strictly speaking, is someone who worships many beings of type 1 and 2. I do not believe any such beings exist, so how, then, am I a polytheist?

Peace

[Skillganon]

Atheist probably hit 4. and 5, but replace that with a women i.e. pleasure! maybe 5 aswell, certainly some do idolize their powerful ruler. Image of supernatural being is creation itself, you worship creation. i.e. polytheist.

Atheist religiouse dogma maybe considered secularism. capitalism, communism e.t.c as it's creed.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Atheist probably hit 4. and 5, but replace that with a women i.e. pleasure! maybe 5 aswell, certainly some do idolize their powerful ruler. Image of supernatural being is creation itself, you worship creation. i.e. polytheist.

I'm not sure you've understood. Let's try this again:

A polytheist, strictly speaking, is someone who worships many beings of type 1 and 2.

Since atheists don't believe that any beings of type 1 and 2 exist, how can atheists be polytheists?

Atheist religiouse dogma maybe considered secularism. capitalism, communism e.t.c as it's creed.

Those are ideologies. I suppose you could call them 'religious dogma' if you wanted to, but first you'd have to explain what you mean by religious dogma.

Peace

[Joe98]

To any ancient Romans here: There are no gods.

To the rest of you: There is no god.

The only "evidence" of a god that any of you put forward is the words written in the various "holy" books - which themselves were written by men.

The other evidence you give is the classic "the flowers are so beautiful they had to be made by a supernatural being".

If there is a god then he killed almost 400,000 people in the last 3 years or so. And most would have been believers. Only the non-believers were spared.

Why doesn't he raise then from the dead? The classic answer: "because god works in mysterious ways".

[Skillganon]

Since atheists don't believe that any beings of type 1 and 2 exist, how can atheists be polytheists?
Peace

well, I seen some atheist worship footballer's bowing down to them when they definetely know he is not the creator, also the worship money, materialism e.t.c even when they know it is not "the God."

Polytheist also may know an idol is not god, but they worship it, they know that what they baked with their hand did not create them but they worship it.

In the point of athiest their being will be their own existence without being need for being created, a mere chance, being in their perpetual state of denial "of being a creator".

[iLL_LeaT]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god. However, to completely deny the existence of God makes you just as close minded as someone who refuses believe there could be no God. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

Hmmmm How?

[Joe98]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god.

The word “conclusively” is misleading. There is no evidence of a god. If you have evidence that is inconclusive please point us to it.

How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

I came from a religious background and so I understand. But you make a great point! I will use this point in my quest to make everybody believers in Atheism!

[Joe98]

…..also they worship money, materialism e.t.c even when they know it is not "the God."

Atheists by definition worship nothing.

Nobody worships money. Some of the wealthiest people on earth worship at their temple church or mosque.

Only people matter. Its what you do with the money that counts.

[Skillganon]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god. However, to completely deny the existence of God makes you just as close minded as someone who refuses believe there could be no God. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

Hmmmm How?

Now, what is the next logical step is establishing the truth, and most importantly the concept of God

[iLL_LeaT]

There is no god.

Now, what is the next logical step is establishing the truth, and most importantly the concept of God

There is something interesting going on here. To Joe98, the truth is “there is no god.” And to Skillganon God is truth.

How do you determine who’s true is true? To think “I’m right because that is what I think” is to be close minded. To be open-minded, one needs to have room to grow, thus acknowledge the fact that he or she may be wrong about something.

Joe, you will never convert everyone to atheism because some people will never be able to feel in there heart that atheism is “true.”

The best anyone can do is become as well educated on the world as he or she can and make a logical decision on what he or she thinks is true, yet still realizing that he or she can be wrong to leave room for growth.

[HeiGou]

Just to give you some insight to overcome your confusion...

Oh I am not confused. Except by what you write. I understand the Muslim position perfectly well.

The gist of the article is not that atheists are hindus (well unless you are a atheist living in India...) but you share the same polytheistic notion of God.

Even though atheists tend not to believe in any God much less a million of them? This is a logical fallacy whose name I cannot remember. Let's call it the Excluded Middle. You have reduced the world to two binary positions: monotheism and polytheism. And thus anyone who does not fall into your first category (i.e. Muslims) must fall into your second. It is a type of extreme reductionism.

For example, a monotheist scientist would say the Sun, the Moon and this world came into existence by the Will of God where as a polytheistic scientist would say the Sun came into existence by its own will, the Moon came into existence by its own will and this world came into existence by its own will. This is shirk (polytheism) pure and simple. They are just created objects and could not have bought themselves into existence. No creation could have come into existence had it not been by the Will of the Creator and Sustainer, the Lord of all that exists.

Again you have this problem with your binary approach. A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will. Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play. Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world. Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

In the same way a scientist might take no position on how, ultimately, the Sun came into existence. He might decide that this is not a question for science. An atheist might decide it is unknowable (as might a monotheist).

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position. Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

All this is about a battle between two contradictory ideas.

1) One idea is monotheism where we truly worship our Creator alone and do not associate any creations as partners with Him.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

2+) The other idea which you seem to ascribe to is where you setup rivals with God. You state that the creations does things out of its own accord without the need of a Creator and Sustainer. This is in essense polytheism. This is the reason why I feel atheists are in reality polytheists.

Only if you define polytheism in that way. If you have a more reasonable definition of polytheism, that it is the belief in many Gods for instance, it does not necessarily follow that all non-Muslims are polytheists as you are claiming.

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

[HeiGou]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god. However, to completely deny the existence of God makes you just as close minded as someone who refuses believe there could be no God. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

Hmmmm How?

Well not really. An atheist might study the evidence and come to the firm conclusion that God does not exist, without shutting the door to the possibility that He may do so. I do not think that Dark Matter or the Higgs Boson exist. But I will accept it is possible that they do. In fact I think that a person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God, or vice versa, is an ideal person to see the world from the point of view of a religious person. They both share a refusal to accept an alternative to their point of view. It is the wooly-minded person who believes little for sure who is unable to understand either dogmatism.

[muslim dude]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

And greetings to you.

People witnessing the corruption of the Church throughout its history may well have been turned off established religion for that reason, but the roots of philosophical atheism go much deeper than that.

I agree that roots of philosophical atheism go much further back in history... even perhaps beyond the time of the ancient Greeks...

The idea that Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Hume might have adopted atheism because they felt that the Christian clergy had strayed too far away from Jesus' message to humanity is quite bizarre, to say the least.

My point was present-day atheism was initially a reaction against the authority of the church (such as when the church were upset by people like Galileo who had strange ideas like the earth revolved around the sun and not the otherway round...) rather than because of monotheism, initially at least. I think people felt that by believing in God, they had to obey what the priests have to say regardless of the contents of the revealed scriptures.

Quote:
The rise of atheism (polytheism) in present day has nothing to do with the so called technological advances, but rather is political in origin and it all begun when believers compromised on worshipping God.

What do you mean by compromised?

What do I mean by compromise?

You might want to review the following verses again as they will answer your question...

bismillahir-rahmanir-rahim


(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 65)
But the sects from among themselves differed. So woe to those who do wrong (by ascribing things to 'Iesa (Jesus) that are not true) from the torment of a painful Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)!

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 79)
"Then woe to these who write the book with their own hands and then say 'This is from Allah', to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they will earn thereby"


[Bible: Jeremiah chapter 8 verse 8]
"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"


(Qur'an, Chapter 9 (Al-Taubah: The Repentance): 31)
"They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One God. None is worthy of worship but He. Glorified is He from having the partners they associate"

Quote:
LOL you want the muslims to give up quoting from the Qur'an?

No. When did I ever say that?

Well to be fair, this what you seemed to have implied - sorry if that's not the case.

