Muslims point to the character of Prophet Muhammad pbuh as the pinnacle of charity, kindness, justice... basically morality. In addition we have the other Prophets such as Moses pbuh and Jesus pbuh.
These figures and their teachings and have served as the inspiration for billions to follow in their shadows and uplift their lives. They have moved the entire world with their deeds and most of all, devotion to Allah. They turned savages into saints. They lived lives of simplicity. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh only owned the bare necessities of life and left only his mule and his small home after his death. Among his last words were: “We the community of Prophets are not inherited. Whatever we leave is for charity.”
What do they have in common? They were the most religious and pious human beings in history.
Where are the atheist parallels? What atheist has ever moved so many heart? Served as an example for so many lives?
None has. There has never been a comparable atheist in history to these figures. Why not? If these Prophets were liars or mad, surely it would be a simple matter to outdo them?
Important Note: Do not start talking about "religious people have done bad things in their name" because this is about the PROPHETS. Moreover, we all know that none of these religions ask us to be rapists or thieves and those sinful actions have no basis in the character of the Prophets. So drop it.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 06-26-2009 at 07:23 PM.
Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning. Check history to see how the pagans tried to commit genocide against the early Muslims. Christians and Jews underwent similar persecution.
Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists? Your leaders should have been braver!
It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.
And remember the note I put at the bottom of my first post. We are not talking about atheists in general. I am making the point that you have not had a single uniting leader to serve as an example and guide like us....ever.
Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.
It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.
Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.
They couldn't even form a united movement against theism? Were their reasons lacking? Leadership lacking? Intellectuals lacking? Their examples lacking?
In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshipped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshipped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead."
It was single individuals against all society, not cults with the motive of faith.
Atheists had never formed organized atheistic groups.... there were no leaders at all.
How did you think Islam started? A single individual. People were moved enough by him to follow him. Atheism is a belief, just like theism, and atheists have never had a leader to carry forward their banner.
Atheism has been so oppressed for so long that many great people may have been atheists, but were afraid of the consequences of being thought a heretic.
We are a minority.
Still, we have:
Albert Einstein : Left quite a warning regarding the consequences of aggression,
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
By giving Einstein's example, I suppose you're saying that he was an athesit but here's one of his most famous quotes in which he acknowledged Religion and also highlighted its importance :
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you? And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust.
Surah Ale Imran : 160
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) climbed up Uhud, accompanied by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan, and the mountain shook with them. He struck it with his foot and said: “Stand firm, O Uhud, for there is no one on you but a Prophet or a Siddeeq or two martyrs.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3483)
Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Taala) does not inspire seeking forgiveness in a slave whom he wishes to punish.
I disagree with most if not all of your points. I got a paper to right, so forgive me if my answer seems a bit disorganized. I'll come back to what I missed later.
1. The Buddhist scriptures have no guarantee of authenticity. You have no clue as to if what you have today is what Buddha actually said. I suspect that the texts, just like in other religions, was edited as Buddhism evolved.
This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.
Nobody pretends that any Buddhist text is a verbatim report of the words of Siddhartha Gautama; the initial tradition was transmitted orally for several centuries before being written down for a start. If, though, you are somehow suggesting what he actually said and, in this context, how he behaved was somehow radically different from what many millions over more than two millennia have found no reason to doubt it really is up to you to "put up or shut up".
2. Saying Buddha was comparable to Muhammad saw is like saying the president of the politics club in school is comparable to the president of the United States. I don't see previously warring people united under one banner, entire systems of government, philosophy, and morality flourishing because of him. Buddhism is hardly as united as even Christianity, and to most people today, is reduced to crossing your legs on the floor, closing your eyes, and breathing deeply. Just a few examples as to why his actions and their repercussions across the globe and through history are not comparable to Muhammad's pbuh.
That is, frankly, just biased rubbish I thought twice about dignifying with a reply at all. I assume you couldn't come up with any constructive response in the context of the actual debate on the topic you introduced. The suggestion that no systems of philosophy and morality have flourished and indeed continue to flourish because of the Buddha's teaching is both ignorant and absurd. Buddhism has never made any claims to be a political system. Oh, and even your comment about previously warring people is completely wrong... you 'don't see' because you can't be bothered to look.
3. Though I understand atheism is the denial of God, theism is the belief in God and never have atheists been as united as Muslims.
Atheism is not the denial of God, it is the denial of the existence of God. It is also not a religion; and it is therefore meaningless to talk about atheists being 'united' or not... there is no reason for them to be. I'm certainly not 'united' with Gubbleknoucker for obvious reasons! In a different sense Buddhism is not 'united' because it simply has no reason to be. The fundamental beliefs are the same, and without being hamstrung by a need to worry about the exact words of God or a prophet, Buddhists are quite free to disagree about the details. They have never fought a war over them.