My point was simple. If you quote from one text, you've got one point of view. If you can back that up with arguments and ideas from other texts, your position will be much stronger. Why not quote from a few other books as well as the Qur'an?

Sure, I can look at other sources like dictionary.com but to be honest, when it comes to defining God and worshipping God and what constitutes shirk (polytheism) nothing can touch the sheer authority of the Qur'an (and that includes dictionary.com). Tawheed (oneness of God) is indeed the the unique selling point of Islam.

Quote:
Subhanallah, look how Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!

Any evidence for this?

Why yes sir! The evidence is how Islam is the fastest growing in the west and most widely followed purely monotheistic religion in the world. And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have indentified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life.

While I'm here, I'd like to give my thoughts as an atheist on this bizarre notion that I am, in fact, a polytheist. I've been called many things in my life, but this is the first time I've been called a polytheist. Let's look at what the word means:

polu- (Greek) = many
theos (Greek) = god

So, someone who worships many gods.

What is a god? Here we are (from dictionary.com):

Quote:
god
n.
1. God
(1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.)
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Of these definitions, 1 and 2 are literal, 3 is a transferred ostensive definition, and 4,5 and 6 are metaphorical. A polytheist, strictly speaking, is someone who worships many beings of type 1 and 2. I do not believe any such beings exist, so how, then, am I a polytheist?

Ok lets see now. Number 1) is the true definition of God and all the rest are called "God" by polytheist regardless of the level of fakeness of these "Gods". And by definition anything other than 1) would be false God(s).

Basically in Islam, if people ascribe to creations what only God has a right to be ascribed to, then it is as though as people are setting up rivals to God.

You should find this link interesting http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=323 as it does clarify things a bit more.

(p.s. I am not sure what the LI policies are towards posting links - Mods, feel free to remove the link if it's against LI policies)

This is why when muslims say it is God who caused everything to exist and atheist state "no, these material things came into existence by themselves", then it is as though the atheists are setting up these material things as rivals to God. Hope you understand this point?!

(Qur'an, Chapter 27 (An-Naml - The Ants): 60) "Is not He (better than your gods) Who created the heavens and the earth, and sends down for you water (rain) from the sky, whereby We cause to grow wonderful gardens full of beauty and delight? It is not in your ability to cause the growth of their trees. Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Nay, but they are a people who ascribe equals (to Him)!"

[muslim dude]

brother muslim dude. may I add that for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God.
The worship material. Man-Made thing, like the polytheist worshiping idols (man-made).

:sl: Skillganon

Absolutely, I agree with you that "for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God."

And Allah has indeed given them a warning as well:

(Qur'an, Chapter 45 (Al-Jathiya - The Kneeling): 23)
"Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilâh (god), and Allâh knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allâh? Will you not then remember?"

[muslim dude]

Sorry to break up your post, but it's worth responding to your points one at a time.

A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will.

Yep, this is monotheism.

Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang

Big Bang would be called a process of creation and still implies God created the universe by His Will.

without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play.

To say the universe is capable of running of its own will without the need of God sustaining the universe is polytheism as this attributing to the universe that it can sustain itself of its own accord.

Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world.

To state that the devil created the universe independent of God is setting up the devil as a rival to God. This is also polytheism. Funny that. I never suspected you to be a devil worshipper...

Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

The theological positions will have to be analysed by unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

In the same way a scientist might take no position on how, ultimately, the Sun came into existence. He might decide that this is not a question for science. An atheist might decide it is unknowable (as might a monotheist).

Sure the process of creation of some things can be viewed as knowledge of the unseen.

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position.

The fact that knives don't cut except through the Will of God is monotheism.

Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

Well, like I stated before, the theological positions will have to be analysed unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

Surely you don't expect the universe to have the power to do anything independent of God? Nothing can happen accept with the permission of God.

(Qur'an, Chapter 3 (Al-Imran - The Family of Imran): 189)
"And to Allâh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Allâh has power over all things."

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

Oh ok, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You think monotheism vs polytheism is all about free will and predestination? Oh I am really sorry. This is not quite the angle I was aiming for. If you want a discussion on free will and predestination, then you should really talk to a knowledgable Islamic scholar and not a lay person like myself.

Ansar's post on the subject is very enlightening and insha'allah I think you will find it too. It is regarding the position of free will and predestination in Islam. http://www.islamicboard.com/26794-post48.html Enjoy.

[iLL_LeaT]

In fact I think that a person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God, or vice versa, is an ideal person to see the world from the point of view of a religious person.

How do you refuse to believe something and yet still be ideal about that same thing?

To say, “I refuse to believe that 2+2=4, but I don’t know. It may be 4” is not refusal at all. That is a belief that is not 4, yet still being open to that it may be 4.

My whole point is that there us no 100% this is true on philosophical subjects such as beliefs.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I agree that roots of philosophical atheism go much further back in history... even perhaps beyond the time of the ancient Greeks...

I'm glad we can agree on this.

My point was present-day atheism was initially a reaction against the authority of the church (such as when the church were upset by people like Galileo who had strange ideas like the earth revolved around the sun and not the otherway round...) rather than because of monotheism, initially at least.

Now I'm confused. I thought we'd just agreed that the roots of atheism go back much further than this?

I think people felt that by believing in God, they had to obey what the priests have to say regardless of the contents of the revealed scriptures.

Well, up until the Reformation, perhaps. What point are you making here?

Sure, I can look at other sources like dictionary.com but to be honest, when it comes to defining God and worshipping God and what constitutes shirk (polytheism) nothing can touch the sheer authority of the Qur'an (and that includes dictionary.com). Tawheed (oneness of God) is indeed the the unique selling point of Islam.

OK, but your thread is (apparently) about atheism. How about having some sources that discuss the origins of atheism, since they would doubtless help your argument?

Why yes sir! The evidence is how Islam is the fastest growing in the west and most widely followed purely monotheistic religion in the world.

Firstly, the claim that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion is a highly contentious one. It's been discussed here many times before.

Secondly, Christians describe themselves as monotheists, and there are more Christians than Muslims. However, that's just an argument about a word.

In any case, I don't see how any of this supports your previous claim: "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"

And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have indentified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life.

Who are these people? Again, have you got any evidence for these claims you keep producing?

Ok lets see now. Number 1) is the true definition of God and all the rest are called "God" by polytheist regardless of the level of fakeness of these "Gods". And by definition anything other than 1) would be false God(s).

You are claiming that I, as an atheist, am a polytheist. I don't call any of those things god. Therefore I am not a polytheist. Q.E.D.

This is why when muslims say it is God who caused everything to exist and atheist state "no, these material things came into existence by themselves", then it is as though the atheists are setting up these material things as rivals to God. Hope you understand this point?!

Not really, no. I don't know how material things originally came to be. That doesn't amount to me worshipping them as gods, does it? I don't worship anything as a god, so I can't see how I can be described as a polytheist. That's the central point I'm trying to make here.

Peace

[HeiGou]

A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will.

Yep, this is monotheism.

Well this is one form of monotheism.

Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play.

Big Bang would be called a process of creation and still implies God created the universe by His Will.

To say the universe is capable of running of its own will without the need of God sustaining the universe is polytheism as this attributing to the universe that it can sustain itself of its own accord.

A little bit of re-arranging of your reply.

No it isn't. Again you can imagine a situation where God creates the Universe in the Big Bang or something like it, and then chooses ignorance of what happens next - like wind-up toy. God may be able to know if He wants to know, but He may also choose not to think about it so that He might be surprised or amused or whatever. Your version of monotheism might insist that God has to be involved in each and every decision in the Universe, no matter how small, and I take it that is the Muslim theological position?, but you can still be a monotheist in the sense of not believing in any other Gods, without taking that extreme position. As I said, the logical problem with your argument is that it is too simplistic. It may be theologically correct but it fails as a logical argument.

Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world.

To state that the devil created the universe independent of God is setting up the devil as a rival to God. This is also polytheism. Funny that. I never suspected you to be a devil worshipper...

I expressed no opinion so you shouldn't suspect me of much. I did not say that the Devil did it independently of God. I said that a monotheist might think that the Devil created the physical part of the Universe. As some monotheists used to believe. The Devil is not a rival of God because he is not a God, but the Devil has the power to defy God as we see every day. It is not polytheism as no one in their right mind worships the Devil.

Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

The theological positions will have to be analysed by unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is to say your definition of "Monotheism" is "Islam" and nothing else. In which case you ought to come out with it and say so. But the rest of us think that monotheists are people who believe in only one God.

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position.

The fact that knives don't cut except through the Will of God is monotheism.

No it is not. It is one extreme form of monotheism.

Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

Well, like I stated before, the theological positions will have to be analysed unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is to say you are operating with a simple definition - Monotheism is monotheistic only if it agrees with Islam. You have rejected that more reasonable definition of monotheism. Now it is your right to take this position, but it is an extreme one and not very convincing.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

Surely you don't expect the universe to have the power to do anything independent of God? Nothing can happen accept with the permission of God.

Why not? If I have free will I must be able to make a decision on my own independent of God. God may be able to know what I am going to do, but if Free Will has any meaning He has to let me make my own choice. Now Muslims do not believe that is the case, but it does not follow that all monotheists do. Besides, what do you mean independent of God? God might have created the Universe and given matter some specific properties of their own (sharpness for instance) which do not requite nano-second by nano-second intervention by God to make sure knives cut.

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

Oh ok, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You think monotheism vs polytheism is all about free will and predestination? Oh I am really sorry. This is not quite the angle I was aiming for. If you want a discussion on free will and predestination, then you should really talk to a knowledgable Islamic scholar and not a lay person like myself.

It is one aspect of what you are saying.

[KAding]

:sl: Skillganon

Absolutely, I agree with you that "for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God."

And Allah has indeed given them a warning as well:

(Qur'an, Chapter 45 (Al-Jathiya - The Kneeling): 23)
"Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilâh (god), and Allâh knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allâh? Will you not then remember?"

Hmm, but in this case you are using a pretty odd definition of worshipping or God. Surely when you worship something, that something must be above you somehow, and you must realize that. How can it be said I "worship" money, I only use it for my own purposes, the money has no value for me unless I can spend it. At best you could claim there are some in Western society that worship celebrities. But worshipping pleasure or money just does not make sense.

Perhaps it makes more sense to say we worship life and the individual? But even in this case worshipping is really not the proper phrase, since these are based on principles, perhaps 'value' makes more sense.

[Vishnu]

Who are any of you to call a Hindu an atheist?

Hindu's have different beliefs so Hindu's are just thrown into your 'worthless' pile....
:uhwhat

[queen_nadia]

Who are any of you to call a Hindu an atheist?

Hindu's have different beliefs so Hindu's are just thrown into your 'worthless' pile....
:uhwhat

hi can you explain hinduism to me because i have had many different explanations
sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

[KAding]

sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

LOL! :giggling:

[catmando]

Well muslim dude if you typed all that out by hand you have WAAAAY too much time on your hands.:rollseyes In any case, you display a lack of understanding what an Atheist is. When the word 'atheist' is broken down into its two parts, all confusion is swept away(hopefully).

So we have two components of the word Atheist; 'a' and 'theist'. The prefix 'a' in Latin and in English means 'without'. As an example, the word 'amoral' means 'without morals'. The other component, 'theist' means a believer in theism, or god-belief.

Putting the two together, 'atheist' simply means without god-belief. Notice that the word Atheist says nothing about an Atheist's other beliefs, such as moral or political beliefs; it merely identifies that the person is without god-belief, nothing more.

I have known Atheists who were both Liberal, Conservative and all politicals hades in between. I have known Atheists who were racist(very few, however, and I did not socialize with them very often). As for morality, most Atheists take the view of that famous English writer Alistair Crowley who famously said, "if it harm none do what thou wilt".

I hope this clears up any misconceptions on your part about Atheists, for I rather doubt you have met many.

[queen_nadia]

can't help it people in this forum like to submit long qoutes an stuff it m8ks me 4get what der point was in da 1st place

[czgibson]

Greetings,

hi can you explain hinduism to me because i have had many different explanations

There are many different strands to Hinduism, which would explain the differences in what you've heard. The best way to find out about it would be to do some research yourself. You could do worse than start here.

sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

:lol:

Peace

[queen_nadia]

thnx. i knew alot of hindus but they all told me somthing different all i know really is that the beleive in many gods and that they used to have a god for evey family or town then it progress resulting in what we have today many gods thats not even hindus can count.
note: im not mocking hinduism this is paraphrase of what one hindu told me!

[afriend2]

Well muslim dude if you typed all that out by hand you have WAAAAY too much time on your hands.:rollseyes In any case, you display a lack of understanding what an Atheist is. When the word 'atheist' is broken down into its two parts, all confusion is swept away(hopefully).

salaam,

lol unfortunately my brother muslim_dude (blood-relation) doesnt have much time at all, and therefore only comes on LI like hardly never. and his intention of posting this was to get his message clear, regardless of how long it took him and how large the post would be.

and reading the article posted, i think it pretty much explains it there.

wassalam :peace:

[catmando]

salaam,

lol unfortunately my brother muslim_dude (blood-relation) doesnt have much time at all, and therefore only comes on LI like hardly never. and his intention of posting this was to get his message clear, regardless of how long it took him and how large the post would be.

and reading the article posted, i think it pretty much explains it there.

wassalam :peace:

Hi nazia,

Yes your brother's post is very interesting, but as I said, Atheists have nothing to do with Polytheism. We do not believe in any gods whatsoever. So basically it was much ado about nothing.

For instance, you will never see me posting anything about Islam, because I know next to nothing about that religion. That's what surprised me most, that your brother would misrepresent Atheism as being Polytheistic. It shows a lack of knowledge about his subject matter. Polytheism means believing in many gods. Atheists do not believe in gods.

[muslim dude]

In response to Joe98...

The only "evidence" of a god that any of you put forward is the words written in the various "holy" books - which themselves were written by men.

The other evidence you give is the classic "the flowers are so beautiful they had to be made by a supernatural being".

I would say the fact that there was a time you did not exist, and then a time after when you did exist would be an evidence of the Creator and Sustainer of all creation.

Some people in the west who are monotheists use the term "God" to label The Creator and Sustainer of all creation and other people would use the term "Nature".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

However, in my opinion Nature is a polytheistic term for God because this terms combines the creation with The Creator.

If there is a god then he killed almost 400,000 people in the last 3 years or so. And most would have been believers. Only the non-believers were spared.

Well, everyone is going to die buddy. Just so you know... You are welcome to try to avoid it but my sincere advise will be to stop worshipping the creation and just worship the creator.



(Qur'an, Chapter 4 (An-Nisa: The Women): 78)
"'Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high!' And if some good reaches them, they say 'This is from Allah', but if some evil befalls them, they say, 'This is from you (O Muhammad (pbuh))'. Say: 'All things are from Allah', so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word?"

Why doesn't he raise then from the dead? The classic answer: "because god works in mysterious ways".

Nope, this statement is incorrect. The classic answer is as follows:


(Qur'an, Chapter 3 (Ya-Sin): 51 - 52)
"And the Trumpet will be blown (i.e. the second blowing) and behold! From the graves they will come out quickly to their Lord."
"They will say: 'Woe to us! Who has raised us up from our place of sleep.' (It will be said to them): 'This is what the Most Beneficent (Allâh) had promised, and the Messengers spoke truth!'"

[muslim dude]

In response to czgibson...

Now I'm confused. I thought we'd just agreed that the roots of atheism go back much further than this?

So you are confused. Let me try to clear it up. Even if the roots of atheism go back much further, the fact is a lot of atheist come from christian background, hence its a backlash against certain christian concepts. My evidences are anecdotal so its your right to disagree if you want to... it doesn't matter, my main topic is about how atheists can be considered polytheists....

If really understood the initial posts, you would have come to realised how people went from the light of monotheism to the darkside of polytheism...

Secondly, Christians describe themselves as monotheists, and there are more Christians than Muslims. However, that's just an argument about a word.

Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

In any case, I don't see how any of this supports your previous claim: "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"

Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want ;)

Quote:
And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life.

Who are these people? Again, have you got any evidence for these claims you keep producing?

So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool. Here's a quote for starters.

"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

OK, but your thread is (apparently) about atheism. How about having some sources that discuss the origins of atheism, since they would doubtless help your argument?

I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

Quote:
This is why when muslims say it is God who caused everything to exist and atheist state "no, these material things came into existence by themselves", then it is as though the atheists are setting up these material things as rivals to God. Hope you understand this point?!

Not really, no. I don't know how material things originally came to be. That doesn't amount to me worshipping them as gods, does it? I don't worship anything as a god, so I can't see how I can be described as a polytheist. That's the central point I'm trying to make here.

Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Now it depends on what you mean by "material things originally came to be". Are you talking about the process of creation? Then it doesn't matter what the process of creation was.

It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ;) ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

The main point is the following: Monotheists would believe that there was a point in time when there was no materials, then after a point in time materials came into existence in whatever way The Creator of all things have willed.

However some atheists would deny The Creator by stating that matter and energy always existed. Then this means that these atheists are transferring some of the attributes of God (that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things, thus they are treating them as God, even though they may not call them "God" and claim not to "worship" the material things as God. Hope this makes the point clear to you?!

(Qur'an, Chapter 39 (Az-Zumar - The Groups): 67) "They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!"

Also, worth noting that "worship" in Islam has a much more deeper meaning than the traditional meaning in modern english.

[muslim dude]

Quote:
In response to heigoi...

No it isn't. Again you can imagine a situation where God creates the Universe in the Big Bang or something like it, and then chooses ignorance of what happens next - like wind-up toy. God may be able to know if He wants to know, but He may also choose not to think about it so that He might be surprised or amused or whatever.

I am really sorry but what you are saying is just so illogical. It just does not make sense, how can someone know something and be ignorant of that same thing at the same time. Thats just such a weird thing to say. Are you claiming that God has no knowledge of the wind-up toy?


(Qur'an, Chapter 6 (Al-An'am: The Cattle): 59)
"And with Him are the keys of the Ghaib (all that is hidden), none knows them but He.And He knows whatever there is in (or on) the earth and in the sea; not a leaf falls, but he knows it.There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record."


Even this example of a wind-up toy is flawed. Don't you know that even a wind-up toy needs to be re-winded up again? See?! There is nothing that can sustain itself without its Creator.

It is so important to follow revealed scriptues otherwise you will end up being misled by your own desires and make it up as you go along - hence keep on coming up with illogical arguments.

I did not say that the Devil did it independently of God. I said that a monotheist might think that the Devil created the physical part of the Universe.

Ok, no problem. In this case you are talking about the "process of creation". That's a matter of science and revealed scriptures... whether the "process of creation" is the Devil, Big Bang or whatever - it is irrelevant when discussing monotheism vs polytheism.

Which is to say your definition of "Monotheism" is "Islam" and nothing else. In which case you ought to come out with it and say so. But the rest of us think that monotheists are people who believe in only one God.

Firstly, if you really understood Islam, then you would know Islam is the next logical step after monotheism. Secondly, it is not enough to "believe in only one God".

Why?

You have to believe in God with the correct attributes, namely that He has power over all things, and He is the All-Knower and All-Hearer.

Don't you know that the arab pagans also believed in one God? However they worshipped idols instead, as they thought the idols will intercede to God on their behalf. By doing so, they were saying that idols had power to influence God without any clear authority, and saying that God didn't know them, couldn't hear them, thus they needed their idols. What this meant is that they were denying God was All-Powerful, All-Hearer etc. This is also polytheism.

Now, if you are suggesting that the universe/wind-up toy exists over which God has not got complete Power and Knowledge over, then this is polytheism, because you would be treating the wind-up toy as another idol, just like the arab pagans with their stone idols.

My apologies, if this is not what you are suggesting and note this concept of God being All-Powerful, All-Knower should not be confused with the predestination/free will concept.

Quote
Oh ok, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You think monotheism vs polytheism is all about free will and predestination? Oh I am really sorry. This is not quite the angle I was aiming for. If you want a discussion on free will and predestination, then you should really talk to a knowledgable Islamic scholar and not a lay person like myself.

It is one aspect of what you are saying.

The two concepts might overlap (monotheism vs polytheism and predestination/free will), but they are still two seperate concepts nonetheless and they should not be confused, hence I disagree with your statement.

However, I can sense this issue is important to you...

... which is why I was extremely disappointed when you didn't read Ansar's post on the subject. If you did, you would not have come out with the following ignorant statement:

If I have free will I must be able to make a decision on my own independent of God. God may be able to know what I am going to do, but if Free Will has any meaning He has to let me make my own choice. Now Muslims do not believe that is the case, but it does not follow that all monotheists do.

Again, predestination/free is a seperate issue to monotheism vs polytheism.

Just to clear up any confusion, muslims have taken the middle path in this issue. Muslims believe in both predestination and free will. How? Well, this time you really will have to read Ansar's post to find out ;)

http://www.islamicboard.com/26794-post48.html

You should find that the post also answers your questions about devil disobeying God and things like that...


(Qur'an, Chapter 87 (Al-'Ala - The Most High): 9)
"Therefore remind (men) in case the reminder profits (them)."

[muslim dude]

In response to KAding and Joe98...

(Qur'an, Chapter 45 (Al-Jathiya - The Kneeling): 23)
"Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilâh (god), and Allâh knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allâh? Will you not then remember?"

Hmm, but in this case you are using a pretty odd definition of worshipping or God. Surely when you worship something, that something must be above you somehow, and you must realize that. How can it be said I "worship" money, I only use it for my own purposes, the money has no value for me unless I can spend it. At best you could claim there are some in Western society that worship celebrities. But worshipping pleasure or money just does not make sense.

Perhaps it makes more sense to say we worship life and the individual? But even in this case worshipping is really not the proper phrase, since these are based on principles, perhaps 'value' makes more sense.

Atheists by definition worship nothing.
Nobody worships money. Some of the wealthiest people on earth worship at their temple church or mosque.
Only people matter. Its what you do with the money that counts.

Both are you are right in saying desiring money, pleasure and whatnot is not worshipping these things as God. So how can people take their own lust as God?

It is when people think their wealth will make them self-sufficient and not in need of God. This is one example of setting up rivals to God.

Another example of how people make their desires into God, is to say, that they know that God has forbidden something like eating pork, and after this, they then say "no, no, eating pork is good for me and God don't mind", then these people will be taking their desires as God. Effectively, these people are saying they know better than God. How far away from guidence are they?!

However, if you were to eat pork, but this is out of your own weakness and you acknowledge that you are disobeying God then this is a sin and NOT taking your own desire as God.

Hope you both can now understand that atheists by denying God, and denying the blessings of God are actually, by default taking their own desires as God.

[muslim dude]

In response to ganeshsikkim...

Who are any of you to call a Hindu an atheist?

Hindu's have different beliefs so Hindu's are just thrown into your 'worthless' pile....

Sorry, did not mean to offend you unjustly. All I said was the atheists and hindus happen to share the same definition of God which is to combine the Creator with the creation.


Sure hindus don't call The Creator "God", they call The Creator "Brahma".
Sure atheists don't call The Creator "God", they call The Creator "Nature".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Now the difference between hindus (and also other followers of revealed/spiritual religions) compared with atheist is that hindus usually actually still believes that The Creator is worthy of worship whereas the atheist do not.

It is in my opinion, the reason why atheist say they don't "believe in God" is not because they *disbelieve* in the Creator, but they don't want to worship the Creator. They rather focus on the material things as they believe it is the material things that will make them self-sufficient...

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.


(Qur'an, Chapter 17 (Al-Isra: The Journey by Night): 15)
"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)."

[muslim dude]

In response to catmando...

So we have two components of the word Atheist; 'a' and 'theist'. The prefix 'a' in Latin and in English means 'without'. As an example, the word 'amoral' means 'without morals'. The other component, 'theist' means a believer in theism, or god-belief.

Putting the two together, 'atheist' simply means without god-belief. Notice that the word Atheist says nothing about an Atheist's other beliefs, such as moral or political beliefs; it merely identifies that the person is without god-belief, nothing more.

I have known Atheists who were both Liberal, Conservative and all politicals hades in between. I have known Atheists who were racist(very few, however, and I did not socialize with them very often). As for morality, most Atheists take the view of that famous English writer Alistair Crowley who famously said, "if it harm none do what thou wilt".

Ok Catmando, you have raised two interesting points (thanks for that, as I think both are beneficial points) and I will respond to the best of my ability insha'allah.

Point 1

Notice that the word Atheist says nothing about an Atheist's other beliefs, such as moral or political beliefs; it merely identifies that the person is without god-belief, nothing more.

I agree and what I would called the "other beliefs" is "way of life" (religion). However the belief of worshipping one God or not influence which way of life (religion), a person would live by. So an atheist would follow a secular way of life (religion) like the various sects of democracy you mentioned whereas a person who believe in worshipping God would try to follow a revealed/spiritual way of life (religion).

Point 2

So we have two components of the word Atheist; 'a' and 'theist'. The prefix 'a' in Latin and in English means 'without'. As an example, the word 'amoral' means 'without morals'. The other component, 'theist' means a believer in theism, or god-belief.

What does light mean? Opposite of dark!
What does big mean? Opposite of small!
What does fast mean? Opposite of slow!
What does a moral person mean? Opposite of amoral person!
What does a theist mean? Opposite of atheist!

Do you see how the above answers to the questions does not really explain the meaning of the terms?

Dark does not really explain light.
Small does not really explain big.
Amoral person does not explain moral person...

...and atheism does not explain theism!!!

Atheists have nothing to do with Polytheism. We do not believe in any gods whatsoever. So basically it was much ado about nothing.

So, when you realise what theism really is, subha'nallah you would realise there are essentially two viewpoints in the world regarding belief. One is a monotheistic and one is polytheistic. Again I agree with you that belief is separate from the way of life(religion) but it does influence what way of life a person chooses.

Now I know, you are going to say "atheists do not believe in God or gods". However many times atheists say this, the fact is they mostly do believe in a higher power of somesort except they choose not to refer to the higher power with the label "God".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Why? It means they don't have to worship the "higher power". So where does polytheism come into it? Firstly, you will have to understand what monotheism means, which is the believe in The Creator who is All-Powerful, All-Knower, All-Mighty etc (see 99 names of Allah for more info...)

Now, the reason why some atheists like using the term "Nature" instead of "God" to refer to The Creator is they deny some of the aforementioned attributes of God.

To give an example, they would say things like The Creator cannot stop death, cannot stop earthquakes and hurricanes, and in general does not have full power over all the creations (material things). So in effect, those atheists are setting up the material things as rivals to The Creator. This is what we call polytheistic way of thinking of the "higher power".

So you might say fine, but atheists don't worship these material rivals to God. Well, seeing as we both agreed that belief is separate from way of life (religion), then the logical conclusion would be that setting up material rivals to God is indeed a polytheistic belief but whether the person chooses to worship these material things or not is a matter of religion (way of life).

(Qur'an, Chapter 39 (Az-Zumar - The Groups): 67) "They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!"

Hopefully, Catmando, what you will gain from my post is that there is a deeper meaning to "theism" ( and also to "worship" which I have not covered - might make this post a bit too long ;) ) and my advise to you is keep your mind open and study Islam and keep on asking questions and insha'allah, we muslims of this forum will try our best to respond to you or direct you to scholars who have more knowledge.

You will benefit from your study of Islam by being better placed to make an informed decision on your beliefs and hence, on the way of life you choose to live by.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

So you are confused. Let me try to clear it up. Even if the roots of atheism go back much further, the fact is a lot of atheist come from christian background, hence its a backlash against certain christian concepts. My evidences are anecdotal so its your right to disagree if you want to... it doesn't matter, my main topic is about how atheists can be considered polytheists....

I get the point, and you're basically right to say that a lot of modern day atheists are ex-Christians. Of course there are also a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity (e.g. Epicurus' paradox), but I can see where you're coming from.

If really understood the initial posts, you would have come to realised how people went from the light of monotheism to the darkside of polytheism...

In discussions on the forum with Ansar Al-'Adl, he's always maintained that polytheism was characteristic of primitive societies and monotheism of more advanced ones. Or perhaps you mean more recently? In any case, the use of "light" and "dark" add value-judgments to the discussion, thus reducing the objectivity of your argument.

Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

I disagree. All Christians describe themselves as monotheists - not just some of them! In any case, as I said, this is just an argument about a word.

Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want ;)

I just think it's a plain factual inaccuracy. No-one's told any philosophers about this, for example, and they know all about arguments of every kind.

So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool.

Please don't make assumptions like that. Of course I follow current affairs; it's just that I don't interpret them in the same way you do. Try to accept that people hold different opinions to you rather than simply assuming they are ignorant.

"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

I'm very surprised that you've claimed that this quote supports your view that: "the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life."

In the quote from Kissinger, of course, this position is not in evidence. Unless you'd like to equate terrorism with Islam, that is; but this idea is obviously abhorrent.

I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

I don't think anything is "holy". I think the word is essentially meaningless.

I can't use any atheist writer to refute your idea that atheists are actually polytheists, since the idea is so transparently ludicrous that none of them have ever considered it.

Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Thank you for patronising me; I am an adult, you know.

Now it depends on what you mean by "material things originally came to be". Are you talking about the process of creation? Then it doesn't matter what the process of creation was.

It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ;) ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

You say this, and then you go on to discuss the process of creation. Confusing.

I think HeiGou could be talking about Manichaeanism.

The main point is the following: Monotheists would believe that there was a point in time when there was no materials, then after a point in time materials came into existence in whatever way The Creator of all things have willed.

However some atheists would deny The Creator by stating that matter and energy always existed. Then this means that these atheists are transferring some of the attributes of God (that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things, thus they are treating them as God, even though they may not call them "God" and claim not to "worship" the material things as God. Hope this makes the point clear to you?!

But you have claimed that all atheists are polytheists in disguise - not just some of them. For what it's worth, I don't know of any atheists who hold the position you mention - I certainly don't. I would never dream of "stating that matter and energy always existed" - this is something that is simply unknown.

Overall, I'm still as stunned by your views as ever. I'm utterly amazed that anyone could believe that atheists are actually polytheists. This is the case to such an extent that I can only believe that we are talking at cross-purposes in some way: you and I must have different understandings of one or other of the terms involved here, since, as I understand these terms, your claim is straightforwardly and obviously wrong. To me, it's just as illogical as saying that vegetarians are actually all omnivores, or that pacifists are actually all soldiers.

Peace

[Link]

I don't think anything is "holy". I think the word is essentially meaningless.

Why does it exist then? And how come people use it and understand it when it is used?

[snakelegs]

"polytheistic atheists" is an oxymoron.
because they don't believe in god = they believe in a whole bunch of gods????
don't take offense, but here's a definition of "oxymoron" just because the word isn't used that often.
Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oxymoron

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Why does it exist then? And how come people use it and understand it when it is used?

Apologies, I was not being precise. By 'essentially meaningless', I mean that the word refers to nothing in reality; it has no reference. So people understand it in the same way that they understand words like 'unicorn'. If you tried to define a unicorn you would have to get into the realm of fiction, and this is similar with words like 'holy'. Many other theological terms are also without a reference in this way.

Peace

[Link]

Greetings,


Apologies, I was not being precise. By 'essentially meaningless', I mean that the word refers to nothing in reality; it has no reference. So people understand it in the same way that they understand words like 'unicorn'. If you tried to define a unicorn you would have to get into the realm of fiction, and this is similar with words like 'holy'. Many other theological terms are also without a reference in this way.

Peace

Unicorns can be imagined, drawn, so it is has a reality atleast to an extent, holiness therefore still has a reality in the minds of mankind - the most you can say is that the reality is baseless - but it exists in the minds much like the concept of love, happiness, etc exists in our minds - so it's a inward part of man whether you believe it should be or not. The most you can say is that it's a pointless reality mankind does not need.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Unicorns can be imagined, drawn, so it is has a reality atleast to an extent, holiness therefore still has a reality in the minds of mankind - the most you can say is that the reality is baseless - but it exists in the minds much like the concept of love, happiness, etc exists in our minds - so it's a inward part of man whether you believe it should be or not. So it still exists, the most you can say is that it's a pointless reality mankind does not need.

Right - this is the point I'm making.

I notice you say that unicorns can be imagined - holiness too can be imagined. This only shows that it's a real concept that exists in our minds, not that it's necessarily real.

Peace

[Link]

Hey Czibson,

I think my point and your point are slightly different.
I am saying it is real but it's not something physical - it's something concious - just like love, hate, happiness, jealousy, are all things that exist in the concious - holiness is real like wise but a concious real - it's experienced just like love, angriness, taste, colours, are all experienced. If you think it's not neccessarily real, then love too isn't neccessiraly real. The most you can say is that it is a pointless thing that exists in the concious. "Holiness" is a real reality, the source and why exists we do differ about, but the fact it is a reality within us like love is a reality cannot be argued. "Love" cannot be attributed to imagination, neither can holiness, it's something that exists.

peace

[duskiness]

The Roman Emperor's plan to stop the monotheist is not working... this message of "There is no one worthy of worship except God" is spreading. What can the Roman Emperor do to convince his subjects that he should also have some power?!

Books were burned, pure places of monotheist worship (synagogues and churches) were destroyed and monotheist Christian and Jews (especially the scholars) were brutally murdered. As well as the fear created in upholding the rule of the law of the ancient Roman state, the knowledge disappeared which meant confusion spread amongst the mass followers of the teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

St Paul and others like him managed to convince a lot of people of his ideas.

The Roman Emperor was jumping from joy at this turn of events. Now, he has found his champion in St Paul, which is to change monotheistic Christianity to something where creations were given part of divinity. From the Roman Emperor's point of view, it was only a matter of time before divinity given to "dead" unseen creations were passed on to "alive" creations i.e. himself. This is how the Roman Emperor will maintain his rule and also contain the threat of the original teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which was La ilaha illallah!

- sorry for such a long quotation. ;) Do you know Muslim Dude, that prosecution of Christian took place mostly AFTER St. Paul (who live in I AD, his letters were written artound 50-60AD). So why "The Roman Emperor was jumping from joy at this turn of events" and AFTER that starting to prosecut Christians???

One such conference was the (in)famous Nicea held in AD325. No surprise to learn that St Paul's views were mostly adopted and this brand of Christianity was so beloved by the Roman Emperor, that he declared it the official state religion

- false. Constantine didn't make make Christianity (or "any brand") state religion.
But i don't think you're intrested in history of Christianity ;)

ad: atheist=politheist i think you are simply changing meaning of these terms. you are trying by force to put atheists to a drawer they really don't suite.
n.

[muslim dude]

I get the point, and you're basically right to say that a lot of modern day atheists are ex-Christians. Of course there are also a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity (e.g. Epicurus' paradox), but I can see where you're coming from.

Thanks and I did say before that I agree that a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity.

In discussions on the forum with Ansar Al-'Adl, he's always maintained that polytheism was characteristic of primitive societies and monotheism of more advanced ones. Or perhaps you mean more recently?

Sure, I agree that polytheism is a characteristic of primitive societies but by that it could be meant in terms of thoughts, goals of the society and morals. I mean when people don't believe in God and the last day, people will end up just fighting over the dunya (the materials of this world) with the strong trampling over the rights of the poor (although I am not saying that this applies to all polytheists, there are lots of people who have good morals without worshipping God alone) because they don't believe that hearafter is better than this world...

However, this does not mean that the primitive societies were less technologically advance. Quite often, you would find that they were very technologically advanced when Messengers of God was sent to them. And sometimes, it was because of their advanced technology, that they became arrogant and thought the materials of this world is enough to make them self-sufficient and not in need of God. For example, Egypt was the unrivalled power of the time of Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There are many stories in the Qur'an about societies with these kind of polytheistic ideas about materials making them self-sufficient, and then God sent His Messengers to warn them and due to their arrogance, they didn't see the error of their thinking, thus were destroyed in whatever way God willed.


(Qur'an, Chapter 35 (Fatir: The Originator of Creation): 24-26)
"Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them."
"And if they belie you, those before them also belied. Their Messengers came to them with clear signs, and with the Scriptures, and the book giving light."
"Then I took hold of those who disbelieved, and how terrible was My denial (punishment)!"

Quote:
Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

I disagree. All Christians describe themselves as monotheists - not just some of them! In any case, as I said, this is just an argument about a word.

Well Callum, as an English teacher, I am sure you know that meanings of word is important and this thread is indeed about atheism, polytheism and monotheism, so their meanings are important.

Sure, all Christians might describe themselves as monotheists but then it boils down to a mathematical equation.
Some sects like the Jehova Witnesses have accepted Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is just an earthly prophet and servant of God and not Son of God (just like the muslims position), thus I am sure they would not mind accepting 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, whereas the others argue 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

But, never in a millions years, did I expect that you too, would also argue that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Anyway, this point is off-topic so you don't have to respond...

Quote:
Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want

I just think it's a plain factual inaccuracy. No-one's told any philosophers about this, for example, and they know all about arguments of every kind.

With all due to respect, I would say you have a little to much blind faith in your philosophers if you feel they answered all the arguments under the sun. Anyhow, do let me know if you change your mind...

Quote:
So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool.

Please don't make assumptions like that. Of course I follow current affairs; it's just that I don't interpret them in the same way you do. Try to accept that people hold different opinions to you rather than simply assuming they are ignorant.

Yes, you are right. Insha'allah in the future, I will try to give people benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

I'm very surprised that you've claimed that this quote supports your view that: "the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life."

In the quote from Kissinger, of course, this position is not in evidence. Unless you'd like to equate terrorism with Islam, that is; but this idea is obviously abhorrent.

I think you should give Kissinger's understanding a bit more credit than you have. Essentially, the war on terrorism is phoney because its targetting the less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% muslims who believe Islam should be spread through terror.