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Atheism is a belief, just like theism, and atheists have never had a leader to carry forward their banner.
This is just plain silly. A banner 'saying' what? Like political ideologies, religions have positive manifestos and you can write those on banners, imaginary or otherwise. Atheism is the belief something doesn't exist.
By analogy, it's like comparing a group of Manchester United supporters with their scarves, shirts and banners with one guy standing in the park with a banner saying 'Soccer is boring '. Just because he isn't surrounded by a crowd of thousands doesn't mean there aren't plenty who agree with him.
This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.
Brother, I'm not here to make an argument between Islam and Buddhism. To be honest, I hardly know a thing about Buddhism but we Muslims have been ordered in the Qur'an to not insult the "gods" or "deities" worshipped by others. It is mentioned in Surah Anam, verse 108
Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.
Other than that, I'd like to make few other points as well that might please you. In the Qur'an, by name, only 25 Prophets are mentioned but the Qur'an also states in Surah Nahl, verse 36
And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Taghut besides Allah).
And according to a Hadeeth, Allah had sent 124,000 Prophets on Earth. So based on this, many Buddhists who were impressed by Islam have asked questions like "Is it possible that Buddha was a Prophet of God?" The answer to this is "could be", and so out of the courtesy which Islam stretches towards non-Muslims as well, it could be possible that Buddha was a Prophet but it can't be said of a surety.
And in the response to Brother AntiKarateKid's post about the authencity of the Buddhist scriptures, you gave a strong reply and so I believe that you strictly believe in your scripture and now here's the big moment. If you believe your Buddhist scripture to be true then you must believe in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the message he brought i.e. the Glorious Qur'an. If you wanna ask me, how am I so confident then read the article in the following link. After having read it, if you have your ambiguities cleared and finally you see the light then I'm the first one to welcome you to the religion of Peace i.e. Islam with open arms. May Allah Guide You.
The post has been very random but I just tried to bring in everything between Islam and Buddhism.
If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you? And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust.
Surah Ale Imran : 160
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) climbed up Uhud, accompanied by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan, and the mountain shook with them. He struck it with his foot and said: “Stand firm, O Uhud, for there is no one on you but a Prophet or a Siddeeq or two martyrs.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3483)
Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Taala) does not inspire seeking forgiveness in a slave whom he wishes to punish.
And in the response to Brother AntiKarateKid's post about the authencity of the Buddhist scriptures, you gave a strong reply and so I believe that you strictly believe in your scripture and now here's the big moment. If you believe your Buddhist scripture to be true then you must believe in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the message he brought i.e. the Glorious Qur'an. If you wanna ask me, how am I so confident then read the article in the following link. After having read it, if you have your ambiguities cleared and finally you see the light then I'm the first one to welcome you to the religion of Peace i.e. Islam with open arms. May Allah Guide You.
I'm afraid the answer is not "could be", it is "no". In terms of Buddhism, the very idea is totally ludicrous. While I accept your 'offering' in the spirit in which you make it (rep inbound) I'm afraid even an elementary knowledge of Buddhism is sufficient to show that that is pretty desperate stuff; quotes picked pretty much at random and presented as meaning something they don't. To be honest I was very surprised to see that from Zakir Naik rather than, say, Harun Yahya who specializes in such nonsense.
There is no 'prophecy' regarding Mohammed, or indeed prophecy about anything at all. Buddhas arise because according the Buddhist conception of how the Universe works it is inevitable that they will. The comments on linguistics are laughable. Sanskrit (which is the wrong language here anyway, it should be Pali - although the two are closely related) is the nearest we have to a proto-typical Indo -European language, and such parallels can be identified with all modern languages from that family as well as, to a lesser extent, the semitic languages such as Arabic.
As religions, Buddhism and Islam are totally incompatible. Buddhism simply has no basis for 'prophecy', let alone for the future coming of Prophets for a God that the whole of Buddhist philosophy and belief disqualifies from even existing.
Unfortunately the information given on each person relates more to their stance on religion and God, rather on their influence in moral and ethical terms ... but that doesn't mean they didn't do that too.
It may just be a starting point for finding our more about Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Paul Heinrich Dietrich D'Holbach, Thomas Hobbes, Lucius Annaeus Seneca and Epicurus.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning.
Check history to ..........
Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists?
You dont need history. My brother is an athiest and a keen traveller. In 2007 he spent one week in Iran as a tourist. When you enter the country it is compulsory to provide youre religion.
He wrote "Christian" because he knew he would be persecuted if he wrote "None".
No, that comment is propoganda. An athiest doesn;t have "faith" as you define it above. Instead, to an athiest:
Something is true or;
Something is probable or;
Something is not probable or;
Something is not true.
There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required.
-
Trying to be a mechine are we.........
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
so are you trying to become a mechine? - I just dont believe you - You simply dont believe in a God - thats preety much it.