However the vast majority know that only Islam (or what Kissinger, unhelpfully calls "Radical Islam") can spread by winning hearts and minds of people. How do we know this? This is the way (sunnah) of the final Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. See stage 1 and 2 of the seerah (biography) of the final Prophet of Allah for more details.

And as you are following current affairs, you would read that indeed the secular leaders of the West and East also realise the need to win the hearts and minds.

Why? Because Islam takes away people from the worship of man to the worship of God alone.

The secular leaders intend to win the hearts and minds through their twin weapons of fear and materialism and do you want to know what is the weapon that all the muslims posses in order to protect themselves and strike fear into their enemies?

It is the Noble Qur'an, the Weapon of Mass Guidance!

This is the weapon that Blair, Bush and every other secular leader fears the most as it will mean they will lose control of the people... (especially if us muslims do our job properly by fulfilling the sunnah by giving Da'wah to the people)


(Qur'an, Chapter 11 (Hud: The Prophet Hud): 1-2)
"Alif-Lâm-Râ. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'ân and none but Allâh (Alone) knows their meanings]. (This is) a Book, the Verses whereof are perfected (in every sphere of knowledge, etc.), and then explained in detail from One (Allâh), Who is All-Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things)."
"(Saying) worship none but Allâh. Verily, I (Muhammad ) am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of glad tidings."

Quote:
I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

I can't use any atheist writer to refute your idea that atheists are actually polytheists, since the idea is so transparently ludicrous that none of them have ever considered it.

Hey, that's your call... ;)

Quote:
Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Thank you for patronising me; I am an adult, you know.

Sorry, it was not my intention to insult you. I know that my posts can be a bit long and I know your time is valuable so I would rather you concentrate on the main topic of why I think atheists are really polytheists instead of the political/"which religion is bigger" stuff which are slightly off-topic...

Again, the following is what I really want to concentrate on...

Quote:
It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

You say this, and then you go on to discuss the process of creation. Confusing.

Well, we have three concepts The Creator, the creation and the process of creation. What I was stating was that as long as you agree that all the materials are creation, then I would say that's the evidence of the Creator and the process of creation (i.e. how the creation was created) is irrelevant to our discussion as its a matter of revealed scripture and science.

Here is an analogy that might help you. Take for example that I am a chef and have cooked some meat for dinner because you feel like having meat or something like that. However, I didn't tell you how I cooked the meat (which is the process of creation) maybe because you don't care as long as its meat. So the process of how I cooked the meat could have been grilled, fried, barbecued, roasted, stewed or made into a curry, but I just didn't tell you.

Likewise, we are discussing whether matter and energy (i.e. everything) is created or not. If you accept the notion of a Creator, then you have to accept that matter and energy (i.e. everything) is created and the exact process of creation (i.e. Big Bang, whatever etc) is irrelevant to our discussion.

Overall, I'm still as stunned by your views as ever. I'm utterly amazed that anyone could believe that atheists are actually polytheists.

Ok... let me try to approach it from a different angle. Do you remember in our discussion awhile ago about the "evidence for the existence of God" and I was saying the evidence are things like the Sun, Moon, rain, trees etc.

Your reply was this is not evidence because according to you, I was just attributing everything to God. Well, the point I will make now is if these things are not attributed to God, then who/what are you attributing these things to then?

The answer you give will determine if your belief is monotheistic or polytheistic.

I would never dream of "stating that matter and energy always existed" - this is something that is simply unknown.

So what are you saying?

Well allow me to present the two options.

option 1
Are you saying that everything is created, hence you believe in the Creator? Why would people with these beliefs be classified as atheist?

option 2
Are you saying that matter and energy always existed and hence deny the existence of The Creator? In that case you have just give some of the attributes of God (namely that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things and seeing as matter and energy are plural things, hence that belief is polytheistic (even if for example you do not prostrate to these materials things).

Perhaps the source of your confusion is you don't know if you are an atheist/polytheist or a monotheist? Well, I do hope you think about it and by the permission of Allah, you end up choosing option 1.


(Qur'an, Chapter 17 (Al-Isra: The Journey by Night): 15)
"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)."

[muslim dude]

"polytheistic atheists" is an oxymoron.
because they don't believe in god = they believe in a whole bunch of gods????
don't take offense, but here's a definition of "oxymoron" just because the word isn't used that often.
Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oxymoron

Ok snakelegs, thanks for the info.

In response to your point the fact that atheist deny the existence of God, The Creator, The Sustainer, The All-Knower, All-Mighty etc implies that they are giving the attributes of God to material things, hence they are taking the material things as gods, even if they do not worship the material things as gods (although the term "worship" has a deeper meaning in Islam...).

Hope that explains my point of view...

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

I mean when people don't believe in God and the last day, people will end up just fighting over the dunya (the materials of this world) with the strong trampling over the rights of the poor (although I am not saying that this applies to all polytheists, there are lots of people who have good morals without worshipping God alone) because they don't believe that hearafter is better than this world...

Do you believe that an atheist could have good morals?

Well Callum, as an English teacher, I am sure you know that meanings of word is important and this thread is indeed about atheism, polytheism and monotheism, so their meanings are important.

OK. My point was simply that we can argue about what a polytheist is or is not and we'll never get anywhere if we're using different definitions of the word. I've already given the dictionary definition of polytheist, and shown that it has nothing in common with atheism, which I would have thought is quite clear to everyone. You seem to want to differ on this basic point though, and I'm still not sure why.

Sure, all Christians might describe themselves as monotheists but then it boils down to a mathematical equation.

No it doesn't. It boils down to the mysteries of Christian belief.

But, never in a millions years, did I expect that you too, would also argue that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

And I didn't actually argue that. I find the idea just as ludicrous as you do; I simply said that Christians describe themselves as monotheists, which is true.

With all due to respect, I would say you have a little to much blind faith in your philosophers if you feel they answered all the arguments under the sun.

And I never stated that either. Please read my posts carefully.

You claimed that "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!". I simply pointed out that this is nowhere near being true. Read some contemporary philosophy, consider the arguments, and then tell me how Islam destroys them. Better still, find me a philosopher who agrees with you!

I think you should give Kissinger's understanding a bit more credit than you have.

Where have I discredited Kissinger? He's a hateful man, but I pretty much agree with what he says here.

Essentially, the war on terrorism is phoney because its targetting the less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% muslims who believe Islam should be spread through terror.

Why does that make it phoney?! Surely that's exactly what Bush and Blair are claiming to do?

This War on Terror discussion is not really relevant to the main topic of the thread, so I'll stop discussing it here, once I've said the following:

I highly doubt that Bush and Blair are very worried that Westerners will be reading the Qur'an and flocking to Islam. Firstly, so what if they do? People are free to follow whatever belief-system they choose. Secondly, the reaction of most Westerners on reading the Qur'an consists of boredom alternating with disbelief and bafflement - sorry, but it just doesn't translate well.

Hey, that's your call... ;)

It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Unless, of course, you can find me an example of an atheist writer seriously considering the proposition that atheism may actually be polytheism. Good luck with that...

Sorry, it was not my intention to insult you.

Apology accepted. :)

I know that my posts can be a bit long and I know your time is valuable so I would rather you concentrate on the main topic of why I think atheists are really polytheists instead of the political/"which religion is bigger" stuff which are slightly off-topic...

Quite right.

Ok... let me try to approach it from a different angle. Do you remember in our discussion awhile ago about the "evidence for the existence of God" and I was saying the evidence are things like the Sun, Moon, rain, trees etc.

Yes. This is essentially the argument from design.

Your reply was this is not evidence because according to you, I was just attributing everything to God. Well, the point I will make now is if these things are not attributed to God, then who/what are you attributing these things to then?

I'm not attributing them to anything, except to say they are part of the universe. We can say how they evolved to get there up to a certain point, but we don't know how they ultimately originated.

The answer you give will determine if your belief is monotheistic or polytheistic.

Does atheism not exist anymore?! Are there really no other possibilities between monotheism and polytheism?

So what are you saying?

Well allow me to present the two options.

option 1
Are you saying that everything is created, hence you believe in the Creator? Why would people with these beliefs be classified as atheist?

Certainly not. That would obviously not be an atheist position.

option 2
Are you saying that matter and energy always existed and hence deny the existence of The Creator? In that case you have just give some of the attributes of God (namely that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things and seeing as matter and energy are plural things, hence that belief is polytheistic (even if for example you do not prostrate to these materials things).

I'm not saying this either. In answer to the question: "Do you believe that matter and energy have always existed, or that they came into being at some point?" I say "I don't know".

Perhaps the source of your confusion is you don't know if you are an atheist/polytheist or a monotheist? Well, I do hope you think about it and by the permission of Allah, you end up choosing option 1.

The source of my confusion is your highly unusual argument!

I'm an atheist. There's no question about that whatsoever.

I notice that in your response to snakelegs you've given a succinct account of your view. I hope you don't mind if I respond to it here:

In response to your point the fact that atheist deny the existence of God, The Creator, The Sustainer, The All-Knower, All-Mighty etc implies that they are giving the attributes of God to material things, hence they are taking the material things as gods, even if they do not worship the material things as gods (although the term "worship" has a deeper meaning in Islam...).

This is a very odd argument, full of assertions, conditionals and reservations. You've claimed certain things that are in fact nothing to do with the atheist position. Let me ask: can you tell me precisely which material things I bestow with the attributes of god? What material thing(s) do atheists such as me claim are all-knowing? What material thing(s) do atheists claim to be "The Creator"?

Next, you appear to contradict yourself. You say that atheists are taking these things as gods, even though they do not worship them as gods. If we found out what these things were, that might be a start, but since atheists don't believe in any gods, it's hard to see how they could be worshipping them!

Still baffled, by the way. It's mind-boggling to think that anyone actually holds the position you're advocating here!

Peace

[Link]

Czgibson, since your stance is you don't know, why aren't you agnostic instead of athiest?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Czgibson, since your stance is you don't know, why aren't you agnostic instead of athiest?

Here's what I said:

In answer to the question: "Do you believe that matter and energy have always existed, or that they came into being at some point?" I say "I don't know".

This question has no bearing on whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. When asked "Do you believe in god?" I say "No", not "I don't know", as an agnostic would.

Peace

[Link]

Agnostics say their neither believe or deny. When asked about existance of God they say I don't know. Do you deny the existance of God?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Agnostics say their neither believe or deny. When asked about existance of God they say I don't know. Do you deny the existance of God?

Yes, but this is only a belief. I'm not saying "I know for certain that there is no god", simply that I believe it's massively more likely that there is no god. This is clearly an atheist position rather than an agnostic one.

Incidentally, I was an agnostic until the age of around eighteen, when I started studying philosophy seriously. Theism is now largely discredited in the philosophical community, and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

Peace

[duskiness]

and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

would you consider someone who got Kluge Prize a "philosopher of any standing"?
n.

[Link]

Greetings,


Yes, but this is only a belief. I'm not saying "I know for certain that there is no god", simply that I believe it's massively more likely that there is no god. This is clearly an atheist position rather than an agnostic one.

Incidentally, I was an agnostic until the age of around eighteen, when I started studying philosophy seriously. Theism is now largely discredited in the philosophical community, and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

Peace

salam

Go to Iran then, you will see philisophers who are all monothiest. Look at their arguments and look the arguments of athiests. You can't know who is a better philisopher unless you are 100% sure there is no proof of God (which is impossible to know) or that the proofs of monothiest are wrong (which can be possible depending on their arguments) or you are sure of arguments of the monothiests.

peace

[czgibson]

Greetings duskiness,

would you consider someone who got Kluge Prize a "philosopher of any standing"?
n.

I would, yes.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski. He is certainly an eminent philosopher with an unimpeachable reputation.

He diagnoses a gap in modern consciousness, a yearning that many people share, which used to be occupied by religion. He is keenly aware of the decline of religion in mainstream Western society (and certainly among the philosophical community), and he calls for a resurgence of religious values, or at the very least something to replace religion.

However, regarding his own position, he is cagey (See page 5 (or 86) of this document, for example). Some think he is an atheist, but in that case it is unclear what sort of religious revival he would like to see. If you have evidence that he is a theist, then by all means show it; I would welcome your correction.

Or perhaps you're thinking of another recipient of the award?

Greetings Link,

Go to Iran then, you will see philisophers who are all monothiest.

Are you sure these are philosophers and not theologians?

Look at their arguments and look the arguments of athiests. You can't know who is a better philisopher unless you are 100% sure there is no proof of God (which is impossible to know) or that the proofs of monothiest are wrong (which can be possible depending on their arguments) or you are sure of arguments of the monothiests.

Let's take your points one at a time:

Firstly, there is no proof of god's existence. That is a fact, and it is not impossible to know (I'm using the word 'know' in ordinary modern parlance. Many epistemologists are not convinced that 100% certain knowledge is possible, but that's by the by.)

Secondly, there are arguments for god's existence, but no proofs of it. As I've said on the forum before, I think some Muslims use a different definition of the word 'proof' than the average professor of logic does.

Thirdly, I believe I'm familiar with most of the standard theistic arguments. If you think I may have missed some of them, or there are some that you'd particularly like to bring forward, then by all means do so.

Peace

[duskiness]

Hi czgibson!
sorry for such a late replay...

Perhaps you are thinking of the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski.

yup... :)

Some think he is an atheist

for sure he was an atheist, and a communist as well. But that was "young Kołakowski". the "old one" is famous for his critic of communism. And much "warmer" attitiude towards religion, God..etc.

If you have evidence that he is a theist, then by all means show it; I would welcome your correction.

i doubt i can show you any evidance. i can give some qoutes, BUT sources are in polish and translation is - unfortunately - mine:
"no, one shouldn't think that Kołakowski - he is not an exeption here - returned to Church. His God is a God of philosophers"
"As it was noticed in "Gazeta Wyborcza" (biggest polish newspaper -n.) even when Kołakowski starts talking about sex or laziness, he quickly associate everthing with God"
(source- it's an article in student magazine about Kołakowski)

"Christianity makes things easier, thanks to intermediary, one with two natures - Jesus Christ, who is a true God for Christians: unlike Father we know His name, know His life and probably noone doubts that He walked on Earth, prayed to his Father in heaven, and preached. Incarnation, idea of "Son of God", Trinity are the most puzzeling parts of Christian theology, but when we face Jesus, who we know from Gosples- we can forget about all these theological mysteries. Jesus wont examine us from (about??) theology, He loves us, with our indigence and weakness. He wants us to love Him, and orders us to pray to Father. Rest may be know to us "on the other shore". Or maybe not even then"
form Leszek Kołakowski "Mini wykłady o maxi sprawach" chapter "About God"

Kołakowski has aslo written book about conflict in theology about idea of grace ("Bóg nic nie jest na dłużny" - "God owes us nothing"), writes aritcle about "can devile be saved?". He aslo is writing to the catholic magazine "Tygodnik powszechny"

As you can see i have no evidence. But i can say that it seems to me that he is much closer to being theist than atheist

However, regarding his own position, he is cagey (See page 5 (or 86) of this document, for example).

I know, today he never answer question whether he belives in God or not. He did answer this question in a way you do, when he was younger.
BTW: thanks for article

Or perhaps you're thinking of another recipient of the award?

hehe- no, because P.Ricoeur died lat year. But he was aslo theist ;)

take care
n.