It also depends on how you define true?
But in reality this is the part gives you away
There have never been any gods. "God" is not true. No "faith" required
Thats a belief
Last edited by Zafran; 06-27-2009 at 02:23 PM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
It almost like AntiKarateKid intends to misunderstand so he can build up straw men to attack. I know not much about Budhism but merely from what Trumble has posted here and in other threads (in which Anti has posted) I can see the clear (and I believe intentional) misunderstandings in the following.
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
1. The Buddhist scriptures have no guarantee of authenticity. You have no clue as to if what you have today is what Buddha actually said. I suspect that the texts, just like in other religions, was edited as Buddhism evolved.
First, all religions evolve, even Islam. Islam today is not Islam as it was originally, whether you choose to accept that or not. Read Karen Armstrong's "History of God" which is an excellent recounting of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as they have been over the ages.
Second, Budhism isn't based on revalation from God. It doesn't matter where the Budhist beliefs/rituals/etc came from. I totally respect this over the theistic religions. It isn't authority based, but instead based on what works for people. Buddhists appear to seek truth, and the source or "authority" isn't important.
2. Saying Buddha was comparable to Muhammad saw is like saying the president of the politics club in school is comparable to the president of the United States. I don't see previously warring people united under one banner, entire systems of government, philosophy, and morality flourishing because of him. Buddhism is hardly as united as even Christianity, and to most people today, is reduced to crossing your legs on the floor, closing your eyes, and breathing deeply. Just a few examples as to why his actions and their repercussions across the globe and through history are not comparable to Muhammad's pbuh.
This is completely self serving and ridiculus. As Trumble has said, there have been no wars over "proper" interpretation of buddhism and I don't think Buddhists set out to spread their religion by the sword either. I'll take the calm serene Buddhist over the self righteous muslim or christian every time.
3. Though I understand atheism is the denial of God, theism is the belief in God and never have atheists been as united as Muslims.
The only reason atheists ever unite is to fight off radical religionists. The only reason say Trumble (a budhist), myself and the other atheists in this thread would unite would be to defend ourselves and each other from people like you sir. We have no other common cause and we likely have disagreements on pretty much everything else. There is no Atheist cause. We have no prophets because we have no dogma. We are instead free to think for ourselves on these matters. This is not a bad thing.
4. I'm not going to get into the "atheists can live moral lives" debate. Too tired...
Theists can lead moral lives, but only because they have the same moral sense that atheists have. All religion adds is dogma, which just as often burries our inate moral sense as highlights it. I have no doubt that if you lost your faith in Allah tomorrow you'd still lead a fairly moral life. Why do you think that could be if morality comes from Allah?
Nope sorry. The "scared to come out" excuse can't work. Muslims were tortured, killed, and persecuted severely in their beginning. Check history to see how the pagans tried to commit genocide against the early Muslims. Christians and Jews underwent similar persecution.
Fear did not stop the theists. But according to you, it stopped the atheists? Your leaders should have been braver!
First, Get it through your head that we have no leaders in atheism. Atheism is not an organized system of thought. It is just one opinion on one question. NOTHING MORE. As much as you may like atheism to have dogma or prophets for you to attack, there simply are not any.
Second, I see MUCH more honour in doing good for the sake of good than doing good and then advertising your ideology or religion. That atheists who do great things for society don't come out pushing "atheism" is admirable. I with more religious people would do good works without an attached infomercial.
There often isn't nearly as much Pride in being atheist as there is in being [insert religion here]. Many atheists really don't care much if you don't know they are atheists. And many more will pretend to be theists if it serves their purposes. My grandmother thought I was a Christian until her death. It brought her comfort. I didn't see any reason to take that comfort from her. If I was threatened with death or whatever for being an atheist I'd see nothing wrong with pretending not to be religious (as Joe's brother did in his trip to Iran). Its not like I'd be punished by some mean spirited atheist god for doing so.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 06-27-2009 at 04:59 PM.
They couldn't even form a united movement against theism? Were their reasons lacking? Leadership lacking? Intellectuals lacking? Their examples lacking?
Since you seem to be being purposefully offensive here, I'll take off the kid gloves and give it to you straight. Many atheists see religion as a crutch for desperate or weak minded people and think it kind of cruel to take it from them, so there isn't much of a movement against anything but the radical religionists. Organizing a movement against basic religion would be like organizing a movement against Santas at the mall - why not let them have their fantasies if it makes them happy and doesn't harm anybody? If your loved one dies and somebody says "She's in a better place now", how does it benefit anybody for me to attack that comforting thought and say "No, she's just worm food"? Would be kind of pointlessly cruel of me to disrupt your comforting fantasy, would it not? That's why most of us atheists don't go around doing such things.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 06-27-2009 at 05:05 PM.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks